PodCamp Pittsburgh: An Aftermath and a Question
What happens at the Tiki Lounge stays at the Tiki Lounge...
PodCamp Pittsburgh has come and gone, and with it have come and gone several iterations of complete exhaustion, along with my voice. However, I'm not only pleased with the results, I'm excited about the future. I have a feeling a lot of other people are as well, if the blogosphere is any indication.
This event couldn't have happened without the assistance of everyone involved, from the attendees to the sponsors to the volunteers, and everyone who visited Pittsburgh Filmmakers for PodCamp this past weekend helped make the event better than it would have been without them. Dave Mansueto from Libsyn and I may have been the co-organizers, but our 12+ co-planners and volunteers are the reason this event happened at all. If you see any of them between now and next year, please buy them a drink because they earned it.
For more about PodCamp Pittsburgh, check out our feedback and media sections -- lots of interesting comments and cool retrospectives on what the weekend meant to some people, including a series of photographs that sum things up much better than any long-winded assessment would.
I also find it interesting that we managed to do something I wasn't expecting to do at PodCamp: polarize the audience. After only two PodCamps, held mere months apart, there's already a rift in the podcasting world, and I think that rift will continue to grow if we don't do something to close it... if we should.
This rift is all about money.
At PodCamp Boston, one of the questions raised was simple: how do we monetize our podcasts? Not everyone was asking that question, but enough people were interested in the business side of this new medium that the conversation inevitably turned toward matters of the checkbook. What everyone agreed upon by the end was that there was no obvious answer, but it was a necessity for some people to figure out how to develop an economy based around this new medium to ensure its growth (and to allow the creators in this space to do so without going broke).
In Pittsburgh, the monetization issue crept up late -- towards the end of Day One, and almost as an afterthought -- so Jeff Persch and Michael Bailey asked me to join them in an open discussion about the issue, with a twist: instead of asking, "How do we monetize our podcasts?" we wanted to round up all the suggestions in the room and see if the assembled participants could agree on a few possibilities to try out themselves, and then report back on later. Think of it like a scientific experiment in which everyone tests a thesis, tracks the procedure and reports back on the results, so the larger group can learn from the successes or failures of the individuals involved. I win, you win.
As expected, this idea caught on with many (necessitating a follow-up session after lunch) and aggravated a few. Although it's nearly impossible to corral a group into agreeing on a few set parameters for something as open-ended as the monetization issue, we did make headway in several directions. Among them: the need for standardized metrics to track audience participation, the understanding that similar approaches to monetization (or promotion, or workflow) can work wonderfully for one person but fail miserably for the next, and the general consensus that, regardless of each person's individual passion for this new medium of podcasting, we all need to pay the bills.
If the bills are already covered, especially by a "real job," then podcasting can be done with zero pressure for financial success. However, if podcasting is what you want to do for a living -- or if you at least want to break even on overhead and operating costs -- you obviously need to find a way to earn that revenue back in some way. Will it work for everyone? No, and it hasn't in the entire history of the world -- only a select few people can actually make a living by creating content in any medium. But that doesn't stop legions of people from trying, and, as TV and radio have proven in the past century, there's more than one way to make a living in a creativity-driven field.
That said, several PodCamp attendees feel very strongly in the other direction. There's a concern that money is becoming the driving force of PodCamp, and, by extension, podcasting. Instead of seeing more sessions dedicated to improving the quality of the content, some people felt that creativity was being overridden by financial concerns -- and, for some attendees, that may actually be the case.
I'm torn on the issue, because I realize that no medium ever advances until the level of quality within the content created by its practitioners improves. As much as YouTube received a negatively biased evaluation from many PodCamp attendees, the fact remains that YouTube is a warehouse for any and all web video, and the median average of any and all web video is not going to be very high. Thus, deserved or not, easily-accessible sites like YouTube and MySpace pay the price for the entry-level skills of their users, and therefore become ghettoized in comparison to sites with more discerning requirements for inclusion.
Thus, I also hosted several discussions on the creative side of the fence, including tips on creating sustainable content and advice for directing and acting on both audio and video podcasts. (Interestingly, it was while hosting these sessions that I realized, as Alex Lindsay suggested, that 30 to 45 minutes for a session STILL isn't always enough to cover even half the bases.)
On the other hand, I want to make a living in this business, and I'm currently not. This may have to do with the overhead costs involved with creating a show like Something to Be Desired, with an ever-expanding cast and spiraling production costs (travel, locations, food, etc.). Were I a wiser man, I would have begun creating shows with zero overhead and niche appeal, which would earn their money back much faster. In fact, several podcasters reminded me that they're already making money from podcasting, and some are more than covering their costs -- so could I please "shut up about monetizing" and pay attention to the real issues?
Luke Ferdinand, who shepherds an interesting web media experience called the 54 Hour Movie Project, raised some salient points about the rift between money and creativity in podcasting. In fact, I didn't realize there was a rift until I noticed his blog, which, among other things, mentions that:
"There is a movement afoot that is trying to shoehorn podcasting, videoblogging and other new media into a format that is palatable to traditional forms of media consumption. This movement is in place partly due to short-sightedness of participants, and partly by the corporate interests that are already consuming far too much mindshare at events like podcamp."
And:
"Corporate sponsorship frames the conversation at these events. From Network2 to Scion, they were everywhere and they all wanted a piece. The smell of money is now in the air, and everyone is grabbing for it. Of course I am partially to blame, as it was an “unconference“- I should have done more to shift the overall discussion."
I find these comments surprising, especially since I was at the Video on the Net conference in Boston back in September, at which traditional media stood around scratching their heads while trying to figure out what this new media was, much less what to do with it. As far as I can tell, corporate sponsors barely have podcasting on their radars, and the ones who do see it as a new and exciting medium, rather than a cash cow -- since, obviously, none of us are wearing Armani suits just yet.
Personally, I had always suspected the concept of "sponsors" at PodCamp would create a distraction from the "un-conference" model, but I didn't realize their presence would actually constitute the beginning of the rift we're now discussing. Considering there were other corporate interests that we at PodCamp Pittsburgh turned away, and the fact that the food, transportation and equipment costs weren't going to pay for themselves, I figured involving sponsors who were interested in furthering the new media discussion would be a plus. As with all decisions, this obviously didn't please everyone.
Shawn Smith, who has been our tech guru at STBD for 3 years and now runs an audio podcast called Geek Riot (via PodCamp sponsor TalkShoe -- and who interviewed a number of interesting PodCamp attendees for use in future shows) also feels that monetization owned too much of the talkspace at PodCamp. As he mentions on Luke's blog:
"My suggestion is that we shut up about money and sponsors and focus on content, once we get that content to the place we feel it is ready then we can try to do this “for a living”, whatever that really means."
That, I believe, is the sticking point: "for a living." Obviously not everyone in this (or any) space can make a living at it. What we don't yet know about podcasting is what that ceiling is, because so very few people ARE making a living at it -- yet. And, because the barrier to entry is so low -- thanks to services like YouTube and TalkShoe, which allow anyone to begin their media mogul "career" -- there's a lot of interest in seeing where the new medium is going to take those who are entering on the ground floor.
I wasn't expecting the war between content and money to begin so suddenly. I expected at least 10 podcasters would need to be making a publicly recognized living -- i.e., be recognized by the general populace -- before we'd have to cross that bridge. But, as ZeFrank and Andrew Baron discovered during the tricky audience metrics discussions of the past few weeks, the battle over podcast mindshare isn't being fought solely by the corporations -- it's being fought by each of us.
As the conversation shifts to San Francisco next weekend for PodCamp West, and then back to Philadelphia in January for PodCamp Philly, I'll be interested to see where each side of the story goes. Perhaps this is a false alarm, and we'll all realize that we're creating this new media because we love to be creative, first and foremost, and not because we see an opportunity for astounding riches. Or, perhaps that opportunity for astounding riches is more tangible than some of us realize, and the need to prepare ourselves for its inevitable arrival deserves to take up part of the airspace. I don't believe these points of view are mutually exclusive, but I do think there's a tug-of-war in play that won't necessarily peter out due to the cold weather.
All of this leaves me with some food for thought:
Since Microsoft is one of the sponsors of PodCamp West, does this mean PodCamp has officially jumped the shark?
If sponsorship at PodCamp is a negative element, period, should the concept of catering and location fees be done away with and replaced by house, dorm or outdoor meet-ups to purify the atmosphere?
Are the podcasters who are already making enough money to cover their costs absolved from needing to assist those who aren't, and therefore better prepared to discuss the creativity and content creation side, or does this actually make them better-prepared to discuss monetization in the first place?
Will the monetization conversation, which surely isn't going away anytime soon, evolve between now and Philly, or will the same questions still be in place due to a lack of diligence and shared answers from our most recent discussion?
And, how different will the web media experience be when the PodCamp conversation switches back to Pittsburgh in August for PodCamp Pittsburgh 2?
posted by STBD @ 11:26 PM
13 comments
13 Comments:
Wow, what can I say? I was there along with everyone else and didn't take notice of any polarization.
Now that I read your comments, and others in the blogosphere, and I think about it, yes - there it was.
YouTube did get mentioned more than several times...I didn't hear anyone say, "Hey, they were bought out for $1.65 billion dollars, but they never paid any of the content producers - is that really fair?"
So what is it then?
Am I now being told that it's perfectly acceptable for a company to cash in on the collective work of others, and it isn't okay for an individual to try to "make a living" from their own creative works?
I think that it was Chris Brogan who made an analogy using R/C model airplanes and podcasting - do the R/C hobbyists seek out sponsors to help them cover their costs?
No, of course not, and I think it was a great analogy, but now that I give it more thought, I think that a better comparison is one of a podcaster and a skateboarder.
They're both doing what they love to do, and it takes tons of practice to show an ounce of improvement. If the skateboarder is really outstanding and draws attention to himself, don't the makers of skateboards want him to use their equipment? Don't the clothing labels want him wearing their stuff? Of course they do!
Everyone in business wants their product(s) to be associated with people and events which are successful.
Seems like I watched a television series which was centered around the life of a famous skateboarder and his bodyguard, and you can bet that he is "making a living" from what amounts to nothing more than a hobby.
Is that for everyone? NO
Does the fact that he is making money diminish the hobby for anyone else - it shouldn't.
In fact, he's became successful and has his own bodyguard with a TV series, all of which actually exposes the skateboarding hobby to a wider audience, which then benefits the hobby in general by giving it a larger exposure and probably more social acceptance at some level.
In my opinion, PodCamp will remain a grassroots event and rightly so, even if monotization discussions take place.
I don't think that talking about making money was really the point, I think it was more like "I'm really getting good at what I do, are there actually advertisers who are willing to pay me to have their products associated with my success?"
Maybe I'm missing something, but my focus and passion is to have all of this content being consumed by the largest possible audience.
Some people will argue that they're content with having a focused audience of 50 passionate people - that's fine, and not my point. What about the 50 passionate people in every other state who do not know that their content is available?
Is it based on a level of fear?
If 50 people listen or watch someone's show everyweek, and they claim success, fine, but don't leave out thousands of others who might like the exact same content.
If people are being left out because others didn't see a larger picture, or they didn't try, that's a shame in my opinion.
Wow! Michaels comment was a blog in itself! :-)
Luke's quote was right on - and using the now-universal quote from Kevin Costner in Field of Dreams - "Build it, and they will come". Podcasting is an art form, a business model, a hobby, a realization of skills, an act of self-realization, an act of leadership...all these things which show up the art of entrepreneurship. We need to maintain a smile, a positive attitude, seek to help others, have fun, produce content, lead others in the art, and prepare ourselves for greatness...but not expect or assume greatness. One of my brothers, who had been a VP at Microsoft, said (and I'm sure he was quoting someone else): "The harder I work, the luckier I get". So, let's use PodCamp to learn both art and business ideas, and just improve ourselves. I, for one, am much anticipating PodCamp Pittsburgh 2007. ;-)
Michael, Alex and John: thanks for your well-thought-out comments.
I suppose the line between art and commerce will always exist, as it has in every media. There will be supporters and detractors of both theories, and occasionally one side of the issue will overwhelm the other -- for a time.
One thing I DO think needs to be addressed at future PodCamps is ensuring that all three main "tracks" of interest in this medium -- art, commerce and technology -- are given the room to grow.
People will always enter this medium with different levels of experience, different backgrounds and different goals, and we can't all staple our goals to one another. Instead, let's provide a space where the dialogue can take any direction it chooses, and where each side is well-represented so those in search of one kind of information don't find it lacking. Personally, I love discussing the artistic side of what I do, and I wish I could discuss it more... but I also need to pay my rent... so I end up walking in both yards.
I don't know where to begin but there are a few points I'd like to hit on:
Justin, you are absolutely right when you say there is room for both. I didn't mean to draw a line in the sand and I hate to frame the discussion as a battle. I personally do not believe that great art and money are mutually exclusive. I love American film and I love american music, and both of these media are tied explicitly to the production and sale of these things as commodities.
With that said, I'd reiterate that my concern is that people come to believe that simply making something new or at all somehow entitles them to fiscal reward. It's like Alex said- the harder you work the luckier you get. That is the key thing we need to all understand in this or any other creative medium. You need to work really really hard if you want to get paid. And if this is just something you do on the side, you shouldn't expect anything more than what you put in.
Also, I do believe that with the democratization of media, a lot more people have the potential to make a living doing online media than has ever been possible in the audio/visual arts. With that said, unless you are connected to old media (like Leo Laporte, Adam Curry and Alex Lindsey), you are going to have to make your star shine that much brighter to get viewers and sponsors. The democratization of the marketplace means more competition for ad sales than ever before, and while it also means more people have access to that money, it is still going to be an all out fight between old media companies and new media pioneers.
The real battle, I think, and this is where my concern with sponsorship of Podcamp really lies, is that many of the people who do make money off of podcasting will not be content producers, but those companies who provide services to them- aggregators, hosting services, and the like- and those companies will build business models on the backs of the free content created by the people they work with. This is the YouTube model and if I have a problem with YouTube it is that. Unless they begin doing revenue sharing they are essentially stealing from content creators. If you are into simply community building and sharing than this is a non-issue, but if this is your living, stay the heck away from all of these companies.
I have more to add, but this will do for now. Thanks all for the great conversation!
Luke: thanks for joining the discussion. I don't think any of us are trying to draw lines, and it's great that we can continue to have an intelligent conversation about this even as the ideas are still fermenting in everyone's minds.
I agree with you on almost everything you mentioned above, and I think part of my alarm about your initial comments on your own blog was the tone. Perhaps it's just semantics, but I was reading your POV as one that was dramatically wary of all forms of monetization discussion, borne from the concern that all corporations who enter this space are out to get the little guys who are sweating blood to build this medium from the inside out. Trust me, I don't want to see anyone taken advantage of any more than you do, and I'd rather deal with ten small companies I believed in than one large company I knew I couldn't outrun.
There is a lot of skepticism among content producers as pertains to the legitimacy of "channel" or "network" content. I do think we need these kinds of channels to make seeing each others' work easier, because new viewers of our media won't have the time or know-how to spend hours surfing individual sites. Even at that level, I give YouTube credit for making web video easy to grasp.
I also see a difference between a YouTube and a Blip TV or a Network2. For one thing, I know the creators of the latter two companies, and therefore I feel I understand their business senses better than what I know of YouTube from the news. I also know that Blip and Network2 are dedicated to furthering the goals of the medium (proliferation) while also protecting the creators with whom they work. This is why Blip keeps their name off every video they distribute while also offering revenue-sharing based upon ads, and why Network2 makes no claim to ownership of content -- all they do is re-distribute your existing RSS feed and linkback to your site, so viewers have a choice of watching your media in multiple ways, but it's always YOUR MEDIA. (Network2 also has no revenue stream in place -- yet.)
So, yes, if you're looking to make a living in podcasting, the odds are against you (as they are in all media). However, no one knows what those odds ARE yet, so you're right to say that we should all be focusing on making good content, rather than making money for the sake of making money, so that the width of the playing field (and eventual revenues) continues to expand. I'll always agree with that point, and with the concept that quality begets profit.
Lastly, one other FYI about our sponsors at PodCamp: the organizers are well aware that no one attends PodCamp to stare at sponsorship logos, which is why we try to operate on as streamlined a budget as possible. Those budgets are also made public (which reminds me, I need to post ours soon), so everyone can see exactly where the money went. In that regard, I hope the anti-corporatists in all of us (and that includes me) appreciate that the sponsors we approached for PodCamp got involved because they see the potential of the new medium (for example, Scion chose to sponsor PodCamp Pittsburgh INSTEAD OF five other nightclub-oriented events you'd presume were more their speed), and because we needed to raise enough operating cash to ensure that everyone who participated could be fed and provided for throughout the event, at no cost to themselves.
If we could do it completely for free, we would. Barring that, let's welcome the companies (both podcasting-oriented and not) who, like us, realize that web media is the next big wave, and are enabling us to ride it early.
I'm going over your response justin- but I just wanted to mention that Microsoft has so little presence in RSS-distributed media and online video (Soapbox who?) that this is more PR for them than anything. If they are willing to spend the money, good for them and good for Podcamp.
First off, I want to state that I was one of those that was partially jaded from the first session of monetizing media from Sunday. And I was one that came to hopefully figure how I could turn a dime from this venture.
While I don't think the discussion should be taken away, it deffinately seemed to be mixed with everything oddly, leaving some attendees scratching their heads. I do love that this discussion is still going, though, and feel much better on the subject since.
On the sponsorships, I didn't even think about them. Most of the sponsors were smaller companies that many maybe never heard of, and I have worked with previously, in some cases, and could help get someone a start and a place to go to get started, or better alternative (speaking of libsyn, switchpod, and talkshoe) Scion was a little odd, and unexpected, but I'm used to seeing them all over every event I ever see in this town (a Kurt Angle autograph signing, oddly enough) But it's the nature of the beast. As with monetization, if we're going to play ball in the new media realm, we got to play ball with some of those bigger fish out there, sometimes.
A. Wow, this is probably the most comments we've seen ever on this board. Cool.
B. I was going to make the theatre analogy myself. There will always be people happy to perform for free in a community theatre, but there are also those who do it for a living. I also think this is a better analogy than R/C cars or skateboards because while we do this for love and passion, in the end, it's really for an audience.
C. It seems to me that the corporations who've attempted to infiltrate the new media and are clearly doing so just for money and more attention to their products are generally not well-received. Just look at the attempted interactive websites for TV shows and movies. True, some people participate, but by and large, these sites are ignored or mocked.
D. I agree that the search for monetization should not interfere with the art of creation. Ideally, I think all creative types should work with a business type and possibly a technical type so each can focus on his/her goals independent of the other yet also collaborate when needed.
Of course, those are just my opinions. I could be wrong. I do love that the conversation is continuing, though.
Mike: your POV intrigues me. What aspeect of the first half of that monetization conversation turned you off from the discussion? Considering you're actually looking to earn money from what you do -- and already are, to an extent -- what could we have done differently to present the discussion in a more palatbale way?
I have a feeling we're all seeing the same things, but from different angles, and sometimes the differences in our POV or phrasing is what separates us unnecessarily. That's why I think talking these things out, especially in person, is so useful.
(Hence, PodCamp...)
Erik: the sooner we can get creative, tech and business types working together in this medium, the more likely it is that more people will be seen by larger audiences and the medium will shift forward noticeably. Perhaps the next few PodCamps can experiment with ways to unite those three alternative (yet not exclusive) tracks and lead to brainstorming from each side's expertise? Or would that lead to people sequestering themselves in their comfort zones and not hearing what the other tracks have to say?
My issues from that first portion of the session ere that there seemed to be too many sides represented in person. Meaning, for instance, the genetleman representing the standardization initiative, and others. People already hedging their bets, and business model, in one of the suggestions. It just seemed like those representatives would be better suited on a panel to debate the ups and downs of each monetization platform(take note, future Podcampers. I'd still like to see that) But we had these sort of representatives, and trying to get out of the room (or second session) with "lets figure out what works". I applaud your initiative to decare that goal, but I think the discussion should be back to straight pros/cons, and what works for which kinds of situations. I'm happy to see that the resolution was something of a wait and see what happens with these approach, which I consider the only answer, for now, and we'll see what answers are presented for us in Philly, maybe...
Not intentionally, I also think that the message gets mixed for some at this event, especially those newer to the scene. We start most conversations suggesting "don't do it unless you love it" and turn over somewhere to "lets make some money". I agree both ideas need to be looked at, and I hope your not looking at the second without considering the first, just the message comes out at the end of the day, as convoluted.
These are social problems witht he Podcast "community" and are subject to human nature, so its nothing that's going to go away. And it's a small price to pay for a venture such as this Podcamp ideal. But not that I intend to shed a bad light on the event. The pros FAR outweighed any(and few) cons of the weekend.
It's social mayhem at its best.
Mike: I completely see where you're coming from. What we didn't want was for the discussion to become either a "this is why you should use our service" or a "this is the ONLY system that works" situation. I think that may have been the way several people were reading it, though that's ironically the exact OPPOSITE of where we wanted to take the conversation.
Fortunately, in the second half, we were able to cut through the semantics and the compare-and-contrast explanations and get to a new point: we identified about 15 possible monetization methods for podcasters in general, ranging from merchandising and ad revenue to public and private grants and pooled networks of niche-based media.
From there, we all reasoned that at least one (and likely more) of those options might apply to the media of each person in the room. We brainstormed unusual ways to utilize those options depending upon your own personal situation -- for example, both merch and grants seem apt for a vlog about social activism, but what about a nationwide network of citizen review boards for local police departments? Would an idea like that not more easily qualify for a larger grant?
Finally, we all agreed to at least try one of those many options, but not in a vacuum. Instead of returning to the conversation in Philadelphia and saying, "Yeah, I tried asking advertisers for money and they said no," we'd much prefer to hear:
"I realized we had an average of 500 listeners per show, so we approached 10 companies in our field and asked them if they'd be interested in sponsoring us at $500 per month. Only three of them were interested, and five of the other 7 had never heard of podcasting before. Then, we tried the same offer at $250 and another 5 companies asked us for more information..." etc.
Now, instead of each of us rising and falling independently, we can all start to learn from one another's successes and failures and see how we can build this new media movement together. Neither you nor I nor Brian Conley can keep creating web media if we're losing money on the venture (unless our day jobs are subsidizing this as a "hobby"), and each of us is entitled to find ways to keep our shows afloat.
At the risk of sounding a little too inclusive: the better you do, the better we all do, so share that information with the world and help us all acheive the level of success we're striving for.
George: Does this mean we're headed for a showdown with Podcastercon 2007 in August?
I can't believe this is even a problem. Sponsorship is not a bad thing. ARE YOU FREAKN' KIDDING ME!!!!! If podcasters want to be taken serious then they should realize that having corporate sponsors mean that this media has gone beyond our basements and has hit a critical mass. We are all doing something worthwhile, people are noticing, and this beautiful content we are creating has vaule. And people will pay for value.
Because people pay for it doesn't make it any less significant. Becase "the office" is on network tv and has commercials, does that mean its a bad thing? No way. It means the writers, acters, and producers are doing something of value. The only way continue to create their show is through sponsorship. And they should gladly take it. Accepting sponsor does nothing more than allow for future podcamps and more interest in the general public. I think the real thing people are scared of is growing up in the media. We all have to put on our big boy (and girl) pants now. We can't get away with crappy content because we were simply the only people doing it before.
Now we all have to step our game because more people are noticing. The good stuff will rise to the top and crappy stuff will get angry because the big bad money monster destroyed their dream. If there was any lesson that should have been learned from podcamp this past weekend it should be. Just Do it!! Why not. The worst thing that can happen is that it works! We have to stop being afraid of ourselves and of what people might think, and what if this and what if that. We should keep focused on our really cool ideas, help each other out as often as possible, communicate EVERYDAY, and push the envelope. We all have an opportunity to set the stage of how this media will be embraced in the future. Why don't we seize it? If we don't another mySpace or YouTube will come out there and do it for us. So that some day we can complain about how we almost made the next big thing. Instead of hindering our progress lets all work together to make this better product. It takes money for that to happen, and if that means hanging a banner for scion, maxi pads, or whatever you better believe I'm going to it. The star power we had at this event didn't happen out charity. Time is valuable, and on site expertise is priceless. Sponsors helped to make that happen.
Josh: Yes, money is inevitable. It comes into the realm of all things, and podcasting is merely the latest new hotness that has begun to attract the whiff of money to it. I don't think the alarm is being raised out of fear, so much as a concern that money might come in and foul up the situation before we really figure out the whole creativity side.
Usually, a medium has a few years to develop underground before people see its value and start throwing money at it. Podcasting is just about at that point, but in this modern culture, things go from 0 to 60 a lot faster than they did in the days of cave drawings and sketching at the Moulin Rouge. It's possible that money could allow people to improve their shows, but more likely it's creativity and taking risks that will improve the medium, not JUST money -- otherwise, an early influx of capital may cause people to believe that Rocketboom and Ask a Ninja are the apex of what's possible in this new medium, rather than stepping stones to the future.
I think the bottom line that I'm taking away from this conversation is: everyone understands you need money, creativity and technology to grow this medium, and as long as one side doesn't imbalance the others, we're all comfortable taking that ride.
Maxi pads, however, are now on our "prospective sponsors for PCPGH2" list.
Post a Comment
<< Home