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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

They alone prove your criticism wrong.

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.

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.