I'd prefer to give the main link on this post to Chuck Olsen, who writes, NY Times Doesn't Get Vlogs, and explains why Sarah Boxer of the New York Times doesn't understand vlogs.
Her article, Watch Me Do This and That Online, concludes that video blogging, even though it's a newborn, will end up marrying television. She implies that vlogs really just want to grow up and become TV.
Vlogs don't want to be TV Sarah, they want to grow up to be whatever they want to be. They want to do what their creators love.
Videoblogging might end up marrying television, but that doesn't mean that vlogging has to become television.
A strong marriage is made when two partners join and keep their separate identities. They each bring their strengths to the union, and that makes each of them better.
Television, do you take vlogs to be your lawfully wedded spouse?
- Do you promise to produce programming of interest to narrow audience?
- Do you agree to post shows on the internet with an RSS 2.0 feed so people can subscribe and view them whenever they want?
- Will you allow two way communication with your audience?
And vlogs, do you take television to be your lawfully wedded spouse?
- Do you agree to allow your video to be broadcast on TV, forsaking your text post, permalinks, and comments, like podcasts do when delivered on iPods?
- Will you attach opening titles and credits to all your videos?
I propose that you two live together for a while to see how things work out.
A marriage between the two would generate some very interesting offspring. TV on vlogs. Vlogs on TV.
I'm excited about the future.