If you do a film, you get your money back when people see it in the theater or buy it on dvd or whatever. If you do a televison show, the production company gets its money back from the studio/station, who gets their money back from the advertisers who run commercials on their shows, or from individuals who pay a subscription fee to receive their channel. If you do corporate work, it’s a known & BUDGETED EXPENSE to advertise a product or service, or it might be created for internal communication purposes.

In New Media, there’s no revenue stream. You can’t recuperate monies paid at professional rates via revenue-sharing. You can’t even sell 100% of your clicks, because you can’t prove your demographics.

Because of this, the “video budget” is part of the advertising or “get us attention” budget, and most companies go for the lower cost (thus, higher return) options of text blogging. The other option is to pay people who don’t know what they’re doing low sums of money to put on inferior video productions, because their only real purpose is to gain attention for the product or service. It’s not supposed to be an actually GOOD video.

I only brought up unions because it was the question in Sarah’s post. The point is that New Media people are all scrambling for money… ESPECIALLY now that the economy’s all jacked up. Budgets are diminishing instead of increasing. Until there’s some kind of DEMONSTRABLE reason why people should use video instead of text or audio to gain attention for their businesses, anybody requesting professional wages can go kick rocks, because “the bottom line” just won’t support that kind of budget.

If you do a film, you get your money back when people see it in the theater or buy it on dvd or whatever. If you do a televison show, the production company gets its money back from the studio/station, who gets their money back from the advertisers who run commercials on their shows, or from individuals who pay a subscription fee to receive their channel. If you do corporate work, it’s a known & BUDGETED EXPENSE to advertise a product or service, or it might be created for internal communication purposes.

In New Media, there’s no revenue stream. You can’t recuperate monies paid at professional rates via revenue-sharing. You can’t even sell 100% of your clicks, because you can’t prove your demographics.

Because of this, the “video budget” is part of the advertising or “get us attention” budget, and most companies go for the lower cost (thus, higher return) options of text blogging. The other option is to pay people who don’t know what they’re doing low sums of money to put on inferior video productions, because their only real purpose is to gain attention for the product or service. It’s not supposed to be an actually GOOD video.

I only brought up unions because it was the question in Sarah’s post. The point is that New Media people are all scrambling for money… ESPECIALLY now that the economy’s all jacked up. Budgets are diminishing instead of increasing. Until there’s some kind of DEMONSTRABLE reason why people should use video instead of text or audio to gain attention for their businesses, anybody requesting professional wages can go kick rocks, because “the bottom line” just won’t support that kind of budget.

If you do a film, you get your money back when people see it in the theater or buy it on dvd or whatever. If you do a televison show, the production company gets its money back from the studio/station, who gets their money back from the advertisers who run commercials on their shows, or from individuals who pay a subscription fee to receive their channel. If you do corporate work, it’s a known & BUDGETED EXPENSE to advertise a product or service, or it might be created for internal communication purposes.

In New Media, there’s no revenue stream. You can’t recuperate monies paid at professional rates via revenue-sharing. You can’t even sell 100% of your clicks, because you can’t prove your demographics.

Because of this, the “video budget” is part of the advertising or “get us attention” budget, and most companies go for the lower cost (thus, higher return) options of text blogging. The other option is to pay people who don’t know what they’re doing low sums of money to put on inferior video productions, because their only real purpose is to gain attention for the product or service. It’s not supposed to be an actually GOOD video.

I only brought up unions because it was the question in Sarah’s post. The point is that New Media people are all scrambling for money… ESPECIALLY now that the economy’s all jacked up. Budgets are diminishing instead of increasing. Until there’s some kind of DEMONSTRABLE reason why people should use video instead of text or audio to gain attention for their businesses, anybody requesting professional wages can go kick rocks, because “the bottom line” just won’t support that kind of budget.

If you do a film, you get your money back when people see it in the theater or buy it on dvd or whatever. If you do a televison show, the production company gets its money back from the studio/station, who gets their money back from the advertisers who run commercials on their shows, or from individuals who pay a subscription fee to receive their channel. If you do corporate work, it’s a known & BUDGETED EXPENSE to advertise a product or service, or it might be created for internal communication purposes.

In New Media, there’s no revenue stream. You can’t recuperate monies paid at professional rates via revenue-sharing. You can’t even sell 100% of your clicks, because you can’t prove your demographics.

Because of this, the “video budget” is part of the advertising or “get us attention” budget, and most companies go for the lower cost (thus, higher return) options of text blogging. The other option is to pay people who don’t know what they’re doing low sums of money to put on inferior video productions, because their only real purpose is to gain attention for the product or service. It’s not supposed to be an actually GOOD video.

I only brought up unions because it was the question in Sarah’s post. The point is that New Media people are all scrambling for money… ESPECIALLY now that the economy’s all jacked up. Budgets are diminishing instead of increasing. Until there’s some kind of DEMONSTRABLE reason why people should use video instead of text or audio to gain attention for their businesses, anybody requesting professional wages can go kick rocks, because “the bottom line” just won’t support that kind of budget.

But still the idea of unions will stop some good developments like it does in MSM and in any other industries. Unions help workers but most time limit business …

But still the idea of unions will stop some good developments like it does in MSM and in any other industries. Unions help workers but most time limit business …

But still the idea of unions will stop some good developments like it does in MSM and in any other industries. Unions help workers but most time limit business …

But still the idea of unions will stop some good developments like it does in MSM and in any other industries. Unions help workers but most time limit business …

Basically, there aren’t going to be any unions in online video anytime soon, because there aren’t any budgets for REAL video production. The only hope unions have is that more and more MSM studios are going to begin to do work in the space, which will mean that people that are ALREADY getting paid union wages will now be working on New Media projects.

Since Time=Money, those people aren’t going to be willing to work for less than they were already getting just because it’s a New Media project. From that base of people, unions might be able to organize and get something going.

As far as bootstrappers and startups, you can forget it. Having regulated minumum rates for video work wouldn’t “crush” any startups at all. They would merely remove the creation of video from their budgets and plans. SEEYA!

The bottom line is communication. If video is too expensive to do, companies will do audio. If audio’s too expensive, they’ll text blog. It’s all about eyeballs and ROI. The ROI in MSM comes from the advertisers. That revenue stream hasn’t materialized “yet” in the online video space.

This is why most internet shows are done by people who are LEARNING to edit and people who are LEARNING to be on-air talent and people who are LEARNING to write scripts. Quality can be sacrificed to get cheaper work and easier-to-justify returns.

The flip side of this is that right now, everybody and ANYBODY can “get on the mic”. Once they figure out how to get the shooters and editors and actors properly paid, the REAL shooters, editors and actors are going to flood the space, since the work will suddenely be viable and as lucrative as working on corporate or broadcast projects.

Basically, there aren’t going to be any unions in online video anytime soon, because there aren’t any budgets for REAL video production. The only hope unions have is that more and more MSM studios are going to begin to do work in the space, which will mean that people that are ALREADY getting paid union wages will now be working on New Media projects.

Since Time=Money, those people aren’t going to be willing to work for less than they were already getting just because it’s a New Media project. From that base of people, unions might be able to organize and get something going.

As far as bootstrappers and startups, you can forget it. Having regulated minumum rates for video work wouldn’t “crush” any startups at all. They would merely remove the creation of video from their budgets and plans. SEEYA!

The bottom line is communication. If video is too expensive to do, companies will do audio. If audio’s too expensive, they’ll text blog. It’s all about eyeballs and ROI. The ROI in MSM comes from the advertisers. That revenue stream hasn’t materialized “yet” in the online video space.

This is why most internet shows are done by people who are LEARNING to edit and people who are LEARNING to be on-air talent and people who are LEARNING to write scripts. Quality can be sacrificed to get cheaper work and easier-to-justify returns.

The flip side of this is that right now, everybody and ANYBODY can “get on the mic”. Once they figure out how to get the shooters and editors and actors properly paid, the REAL shooters, editors and actors are going to flood the space, since the work will suddenely be viable and as lucrative as working on corporate or broadcast projects.