For part I of the Controversy creates cash series, I have decided to look at how not to launch a video blog. On December 13, 2006, Amanda Congdon (she’s on my 23 people I’d like to meet) launched her video tv show for ABC News. From what I can tell, she attempted to bring over the former Rocketboom crowd to ABC News. Personally I am not sure that it is easy to do that when you go to the big stage. The controversy also began on that date for her.

ABC News video show feedback

On ABC News feedback page, her first show had 177 comments. Since I am Jewish and already ate my traditional chinese food, I decided to look at some metrics related to the comments posted on the site. Taking away the technical comments (rss feed, player issues, etc.), I get 59% negative feedback, 29% positive feedback and 11% “looks” feedback (+-1%). Now let’s look at week 2 feedback. This week the “looks” feedback dropped dramatically, while the negative feedback picked up a bit. Same as week 1 I removed the technical comments and ended up with 64% negative feedback, 31% positive feedback and 4% “looks” feedback. The majority of the newest feedback was negative. Twenty-four total feedback items submitted on 12/23-12/24, and 20 of them are negative, the other 4 are split between neutral and positive. More females (assuming they entered their real names) than males posted negative feedback.

Side note, she mentions that we should send in images for her to use as her backdrop on episode #2, but there was none. And then we have the blogosphere. The guys at RottedBrain claim that she “ripped off” or used their theme for her blog. I think Loren Feldman’s (1938 Media) clip is a good overview for other comments in the blogosphere on the first ABC News post (naturally there were some positive reviews, but we are looking for controversy in this article):
View the video (I just refuse to embed him in bed! :)

Clearly Amanda has received lots of traffic to her shows (possibly based on the controversy) and Technorati lists 175 new links to her main ABC News page (http://abcnews.go.com/Amanda/).

Amanda vs. Andrew

I think the bigger controversy is something that I guess started earlier this year between Amanda and Andrew over Amanda leaving Rocketboom. While Andrew states that as of December 22, he is now the 100% owner, you have to wonder how the controversy hurt both of them. Valleywag has a great overview of the issue between the two with a timeline and everything. You can also read all of the threads on the Yahoo! videoblogging forum. It is unfortunate that two people who seemed to have such positive feedback during their RocketBoom era, would open up cans of woopass on either other in such a public forum. Did this controversy hurt or help either of them? I actually think it hurt because it may have showed juvenile characteristics on both parts.

New Video show

The last piece is to discuss her new video show, “Starring Amanda Congdon”. So far I have not found much controversy (which is a good thing). Side note, she mentions hating JavaScript, yet uses it on SAC. Podcast NYC has some comments along with Loren’s video.

Final Summary

It would be interesting to speak with someone from ABC News or Dove to get their reaction from the user generated comments and the controversy. It is unfortunate that along with what could be a great positive for video bloggers across the world comes so much negative controversy.

I would have tried to clear up the issues with RocketBoom before launching either of her video shows. This way the shows could be launched sans controversy. It will be interesting to watch where both Amanda and Andrew go from here and how it affects the videoblogging scene as a whole.

As Amanda is one of the first to hit the big time, if she fails, do all video bloggers take a major hit? If she succeeds, do all video bloggers get a positive hit? Maybe we should all be working to make sure she succeeds so we all have a better path to success? If she fails, is NBC/CBS/CNN more likely not to do a video blog in the near future?

Either way, I am glad that the RocketBoom piece is worked out and both can move forward with their ventures. I wish both Amanda and Andrew much success in their ventures!

I have used Google AdWords off and on for years now. Mostly for consulting clients that I work with but also on my own web sites. About two weeks ago, I gave StumbleUpon “Sponsored Stumbles” a try. After reviewing the results with StumbleUpon, I thought I would provide an overview of my experience with some comparisons to Google AdWords. StumbleUpon claims that since they send visitors based on Stumbles, there is no click fraud.

Initial Account Setup

Google: Setting up a Google AdWords account is relatively easy. There are two options: Starter and Standard. Starter allows you to promote one product or service and has limited reporting which might be good for the non-marketing oriented person/company. The Standard option is the fully robust advertising tool that most of us already are familiar with.

StumbleUpon: SU has one option setup option which is very easy. Instead of using targeting based on keywords/phrases and then bidding on those terms along with creating adverts that will be compelling enough to click on, StumbleUpon offers a very simple method. Enter your website URL, select a category, simple targeting (location/age/gender), and how many visitors you would like per day (up to 2000).

Pricing and Campaign Setup

Google: AdWords pricing can be all over the map. Some terms can cost mere pennies, some can cost a lot more (student loan consolidation at almost $70!). Campaign setup offers many options, targeting techniques, etc. You know the drill. Typically, payment to Google occurs at the end of each month.

StumbleUpon: Nothing to report here as everything is setup in the Initial Account Setup above. Pricing is set at 5 cents per visitor. Yes, StumbleUpon charges per visitor to your web site instead of per click. So if you request 1,000 visitors per day, and they send you 1,000, you will pay $50/day. Payment uses PayPal and is prepaid. StumbleUpon emails you when you run out of funds in your account. And topping up is as easy as logging into your PayPal account. Minimum startup is $25.

Analytics and Statistics

Google: Fully robust advertiser and click tracking reporting and statistics. Can also work with Google Analytics for even more robust stats.

StumbleUpon: StumbleUpon offers total visitors, and thumbs-up/thumbs-down tracking. Some users will actually comment on your site and you can view those comments as well.

Customer Service

Great customer service from both services.

Final comments

About 9 months ago, I purchased a bulk traffic option for one of the sites I run. $25 got me 7,500 visitors but the traffic was completely worthless. With Sponsored Stumbles, that $25 got me 500 qualified users who care about my category. Traffic started within 10 minutes of campaign approval and the campaign worked as 89% rated CenterNetworks with a thumbs-up!

I think StumbleUpon is a great alternative to click based traffic in the sense that you get a continuous stream of interested visitors. The traffic is qualified in the sense that the visitors said they were interested in your topic or category. I believe StumbleUpon ads are a better source of visitors than using interstitial ads since the users will be in your desired category. I have decided to add it to my chart of advertising options for my clients who need qualified traffic instantly.

Over the weekend I took a look at a new social networking site. Called LittleFishBigRiver, the idea is pretty simple: do a good deed or see another doing one, post it on the site. Their mission is to get 50 million good deeds posted by 10 million people in 2007. It is a nice concept.

As co-founder Scott Kurttila states in the news release, “We’ve tried to create something special that no one else is doing by translating the power of social networking into a greater good through the collection of inspiring, random acts of kindness that often get completely overlooked on the daily news. It’s time to balance out what we read on a daily basis and we hope to be the destination for those wanting to see that good does happen — because it happens a lot.”

Other notes from the release:

They brought the idea to life for the first ever social networking site focused on recording kindness. LittleFishBigRiver.com is a worldwide collective effort to restore faith in humanity. The site’s users can post acts of kindness they have done or received then see how they add up worldwide. The founders were looking for a way to contribute something to society and allow others to easily do the same. True to the idea of giving back, 10% or more of advertising revenues are donated to charities such as Mercy Ships and ONE.org.

Issues

I really only have one major issue with the site. That is the design and the usability. The home page is absolutely overwhelming. Check my screenshot and video below. Loads of navigation, tag overload, way too many buttons on the left, just too many choices and colors and text. The advertisements appear to be added after the design was complete because they look out of place.

I noticed another small issue. It appears they “lifted” or “borrowed” parts of the Terms from MySpace. From what I can tell, most of the terms page is unique. Click the link in Part 8, Privacy Policy. It takes you to the Privacy Policy for MySpace. Oopsie.

Conclusion

The LittleFishBigRiver concept is good in that we focus so much on the negative in press and in the media. This site offers a way to focus on all the positive things we do (big and small) everyday to help our fellow man or woman. I think the site has a bright future if they would increase the usability of the site.

Screenshot

I have decided to add a new feature to CenterNetworks… that is a weekly series post. Meaning that on (most likely) Tuesday and Thursday I will post that is part of a series for that week.

The series for this week is titled, "Controversy Creates Cash" and will contain two posts:

• How not to launch a video blog/show (Tuesday – live now)
• How controversy creates cash using two major bloggers as examples of this (Thursday)

The title of this series comes from the title of a book on the shelves now by a wrestling promoter. He discusses how controversy in the biz allowed him to create cash. Now I bring that to the Internet.

If you have topics you would like to see as a series on CenterNetworks, drop me a line. This site is about you and helping you make better choices with your web apps so let me know.

I’m not much of a product reviewer, or user at that. It’s rare that I find a product that I enjoy and use daily. When I do, however, my adoration of that product is generally rabid and I suggest it to all of my friends.

Enter Rhapsody. I’ve been a Rhapsody subscriber for several years. I absolutely love it. I don’t even download mp3s anymore. Why bother? It’s probably on Rhapsody. I installed it at work, and I use it all day at home while I’m programming and designing. I only wish I could put it in my car.

If you’re not sure how Rhapsody works or what it is, allow me to explain. Rhapsody is a music product from Real Networks. I know, they have a bad reputation, but hear me out. It’s a competitor to iTunes and Napster. It focuses more on listening to music than purchasing it, however. For that reason, their subscription based service is amazing if you spend a lot of time at your computer.

Rhapsody has partner-based branding. You may have heard of “Audiogalaxy Rhapsody”, “Road Runner Rhapsody”, “Real Rhapsody”, etc. There are different logos for every “brand” of Rhapsody.

Several months ago I noticed that Real Rhapsody had a screeenshot of a white Rhapsody on it’s homepage. I use “Audiogalaxy” Rhapsody (don’t ask, it’s just where I signed up), which still had the older style black theme. There are no differences between the branded players, it just takes a while for a change to the main Rhapsody to roll out to the branded versions.

Imagine my delight when I got the message; “There are updates available for Rhapsody! Download now?”. Absolutely, friendly message box!

Everything updated, all systems are go. I fired it up and was greeted with several major changes. “Now Playing” now has it’s own entire page, and the former “Now Playing” area was dedicated to playlists. I found this to be a minor annoyance since I would rather see the current playlist full-time than to see a list of my playlists full-time. Other updates include poorly-done mouseover tabs everywhere you look, and song ratings.

This is where everything went *really* wrong.

I wanted to listen to the Kelly Sweet christmas album, so I did a search for Kelly Sweet. Her rhapsody page came up, and after laughing at the poorly done mouseovers on the play button, I clicked play next to one of her songs. Nothing happened. No music. No happiness. I ended up having to add the song to my library before I could play it. Later I found I could also drag the song title to the play button and it would begin playing. Incredibly annoying.

Then there was the straw that broke the camel’s back. I got Kelly Sweet added to my Christmas playlist. I tried the “Save As Playlist” from the “Now Playing” page and again nothing happened. No saving. No happiness.

I truly hope Real makes an update to fix these issues in the Rhapsody software soon. I enjoy it immensely when it works. At the moment I have no way to add a song onto my “Now Playing” list without it playing automatically, and I have no way to save a playlist. No happiness.

James Thomas is a web developer living in Orlando. During the day he can be found working at Disney Internet Group, and spends most of his evenings working on various projects while clicking about angrily on Rhapsody.

All I can say is thank you. Search Engine Journal has nominated CenterNetworks (along with some of the best listed below) for Best Web 2.0 Blog for 2006. Considering we are only alive since September 10, 2006, that is pretty amazing. Thanks for reading and participating and for all of the encouragement, I can't tell you how much it means to me.

Voting ends at 11:59PM on Christmas eve, so if you are around and can vote, please do!  (Web 2.0 blog is Question 11)

We are nominated along with:

• Mashable
• ReadWrite Web
• TechCrunch
• Somewhat Frank

To be part of that set is just freaking cool. I feel like Rocky in Rocky IV against Ivan Drago. Thanks to everyone for reading and commenting and so forth.

I am so excited to continue to serve you in 2007!

I have met so many great people this year as I travel. I thought I would put together a list of people I would like to meet in 2007. Please do not be offended if you are not on the list, I want to meet you too! Drop me a line and let's hook up!

List sorted by first name.

1. Alex Bard
2. Amanda Congdon (sat next to)
3. Amber MacArthur
4. Andreas Schneider
5. Bill Gates
6. Giada DeLaurentiis
7. Gina Trapani
8. Hiten Shah
9. Jeremiah Owyang (met)
10. James Thomas
11. Jason Calacanis (met)
12. Loren Feldman (met)
13. Matt Cutts
14. Patricia Handschiegel
15. Pete Cashmore
16. Rachel Stevens
17. Ray King
18. Robert Scoble (met)
19. Seth Godin
20. Stephanie Quilao (met)
21. Steve Jobs
22. Steve Rubel
23. Tara Hunt (met)