<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Failed Experiment?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html</link>
	<description>Some Chicago Boyz know each other from student days at the University of Chicago. Others are Chicago boys in spirit. The blog name is also intended as a good-humored gesture of admiration for distinguished Chicago boys including those pictured above.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 06:44:55 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Hax Vobiscum</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293456</link>
		<dc:creator>Hax Vobiscum</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 Feb 2009 10:55:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293456</guid>
		<description>Seems there&#039;s a substantial surplus of conservative commentary. Thus the low, low price.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems there&#8217;s a substantial surplus of conservative commentary. Thus the low, low price.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david foster</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293276</link>
		<dc:creator>david foster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:04:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293276</guid>
		<description>It strike me that successful Internet video may require the talents of Roger Simon the screenwriter as much as (or more than) the talents of Roger Simon the blogger.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It strike me that successful Internet video may require the talents of Roger Simon the screenwriter as much as (or more than) the talents of Roger Simon the blogger.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tehag</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293248</link>
		<dc:creator>tehag</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 Feb 2009 12:44:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293248</guid>
		<description>I don&#039;t watch PJTV either, and for the reasons states above. Text is possessable, indexable, interruptible in ways video isn&#039;t. Over my lifetime, however, print&#039;s economic and social position has been a one-way ride down. Audio, video, gaming all triumph at the expense of print.

How money will be made on the internet isn&#039;t clear. Experiments will produce both successes and failures. For now, the ad network is a failure. Perhaps the &quot;tv&quot; network will be a failure, too. How the people of the future will prefer to participate in distant (or online) social relations has yet to be made clear.

At present it seems as if the only viable means for financial security is royalist or mendicant: either someone wealthy must fund sites from charity or partisanship or someone poor must beg for money. Producing content for sale doesn&#039;t seem to work well on the internet. This will be a bleak future, in my opinion.

tehag</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t watch PJTV either, and for the reasons states above. Text is possessable, indexable, interruptible in ways video isn&#8217;t. Over my lifetime, however, print&#8217;s economic and social position has been a one-way ride down. Audio, video, gaming all triumph at the expense of print.</p>
<p>How money will be made on the internet isn&#8217;t clear. Experiments will produce both successes and failures. For now, the ad network is a failure. Perhaps the &#8220;tv&#8221; network will be a failure, too. How the people of the future will prefer to participate in distant (or online) social relations has yet to be made clear.</p>
<p>At present it seems as if the only viable means for financial security is royalist or mendicant: either someone wealthy must fund sites from charity or partisanship or someone poor must beg for money. Producing content for sale doesn&#8217;t seem to work well on the internet. This will be a bleak future, in my opinion.</p>
<p>tehag</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: virgil xenophon</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293120</link>
		<dc:creator>virgil xenophon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 19:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293120</guid>
		<description>Totally agree with Rummel for all the reasons he spotlighted. My concern is the Darwinian introduction of blog Andromeda Strain-like newspaper killers like Craig&#039;s List which will result in the drying up of what hard news does exist. What then will half the political opinion bloggers on the interwebs have to opine about? 

And if you think the MSM is slanted to the left now (which it obviously is) it&#039;s going to get far worse as their ad revenue shrinks and they concentrate on their base. The editors of Time and Newsweek have just publicly and forthrightedly admitted this, and so has by inference MSNBC--more or less.  And while one part of me cheers the demise of &quot;the enemy.&quot; in some ways the old enemy was more of a friend than the newly modified &quot;enemy.&quot;  What I am afraid we will be left with is an MSM that provides ONLY (statistically speaking) opinion/propaganda and yet still dominate the national conversation. In fact, this will make it even easier to hide reality from the public, as only healthy newspapers, broadcast stations could/can afford the legwork to produce basic &quot;news,&quot; never mind how they later tried to spin it. Now, if there is no original &quot;news&quot;/facts being ferreted out
on a daily basis, there is concomitantly no need to &quot;spin&quot; against reality. One simply creates one&#039;s own reality. And with no facts, there is no reality to balance against the &quot;all opinion, all the time&quot; MSM megaphone--certainly the blogosphere lacks the financial resources to provide any consistent, across the board, effort at developing &quot;hard&quot; news.

So, in light of the above, IMO we are headed into a new, darker paradigm--a &quot;dark age&quot; if you will--in which the MSM will remain dominate, in a media universe almost universally devoid of &quot;facts&quot; and with the political blogosphere dominated by a Soros-backed left--leaving only a highly vulnerable talk radio--which, even if it survives Congressional/Administration efforts to kill it off, will still suffer from the same dearth of hard news. And if driven exclusively onto satellite radio &quot;talk&quot; radio will not only suffer a vast diminution of it&#039;s audience, but still be subject to the same threats of regulation it does now from a power hungry leftist dominated Congress. 

I ain&#039;t wearin&#039; &quot;shades&quot; &#039;cause the future&#039;s so bright.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Totally agree with Rummel for all the reasons he spotlighted. My concern is the Darwinian introduction of blog Andromeda Strain-like newspaper killers like Craig&#8217;s List which will result in the drying up of what hard news does exist. What then will half the political opinion bloggers on the interwebs have to opine about? </p>
<p>And if you think the MSM is slanted to the left now (which it obviously is) it&#8217;s going to get far worse as their ad revenue shrinks and they concentrate on their base. The editors of Time and Newsweek have just publicly and forthrightedly admitted this, and so has by inference MSNBC&#8211;more or less.  And while one part of me cheers the demise of &#8220;the enemy.&#8221; in some ways the old enemy was more of a friend than the newly modified &#8220;enemy.&#8221;  What I am afraid we will be left with is an MSM that provides ONLY (statistically speaking) opinion/propaganda and yet still dominate the national conversation. In fact, this will make it even easier to hide reality from the public, as only healthy newspapers, broadcast stations could/can afford the legwork to produce basic &#8220;news,&#8221; never mind how they later tried to spin it. Now, if there is no original &#8220;news&#8221;/facts being ferreted out<br />
on a daily basis, there is concomitantly no need to &#8220;spin&#8221; against reality. One simply creates one&#8217;s own reality. And with no facts, there is no reality to balance against the &#8220;all opinion, all the time&#8221; MSM megaphone&#8211;certainly the blogosphere lacks the financial resources to provide any consistent, across the board, effort at developing &#8220;hard&#8221; news.</p>
<p>So, in light of the above, IMO we are headed into a new, darker paradigm&#8211;a &#8220;dark age&#8221; if you will&#8211;in which the MSM will remain dominate, in a media universe almost universally devoid of &#8220;facts&#8221; and with the political blogosphere dominated by a Soros-backed left&#8211;leaving only a highly vulnerable talk radio&#8211;which, even if it survives Congressional/Administration efforts to kill it off, will still suffer from the same dearth of hard news. And if driven exclusively onto satellite radio &#8220;talk&#8221; radio will not only suffer a vast diminution of it&#8217;s audience, but still be subject to the same threats of regulation it does now from a power hungry leftist dominated Congress. </p>
<p>I ain&#8217;t wearin&#8217; &#8220;shades&#8221; &#8217;cause the future&#8217;s so bright.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shannon Love</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293113</link>
		<dc:creator>Shannon Love</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:12:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293113</guid>
		<description>Personally, I can&#039;t stand web video unless the information presented is expressly visual such as an how-to or showing a captured event. I read about twice as fast as people talk (and even more so once all the dead space of normal conversation is added in) so watching video is a real time waster. Also, you can&#039;t really stop a video, come back to it later and pickup the thread as you can with text. Neither can you link to specific portions in context nor can you use it as a reference. 

I don&#039;t think I&#039;ve watched more than one or two PM videos since they started and I&#039;m not sure I watched them all the way through.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally, I can&#8217;t stand web video unless the information presented is expressly visual such as an how-to or showing a captured event. I read about twice as fast as people talk (and even more so once all the dead space of normal conversation is added in) so watching video is a real time waster. Also, you can&#8217;t really stop a video, come back to it later and pickup the thread as you can with text. Neither can you link to specific portions in context nor can you use it as a reference. </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;ve watched more than one or two PM videos since they started and I&#8217;m not sure I watched them all the way through.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: C. Smith</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293110</link>
		<dc:creator>C. Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 18:01:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293110</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m a PJTV subscriber, and I generally think that the modest subscription rate is worth it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m a PJTV subscriber, and I generally think that the modest subscription rate is worth it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mrs. Davis</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293108</link>
		<dc:creator>Mrs. Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:21:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293108</guid>
		<description>Burrell Smith used to say that the price of goods as they become commodities should eventually approach marginal cost plus profit and that someday all software would sell for $0.99. We&#039;re getting close to that, certainly for music. Information, at least political information, has a very low marginal cost. Likewise it produces very few eyeballs for advertisers because it has very low marginal value for the typical consumer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Burrell Smith used to say that the price of goods as they become commodities should eventually approach marginal cost plus profit and that someday all software would sell for $0.99. We&#8217;re getting close to that, certainly for music. Information, at least political information, has a very low marginal cost. Likewise it produces very few eyeballs for advertisers because it has very low marginal value for the typical consumer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mrs. Davis</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293106</link>
		<dc:creator>Mrs. Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 17:16:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293106</guid>
		<description>That is why more and more advertising will migrate into the content itself through product placements. The line between entertainment and advertising will blur into nothing. Infomercials worth watching.

Information will not have advertising. It will be paid for by those advocating a position. They may even pay for some content, e.g. the amateur caught video. The advocacy of the MSM for The Messiah in the last election was a sign of things to come. More and more the line between news and press releases will blur into nothing.

Blogging will remain as the antidote to the press release. But the source of information will be the press releases from the interested parties and not pseudo-news from crypto-objective news agencies. All bias all the time. It&#039;s what we&#039;ve really had since forever. We just didn&#039;t know it. I wonder how many troubadours were just disinformation agents for the prince next door. Have larnyx. Will travel.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is why more and more advertising will migrate into the content itself through product placements. The line between entertainment and advertising will blur into nothing. Infomercials worth watching.</p>
<p>Information will not have advertising. It will be paid for by those advocating a position. They may even pay for some content, e.g. the amateur caught video. The advocacy of the MSM for The Messiah in the last election was a sign of things to come. More and more the line between news and press releases will blur into nothing.</p>
<p>Blogging will remain as the antidote to the press release. But the source of information will be the press releases from the interested parties and not pseudo-news from crypto-objective news agencies. All bias all the time. It&#8217;s what we&#8217;ve really had since forever. We just didn&#8217;t know it. I wonder how many troubadours were just disinformation agents for the prince next door. Have larnyx. Will travel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david foster</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293101</link>
		<dc:creator>david foster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:56:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293101</guid>
		<description>Regarding PJM and web advertising, TigerHawk made an interesting comment:

&quot;I am told that web site banner advertising suffers, in a sense, from too much transparency. Media buyers know what they pay “per click through” and per dollar of directly attributable revenue, and therefore tend to value banner advertising according to these concrete metrics. Ironically, that puts internet banner advertising at a great disadvantage to print and broadcast advertising, the value of both of which are much more difficult to measure. Corporate budgeteers can measure a superficially accurate rate of return for internet banner ads but cannot for television, so if the former is too low they kill it before they ax the thing they cannot measure. There is an obvious problem with this thinking — the banner ads get no credit for “building the brand” through impressions, which is in principle one of their great benefits — but nobody ever said that corporate bean-counting cannot drive stupid thinking.&quot;

A consumer-products CEO once said, &quot;I know half of our advertising expenditure is wasted; problem is, I don&#039;t know which half.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Regarding PJM and web advertising, TigerHawk made an interesting comment:</p>
<p>&#8220;I am told that web site banner advertising suffers, in a sense, from too much transparency. Media buyers know what they pay “per click through” and per dollar of directly attributable revenue, and therefore tend to value banner advertising according to these concrete metrics. Ironically, that puts internet banner advertising at a great disadvantage to print and broadcast advertising, the value of both of which are much more difficult to measure. Corporate budgeteers can measure a superficially accurate rate of return for internet banner ads but cannot for television, so if the former is too low they kill it before they ax the thing they cannot measure. There is an obvious problem with this thinking — the banner ads get no credit for “building the brand” through impressions, which is in principle one of their great benefits — but nobody ever said that corporate bean-counting cannot drive stupid thinking.&#8221;</p>
<p>A consumer-products CEO once said, &#8220;I know half of our advertising expenditure is wasted; problem is, I don&#8217;t know which half.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: david foster</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293100</link>
		<dc:creator>david foster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:52:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293100</guid>
		<description>I think there is probably a huge future for Internet-delivered video, but it mostly won&#039;t be *web* video...rather, it will be video delivered to television sets using the Internet as transport, as with the boxes now available to work with Netflix and Amazon. Programming to work in this environment will probably need to be segments of at least 15-30 minutes each, not 5-minute clips.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think there is probably a huge future for Internet-delivered video, but it mostly won&#8217;t be *web* video&#8230;rather, it will be video delivered to television sets using the Internet as transport, as with the boxes now available to work with Netflix and Amazon. Programming to work in this environment will probably need to be segments of at least 15-30 minutes each, not 5-minute clips.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Bennett</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293096</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Bennett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 15:19:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293096</guid>
		<description>Basically, I have no use for web video for getting serious content.  I have integrated blog-reading into my work habits; I usually review something in the blogosphere every hour or so, but don&#039;t spend more than a few minutes per break.  Video is interminable, and it&#039;s hard to go back and check out an interesting point.  I&#039;ve taken to thinking, &quot;if it&#039;s important, they&#039;ll post a transcript.&quot;  Maybe other people will watch PJTV, but not me. And, basically, I like the people at PJM.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Basically, I have no use for web video for getting serious content.  I have integrated blog-reading into my work habits; I usually review something in the blogosphere every hour or so, but don&#8217;t spend more than a few minutes per break.  Video is interminable, and it&#8217;s hard to go back and check out an interesting point.  I&#8217;ve taken to thinking, &#8220;if it&#8217;s important, they&#8217;ll post a transcript.&#8221;  Maybe other people will watch PJTV, but not me. And, basically, I like the people at PJM.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dan from Madison</title>
		<link>http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/6724.html/comment-page-1#comment-293093</link>
		<dc:creator>Dan from Madison</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2009 14:47:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://chicagoboyz.net/?p=6724#comment-293093</guid>
		<description>I checked out the PJTV website.  I saw a video I wanted to see, but you have to pay.  &quot;Pay?  What is that?&quot;, the current generation of internet users say.  

$15 per month!  Definitely not content I would pay for.  I can always read their blogs if I want, of course.  This venture will fail.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I checked out the PJTV website.  I saw a video I wanted to see, but you have to pay.  &#8220;Pay?  What is that?&#8221;, the current generation of internet users say.  </p>
<p>$15 per month!  Definitely not content I would pay for.  I can always read their blogs if I want, of course.  This venture will fail.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
