The Last Podcast Opinionated Web 2.0 News and Commentary

Thinking about Hoot the Owl, Scoble, and Fast Company’s brand

I didn’t say much about the Loren Feldman/Shel Israel affair – to be honest, I like the puppets, but it was really more of a human interest story than anything else.

But as I was Matt Craven’s latest piece on this in the Blog Herald, I couldn’t help but agree that what all of this has done, is damage the brand of Fast Company and of Scoble himself.

Thanks to the puppets, FastCompany.tv is now branded as boring and amateurish - sadly, that is, of course, not a bad descriptions of Shel Israel’s videotaped interview attempts, but it sure isn’t something Fast Company itself might want to be associated with. Fast Company can’t even find a sponsor for his show, while the puppets are living a cushy live.

Here is what Scoble had to say about the branding of FastCompany as ‘boring’ in the TechCrunch comments:

Some other brands that are being hooked to?

Puppets: funny.
FastCompany: educational.

Puppets: fake.
FastCompany: authentic.

Puppets: short.
FastCompany: long. (can you really learn anything of value in 120 seconds? If so, why aren’t all college courses 120 seconds?)

Puppets: interview egotistical bloggers.
FastCompany: interviews geeks and business people who build stuff. Like tomorrow you’ll meet the Rackspace team on FastCompany.tv.

Listen, if everyone is laughing at you, the only correct response is to laugh with them.

And then show everyone something better.

I think Robert is completely off here, because the dichotomies he tries to set up just don’t work.

The reality is that funny puppets mean FastCompany is boring (a lot of education is also boring, but that’s a different story).

The issue of the puppets being fake is also off – as every good parody does, the puppets highlight reality – a boring reality.

Scoble’s and Shel’s videos are long - but not because we learn so much in them – because a lot of it is uninteresting material that an editor would cut out to enhance learning (if that is what Scoble is after).

I always enjoyed Scoble’s blogging and I almost never enjoyed his videos. I never enjoyed any of the Shel Israel interviews I saw on FastCompany.tv. At the end of the day, FastCompany will have to look at this and wonder what all of this is doing to its brand and whether it is worth it.

Maybe FastCompany is just going after viewers with a really low threshold for amusement — in that case – all is well.

p.s. am I the only one who wished Scoble would just come back to writing instead of doing videos? 

No you are not alone in this Frederic. Blogging has reached – for the lack of a better term – a certain acceptance factor. Podcasting is still new but because of someone like Oprah (cringe – I really disliked having to use that example) podcasting is beginning to gain that acceptance factor.

Video on the other hand is still to new and in the yes of most people it is iJustine and other strange people walking around with cameras taped to their heads or else Qik video chatting about nothing.

The only one – and this really hurts to say – that is even getting a grasp on video blogging is Chris Pirillo. This whole thing with Feldman, stupid ass sock puppets and Israel’s temper tantrum has done nothing to make people think of video blogging as a waste of time.

Whatever ground it may have gained in the consumer market has been set back. Robert might find a market in the corporate world for his hour long videos but they won’t help popularize the medium for the average consumer.

Interesting. I’ve done more than 1,000 interviews and have had millions of views to my videos. There +IS+ a market for longer, more educational videos. I never ever wanted a mass market audience. If I did I’d just hire a pretty model and do two-minute-long funny videos.

Have you watched the latest Rackspace Video that we put up today? That’s interesting to business people. And it’s content that you can not get anywhere else.

It’s also done by a guy who went to film school and is professionally shot and edited.

That’s just sad. I guess the truth hurts and also wish Scoble would get back to blogging. I never watch his videos…well I watched the Friendfeed one, but not for long.

I guess you think there’s no reason for the New Yorker Magazine or the Economist to exist, either, right? Those are boring. Long. Educational. And have millions of fans.

They alone prove your criticism wrong.

Corvida: sounds like you haven’t checked out our new, professionally-shot and edited show. It went into daily production today. It’s at http://www.fastcompany.tv/scobleizer-tv and is getting lots of great reviews. Done by a professionally-trained videographer and editor too. Thanks to Seagate for paying for that and for giving me a chance to go around the world (I’m in Israel tomorrow) to bring back interesting technology and business stories. No other tech blogger is doing what we’re trying to do and getting you access to top-level executives.

Robert – I don’t disagree that there is a market for longer, education videos.

Just as both the Economist and the New Yorker are not boring for their audiences. But who is the target audience for your videos? If it is folks in tech, then they are notoriously strapped for time. Many might start watching a show, but stop after five minutes.

That said, if the Rackspace video is any indication, then a lot of the stuff you are producing now is going to be different – and I’m glad, because that was actually a very interesting video.

Robert you are missing what I am saying. I don’t disagree that there is a market for your style of video production. In fact there is probably a very good market within the corporate workspace and yes I have watched some of your videos from beginning to end. I still remember the one you did when you were still with Microsoft and you did one with the developer who worked on the UI of Vista and this was before Vista was releashed.

But we are talking about two totally different markets – the consumer and the corporate. It is no different in that regard than it was when there was a seperate comedy circut for actors and comedienes who did ‘corporate trade shows’

I’m not denigrating the work you do but you of all people have to admit that there is a difference between the consumer – general internet user and the corporate head office team meeting type of video work.

Where something like an hour long video might fly in a corporate team meeting it isn’t going to fly with some-one looking for a simple to understand and fun to watch 10 to 15 minute (max) video.

If I am wrong then I am willing to be proven wrong but I think I’m on pretty solid ground with this assumption.

I have watched portions of a few of Scoble’s videos. The lack of editing drives me crazy. Scole (a bright creative guy) also needs to learn how to prepare for interviews.

I want to make his sit down and watch ten random Charlie Rose shows as a start.

Maye Fast Company has seen the light and we’ll see a new Scoble.

It can’t happen soon enough.

Just my 2¥, but I feel like length ultimately doesn’t matter–it’s about giving people what they want to see. If someone had shot an hour-long video about the XO laptop before December 22 of last year (when I got mine), I’d have watched it all the way through, multiple times. However, unless I’m passionate about the subject matter I’m going to give online videos a couple minutes of my time and that’s it. I try to keep my videos under ten minutes, violating my own rule/expectation, which is probably why more people don’t watch my vids.

So, I think Scoble should keep doing what he’s doing, but not be upset if he can’t get sponsorship or funding. That’s not to say making a shorter product is a bad idea–but you can try to please everyone until the cows come home and never become really successful. Better to be happy with what you do and not be as successful/rich (cringe!).

Also, if I can be so bold/obnoxious as to offer Scoble some advice on dealing with critics–don’t defend yourself so much. Believe in what you do and make sure people see that and nothing more. Personally, I look to Internet videos because they are NOT professionally shot and edited. I feel empowered when I see something that was clearly shot by one guy. When I see someone get overly defensive I quietly cringe and think to myself “it sounds like he might be trying to convince himself of the same thing.” But hey, you’ve got to be doing something right if we’ve all heard of you, right?

First of all, I never cared if I had a consumer audience. So, that’s why I don’t worry too much about this criticism.

Second of all, I have a huge sponsorship from Seagate which let me hire a professional video editor. So, future shows will be edited.

Oh, and I watch Charlie Rose all the time.

Do you have any clue about the machinery he has behind him?

When I was on CNBC there were people prepping guests, prepping the host, and who would hold up signs if things started getting boring.

At CNBC, too, they spent 10 hours shooting the CEO of BugLabs and only used two minutes of that video on air.

I can’t afford to do ANY of that. So, if your expectation is that I should be as good as Charlie Rose or what you see on CNBC you’ll be sorely disappointed.