Online tools provide an easy way for people to exchange ideas and opinions. A wealth of knowledge is available to us on the internet. The opportunity is there to learn from other people’s experiences, both personal and professional. Distinguishing authoritative advice from inexperienced opinion is not easy.
People are jumping into social media consulting (what is that?) advising businesses without any prior business consulting experience.
No degree.
No experience maintaining or growing a large online community.
No business planning experience.
See what I mean? Maintaining a large online community does not magically give someone business skills. Social skills, yes, but not business skills unless they’ve monetized it but even then the experience is in one niche. Can those experiences necessarily be applied across the board to more traditional businesses? People, with the best intentions, are giving advice but are they qualified to give the advice? Making the distinction between authoritative advice and inexperienced opinion is hard because rarely do people disclaim and say, “I’ve never done this but, I think…”. Assessing both is fine for decision making but to make the best decision one needs to know the difference between someone inexperienced and someone with experience.
On Bill’s site I took part in a discussion about whether a performer’s reputation and past failures (stigma or negativity) would follow the performer. Here is a quote that sums up Bill’s position:
***Disclaimer: Bill is NOT a social media “expert”. We were having a conversation on his site and it makes for a good example. He’s a good friend of mine and ya’ll know the social media experts I’m talking about because I discussed this before.***
The PERSON is going to be “judged” on their own merit. The SHOW is, as well. IF the show was bad because the “on-air talent” isn’t talented, then BOTH the show and the figurehead get blamed and THAT goes along with them to the next show they host. If the PERSON was good in the show, but it failed for other reasons, I don’t believe any stigma’s going to be attached to that performer.
I disagree. If I am trying to integrate video into my company’s offerings (an online show for example) and I need to hire a host for the show, their previous experience is going to come into play the first step.
You see, when people write business resumes their experience is listed chronologically starting with the current position going back to the first position. The entertainment field is different. Their “resume” requires the performer’s best work to be put first. The order is not chronological; the projects are listed in the order of the best project to the worst project. The industry itself dictates a hierarchy on good vs. bad, giving very little wiggle room to be judged by any other merit but success.
Now add on to that I am a business owner looking to make money. At least double or triple my investment. This is business baby, not “let me hold your hand and make excuses for your failed projects” time. I need successes because that proves the performer is “better” than the others. Just like a high-level position “proves” one employee is more experienced than the other. Is this an exact science? Absolutely not but if the resume itself is created to provide the reader with successes first, judgment on merit doesn’t apply. Unless the performer has a look I’m interested in their resume would end up in the “no” stack.
But let’s be nice and say I like someone and their resume is under par but something about them touches me. I call them into an interview and they proceed to tell me why the projects failed. Bad management. Not enough advertising. The reason for the failure wasn’t their fault.
Am I supposed to believe that?
Am I supposed to take the time to research that?
Am I supposed to care?
As one who has booked entertainers for different projects (both personal and for clients) I have been privy to the discussions on whether to pick an unknown over a popular person or picking someone with failures (for whatever reason) over someone with a more established history. If a company picks a person with negative baggage, that past baggage can become the company’s current baggage. That potentially means additional funds might be needed for the project. Why not pick an unknown instead?
You think picking a popular person would be best right? Not necessarily because you see, they have baggage too. If the project fails the failure is “worse” because more people know about the project. Or worse, the performer’s audience might be against them doing other things, especially if the new project takes time from their original gig. This is the age of social media where one person can Twitter, “This sucks! X used to be good until the new show started!”, starting a domino effect of negativity that needs to be dealt with.
We all have to own our actions and we don’t always have the chance to justify our actions. Most times we don’t – decisions are made about us that we have no idea are being made. Judgments about us are being made and we’ll never have the chance to defend ourselves.
And the truth is, the irresponsibility of making unwise business decisions is what put our economy in this horrible position. For example, hiring people who are unqualified or worse, people assuming they are qualified because they “think” what they are saying makes sense. How many failed projects – real failures no half-ass explanations and spins – do these social media “experts” have? Let me be blunt – how many times did their advice equal a return on investment (profit)? Are these things being measured?
I strongly suggest, especially in this tough economic time, that you make your decisions wisely. The choices we make now are more important than ever because the competition, in just about every industry, is reaching record numbers. More people are vying for a lesser pool of jobs.
If you notice I still disagree with Bill but I didn’t comment again over there. Next week I’ll explain why….
“How many failed projects – real failures no half-ass explanations and spins – do these social media
I didn’t know performers had to do their resumes like that. You drove the point home about the decision making needed to make the right decision based on the needs of the company. The best looking woman might not be the best choice or the most popular one.
Tyme, you have to take these social media people with a grain of salt. They don’t know a damn thing and it’s obvious they are stumbling around. You warned people to stay out the damn echo chamber because people aren’t truthful and because they live in the echo chamber they can’t ever excel to meet their true potentials.
But they are happy so hey…whatever, right? They provide amusement but unfortunately for them, the joke is about to be on them because these online companies are dropping like flies. All that bad advice.
Doesn’t it boil down to picking better projects? I think they go the cheap route and projects launch that ever should have been. That’s why our economy is so messed up. Irresponsible business decisions were made.
I’d like to know how many social experts gave advice that caused an online company to fold. The Kmart thing got people talking but did people go in the store? If not, it didn’t work. Creating a buzz without sales is worthless.
“Absolutely not but if the resume itself is created to provide the reader with successes first, judgment on merit doesn
Yah, Bill will be featured in two entries? I don’t like the “women have to put up with…” articles he does but he seems like a cool guy to hang out with. The two of you have a cool friendship where you two seem to talk about issues realistically.
I think Bill’s position might be because he knows people in the industry and hopes that harm reality didn’t apply to them. Remember Shel and his crappy videos? How many people told him what they thought he wanted to hear instead of the truth? Maybe if people were honest from the beginning he could have improved and saved his job.
As a video editor can he really say most of the women in the industry are terrible without it coming back to haunt him?
Online most companies start with “I know someone who can do this. They’ll work cheap”. They don’t go through a vigorous hiring process or planning session. That is why they fail but that’s not the point.
It takes more than looks to hold my attention. I think the average male over 21 over time requires more than good looks. He has to feel like he can connect with her and that’s why you trump most online women. When I come to your site I feel like you care about “me” and I’m sure most guys feel like that. I still listen to your famous promises podcast. Seduced your male audience, turned some of the women on and the other women were busy agreeing with what you were saying.
Anyway, the decision is usually made on looks alone and it isn’t enough when I have someone like you offering much much more.
“Am I supposed to believe that?
Am I supposed to take the time to research that?
Am I supposed to care? ”
I laughed when I read that. You’re right of course, it is known people lie on their resumes.
You are correct that the geeks online do not disclaim when they have zero experience in an area. Basing a company or consulting business on Twitter. How the hell can that make sense? A company that has an unknown future because it can’t make money. If Twitter dies or changes their model what about the companies these people advised? Then what?
I guess I can’t blame them for riding the wave while it is there but it IS a pointer to why our economy is as messed up as it is. Stupid decisions on top of stupid decisions.
Don’t get me started. My employer was burnt bad by a social media expert whose only qualification ended up being he had a thousands of followers. That does not make someone a social media expert. I mean if that’s an expert what are you? With hundreds of thousands if not millions of people following you in different methods? And you took flack because you blocked access to your followers.
Not that the majority use those services anyway. After seeing them in Vegas I’m glad to be in a technology crowd but down to earth.
If I were a company I’d ask what their history was. The difference between you and them and throw Dave Winer in there too. They say what a company or person should do now. You and Dave Winer (you with more accuracy) not only do that but say to do this now because XYZ will happen in the future. Or what a product needs to evolved.
I played around with the new WordPress. I laughed to myself because I say in the current version features you said it needed to evolve and be a “true” content management system 3 or 4 years ago. And I remember how, over the years, slowly they added just about everything you said. When I saw the permission for author differences I had to mentally hand you a victory. I might start a blog now because I feel comfortable with the features. I feel the software is mature now.
And I know you aren’t a social media expert. Your thing is business management or whatever.
Did you listen to the Gilmor Gang where they rode Scoble for evangelizing products and not getting paid? He sounded like a true idiot in that podcast. Yes, I should spend all that time promoting another company over my own and not make a dime off of it!
Tyme if their marketing plans had a ROI the online companies wouldn’t be going out of business. Twitter failed them because Twitter is THE way to promote your business online!
Gag me.
HAHA Ya’ll are killing me! LOL I feel what you guys are saying and I agree for the most part. Yes, I listened to that podcast. I have an entry in mind for it. So many entries, so little time when I’m not playing WoW lol.
Moderation is on because I’m about to head out. Might be the last time I can go out for awhile because a nasty snow storm is heading my way. Fits and giggles.
Good questions. As Obama said we have to take an honest look at the decisions we’ve been making as a society lately and change the bad behaviors. Banks loaned money to people who couldn’t afford it because they could. Executives took the perks because they could. Social media experts with no experience or true knowledge to back it up are doing this because they can. All of those are bad decisions.
A person that builds a business based on a company with an uncertain future isn’t that smart. They might be great people in general but who does that?
I remember you saying that if they charged the user even if I paid, would my friends? If my friends don’t pay there is no point in using it. If they charge businesses are these social media experts taking those possible extra costs into consideration? Of course not because they don’t have the wisdom to do it. I’m not knocking them I’m being honest. Why lead a company down in an unclear direction?
I did a couple of web shows and I suffered exactly from what you speak of. I did a couple of shows that were posted on YouTube. I was inexperienced, I didn’t know what I was doing, and I was glad to get the opportunity. I wanted to be an actress. The shows didn’t make it but YouTubers have a long memory. Six months later I got a new show and I’ll be damned if some people from one of the old shows didn’t come and start dissing me on the new show. I had a lot of explaining to do. The owner of the company was not pleased and they ended up recasting me. The show didn’t survive but they were right. In this age of social media the points you bring up does happen. My history will follow me whether I like it or not.
Tyme what you are talking about exactly why there should be some disclaimer. A doctor can’t play to be a doctor without consequences. Nor can a lawyer, an cop, etc. Online it is anything goes because it is new. Common sense should say people should VOLUNTARILY refrain if they aren’t experienced in the area. Just shut up. Or say, “I haven’t done this but I think….” like you said.
And you’re right. As a viewer if I don’t like someone I don’t like them. I’m not the only one to feel that way. Maybe they were given the wrong part, I don’t care. I don’t like them so the next time I see them they would have to be very good to get me to change my opinion. How often does that happen?
Here here. The reason why what you’re saying is true is because:
1) These people want to use their YouTube “successes” to get a real acting job.
2) Because of that, they will fall into the resume rules you spoke of, successes first.
3) If they try to hide their failures people can call them out very easily in comments or Twitter.
4) People are NOT subjective when it comes to their opinions.
What Bill is implying, which would be great for his friends, is that people are logical in their decisions on what they like and don’t like. That’s not true. I don’t like Robert Scoble based on what I’ve read from him. Am I going to be logical and say “He’s inexperienced, he doesn’t know any better”, “maybe he’ll improve”. Of course not. I made up my mind and moved on to something else. If he appears in something else when I see him I’m not neutral. I don’t like him. Period.
Reputation follows. There is a girl on YouTube that I can’t stand. I think she’s trash but she has a popular show. She has a following. By the numbers one would think she has a following because people like her. The truth? My boy sent me the link saying, “Look at this bitch thinking she is cute”. She’s laughable.
Anyway, if she stopped doing that show and moved on to another online show that stigma is going to follow because my opinion and no one else’s opinion is going to change unless she’s fucking spectacular in the new show. Otherwise, she will reinforce my negative opinion of her.
Bill might not think that way but he’s NOT the norm. All you have to do is read the comments on YouTube and you’ll see that stigma DOES follow. Even though I think a lot of those people are immature they ARE the audience. You can’t get around that.
With online productions most are started wrong in the first place. It is a bunch of people trying to break into the business winging it. In that flawed environment it is very possible people get jobs because they don’t go through the regular process.
And that is where your wisdom comes in because most don’t succeed and they do want to get into the acting business where the rules you stated apply. Unless their past projects were complete failures no one knew or cared about their previous experience will come back and could screw up their current gig. I know this to be true because a friend of a friend made a video and the sucker went viral. Totally unexpected. Viral does not always mean positive though and that’s the problem. She became known as the girl that did that “thing”and couldn’t break away from it. The videos were removed, site was taken down but you can’t erase the memory from people’s minds and you can’t stop people from talking about it.
I just got home and it’s late but I don’t see how anyone could realistically thing reputation doesn’t follow the person. A good example was the Hooking Up series. Why they cast Sxephil as the sexy guy I have no idea. It turned me off and I couldn’t watch it, even though the women were kinda hot. I have an image in my head of that dude. He’s cool sitting down in front of a camera but he accepted that part, didn’t do well in it to me and he has a chip now with me he didn’t have before. Is that chip going to magically go away with his next project? Of course not. He has a harder sell to make next time.
Another example is Felicia Day from The Guild. She was cute in that role and she used that show to get acting gigs. If I see here again I will turn off the TV, close the video, etc. because she is OVER saturated now. I don’t want to see her on House. I don’t want to see her at all except in The Guild and I’m pissed because the show I liked (The Guild) is published slow as molasses while she’s jet setting all over the place.
Stigma definitely follows but perhaps Bill’s mind works differently. In both cases I’m sure they are okay people (in real life) but as far as spending my limited time watching them they screwed themselves over.
It’s real simple. Bill is a video editor. He has to do with video editing what you do with business. Look at the video for what it really is and make a determination to make the video the best it can be. If the actor or actress is horrible he has to make her look better. If the production value is horrible he has to make it look as good as he can. He MUST go the logical and analytical route to do his job. Because of that, he’s the wrong person to have this discussion because he’s not neutral. He can’t be objective on the issue because, by default, he has to live in a different environment to do his job right.
That said, my brother tried to break into the acting business via an online show. Acting is a very competitive business and you are right, the reputation of the actor or actress does follow the person. No one wanted to hear how the show was made, why it wasn’t successful. They only cared that it wasn’t.
The flaw with being eye candy is that everything falls on the front person. That’s great if the show is a success. It’s disaster if the show is a failure. Eye candy can’t have it both ways. They take the risk of being cute versus qualified. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
@Tyme: Good points.
First of all, I was specifically talking about internet shows. Actually, FIRST OF ALL, no… I don’t have ANY experience with hiring ANYBODY to be the figurehead or “face” of a show. What I *DO* have experience with is watching a show and determining whether a) it’s good, b) it sucks because of the production (technical issues), c) it sucks because of the script-writing, d) it sucks because the face of the show is entirely talentless, or e) EVERYTHING about the show sucks.
Granted… That MAY be because I’m an editor AND a show producer. I wouldn’t know what the average joe/josepine takes away from looking at a show that “fails” (whatever that means in the context of this discussion). All I can do is ‘project’ and believe that distinctions are made between whether the show a) wasn’t good, and it’s the talent’s fault, b) wasn’t good, and it’s NOT the talent’s fault, or c) WAS GOOD, but got shut down for other reasons (or didn’t make money or didn’t grow it’s audience… whatever you’re defining as a “failed” show).
For instance, we just received news that MobLogic was shut down. According to articles on the net, Lindsay Campbell is still an employee of CBS. Before MobLogic was cancelled, they were outputting sporadically compared to the regular schedule they were using when they first started.
Without “inside information” from “the horse’s mouth”, there’s no telling what the reason was for the shutdown. It just so happens that WallStrip was shut down on the same day, apparently. Let’s say the average person isn’t going to search for articles about WHY a show got cancelled, and all they know is that it was here today and gone tomorrow.
What that person’s going to take away from the show, as far as the “face” of the show, is the sum of their experiences from watching her. They either liked her style, didn’t like her style, or felt she was inconsistently good/bad. If she gets selected for a new show, that sentiment is going to drive whether that viewer goes “YAAY!” or “oh no. She got ANOTHER show? :/”. That’s what the talent has to carry forward, their own performance. Unless the public feels that the show “failed” because the talent sucked, the ending of a show, which as you mention, is the BUSINESS side of things has nothing to do with the ENTERTAINMENT VALUE they received from the talent.
Slightly-related story… I was just in the Indy Mogul Test Film “The Spirit’s Day Off”. As I’m reading the script, I read “I am the millipede, and I have a thousand of everything”. So, the director, Erik Beck tells me to say “a million”. So I’m like “yeah, but milli -> thousand” and he’s like “I know, but a million sounds funnier”. So even though it was a technically incorrect statement, I said “I have a million of everything”.
So the video’s been viewed over 25,000 times, and ONNNNNE person decides to bring this up. That doesn’t mean that other people didn’t notice, of course. Now… that person is going to take whatever they personally perceived away from that situation. They might think that the character “The Millipede” is a dummy. They might think the actor is a dummy, because he [I] said a million instead of a thousand. They might think the script-witer is a dummy if they realize that the actor was reading a script. They might think the director’s a dummy for wrapping the shoot without correcting that error. The might think the editor’s a dummy for not cutting around it or re-tracking the actor saying “a thousand” and dubbing it.
This brings us to the other part of your point, which has to do with people who are in charge of hiring people to work on shows. Anybody who’s looking for on-air talent should be…. wait for it…… KNOWLEDGEABLE about how shows are put together and the extent of the actor’s responsibility for the production of a show and therefore his or her CULPABILITY when the show “fails”.
Therefore, if the acting was POOR, then the person doing the hiring should be able to properly low-rate the actor/actress because they didn’t look good on camera or they read the teleprompter like a left-back 3rd-grader or they weren’t any good at interacting with their viewers/community… Similarly, let’s say the talent was involved in more than reading a script. The extent of their involvement in production should also be analyzed/criticized. If the production is what caused the show to “fail”, then the talent can AND SHOULD be charged with the failure of whatever role they played.
Other than that, it’s out of the talent’s hands… like any. other. job.
You can’t blame the assembly-line worker in the sock factory who’s been making socks for YEARS and has done he same quality job or better each review period for when the plant gets shut down, and they’re suddenly jobless. It’s obviously not their fault, the way the “failure” of an internet show is obviously the responsibility of SEVERAL people, unless it was a one man/woman show.
On top of all that, who’s to say that they would hire the figurehead to have ANY say in production anyway? Let’s say the talent WAS culpable in the mishandling of a show…. What difference does that make if you don’t let them get their hands on any of the controls in this case? None. I didn’t edit “The Spirit’s Day Off”. What difference does it make that I’m an editor? None. I was there to play a position. I did what *I* had to do, everyone else did what THEY had to do, and the video ended up sweet.
Also, the reason you might want to take a chance on talent from a “failed” show is that they come equipped with automatic reach. They have a built-in fanbase as well as an established communication network to inform their viewers what they’re going to be doing next. If you start out fresh, with a newjack, they have to build their community from ZERO, meaning that you either have to hire someone else to start building community for them and getting the buzz out, or part of their time that they could have been making the show BETTER is going to be wasted on doing PR for themselves.
So, no… I don’t think culpability for a show’s “failure” follows the talent AT ALL, unless the REASON for that failure was the talent’s ability to entertain.
Video editors can’t be objective unless they are on both sides of the production. Like an actress that is shooting and editing her own show would know the consequences of wearing both hats. Of course everything would fall on her too.
What I don’t understand is why people have the need to express opinions on things they have no knowledge about? There is a huge difference between expressing an opinion about a show and predicting trends. That’s a business area.
Dude is a video editor, that’s why he has that mode of thinking. It is a good discussion though and that’s why I like reading the two of you when you mind melt. You come up with a discussion that puts a different perspective on things. You do the same thing. You can’t “see” why people don’t see the obvious stupid business mistakes that have been repetitively made in the past. I don’t like the Dating Geniuses because I don’t think that way but I respect his right to discuss those points and there are a lot of men that think that way. I’m just not one of them.
Also let’s remember that rarely does anyone get what you say when you say it. You’re like Winer. You say something and six months later it becomes obvious. During that six months you’re dogged or thought to be nuts.
@Bill: What Tyme is saying is when making the business decision the audience’s perception of the performer has to be taken into account. Whether the performer did well or not isn’t going to be the root of a good business decision. How the audience accepts the new person is.
A good example I think is Firefly. People LOVED that show but it didn’t do well in the ratings in comparison to other shows and the cost to produce the show. They were good but not good enough.
When something fails, in the end does it really matter why? In the entertainment industry failures (no matter what) equals decrease in pay. For YouTuber’s it translates to back drama a smart entrepreneur would stay away from when there are plenty of talented people to pick from. There are tons of talented people on YouTube alone. Why pick someone with a history of failures?
Bill there was a technical error in the script. A blooper. People love bloopers but the show itself was a success, right? No one would hold that against you. Well maybe the anal person who thinks you didn’t catch it but that one word had very little (none) impact on the show in entirety.
If errors were consistently in shows then yes, that could get on people’s nerves, it would definitely show the lack of professionalism and experience in the team making the videos and it could mean a drop in viewers. To me you would be the guy that took the stupid part. That guy that never got anything right. That man who always said something wrong. You can’t expect me to take you seriously if you allowed yourself to read a script with inaccuracies.
When I look at videos with Tyme she ALWAYS (and I do mean always) finds something I didn’t see. Men and women, it doesn’t matter but the female ones get my attention more. She’ll notice the woman moving a lot, making too many gestures, etc. I’m thinking, “she’s cute” and Tyme is seeing her “performance” without blinders on. We’re watching the same video though. After Tyme points it out to me it is like killing a fantasy. I see what she is talking about and I’m not an enamored with the girl before Tyme said something.
Who is to say, with these women, why their shows aren’t popular? Is it the bad script, their bad gestures, not reaching the right people? Who knows? If I was hiring talent I would be interested in people who had successful experience with shows. Most of the shows don’t last long enough for anyone to have learned anything beyond the obvious from them.
Yes Bill it is just a job but just like everyone else their performance dictates their salary. I’m a technician. I fix people’s equipment right the first time. My skill allows me to get paid a higher salary than someone that doesn’t. At my company the experience/skill level has to be at a high level to even get an interview. Isn’t it the same with an actress or actor? They are doing a job, but how well they do the job and how well the project goes dictates their future income. That is the way it should be.
The end user isn’t going to know nor care why the show failed. Just that it did. What their friends said about it. How many times have we avoided watching something because a friend, someone we trust, said it sucked? On the norm we don’t objectively look at situations like entertainment. If we did we’d try things out ourselves instead of taking someone else’s word for it.
Farscape was one of my favorite shows. It was taken off the air because it cost so much to produce. I loved that show but it failed to make enough to survive. Even though it failed because I like the people who played the roles I don’t care about the failure. I checked out their new projects. I didn’t like them as much because I “really” wanted them back on Farscape (they went to SG1). Multiply me by a couple hundred thousand and SG1′s ratings started to drop.
I can’t remember the name of the movie sequels the Wayan brother’s did. The first one was funny, but the ones after got worse with each release. They stopped being funny to me. Technically they were only reading a part but I don’t like them like I did when they released the first one.
I think what Tyme is saying is that, in the end, the decision lays with the performer to take the part. If someone online takes a job to do a show where there isn’t enough money to promote it, isn’t being produced professionally, etc. they deserve to carry the failure with them. They contributed to it.
Yeah, you and Tyme are doing what Scrivs and Tyme used to do. Say something similar but swear you’re saying something different. On Moblogic, who thought that show would make it? Seriously? She’s under contract so they have to still employ her. The news would be if they renewed her contract. I doubt it.
@Felix – I feel the same way about Felicia Day. I don’t want to see her any more except on The Guild. Maybe. I’m sick of seeing/hearing her. I don’t even think she’s that good.
It is getting to the point where people without a degree or specialization will be considered less qualified than those with formal training. Schools are already beginning to add social media classes to curriculum and I think there was a specialization back when Tyme was going to school for her Master’s for some sort of online global interaction communication thing.
How do we pick the leaders in these niches? Isn’t it that they are friends of people who are long time internet users so they have sites with more traffic than the average person? I think people like Chris, the woman named after a nut (the food), Scoble, Feldman, and others are at the top (if we can even call it that) because no one else (cough cough) will step up and set a higher standard.
If these are the people at the top of the community, what does that say? These people might be great individually and the best of friends but realistically they aren’t good at what they do.
The technology, design and social media fields online have shady people at the top. Shady as in their ethics are blurred because they are friends with the people they need to remain objective with. All the Tweetups and meetups strengthen the bond(s) between these people.
Scrivs and Tyme had a blunt honesty I enjoyed listening and reading. Tyme often wrote about how, as the head of a community, she couldn’t let friendships get in the way of doing business. We’ve all seen her kick members out, who were friends, because their sites lagged in 9rules. We’ve read her articles being honest about problems and issues in the community. All I see the others doing is kissing ass and it saddens me.
With bad times ahead the community will shrink just like blog networks did. Only the good people will survive. I always silently hope Tyme steps back into the arena but I understand the frustration of saying something today and no one gets it until a year later.
The person writing the checks usually has very little knowledge about the industry. That is why they hire people that do. Sxephil got his other gigs because he has a successful show, even when he wasn’t the best fit for the part. He wouldn’t have gotten those same opportunities if he didn’t have a hit show on YouTube.
“With bad times ahead the community will shrink just like blog networks did.”
I think that would happen in the best of times. It’s a new topic on the internet and these people need it to survive because they’ve based their incomes on it. We can’t trust what they are saying anymore.
Tyme have you considered having a forum that combines comments for all your sites instead of having comments? You have enough followers to make it work and we can all talk in one spot. You could link to the forums in the blog entry and turn off comments.