Tubefilter News

Wow, alriiiight! I’m excited to see so many nominations of shows written by people who are members of the voting bloc! Way to make your awards and your group seem legitimate, especially when combined with the star f*&#er drooling over crappy celebrity -headed projects. Sweet! Good job, kids!

Congratulations a wonderful bunch of people and shows got recognized. We will be there to celebrate.

Thanks for putting this together guys. You have done something really special and people are talking about it and you at SXSW.

Keep up the good work.

We needed you.

Kudos to all involved behind-the-scenes in getting the Streamys off the ground. It’s this kind of trailblazing that will inspire the next wave of online talent to even greater heights…

Thank you so much for the nomination! I agree 2008 is indeed an exceptional year for the Web TV world. I want to give a shout out to my girl Zoe Bell for taking it to another level in ‘09 with her “Angel of Death” series. Congratulations to all the other nominees and to everyone at “Gemini Division”. I can’t wait to do another web series!
Rosario

Congrats to all the nominees! I’ll also be there the 28th. Looking forward to meeting some of the minds behind these fun series.

Andy

This is exciting! Congrats to all the nominees!

Sheep.

Thank you for the nomination! What a truly surreal, exciting group to be included in.
I love seeing where online entertainment is going. I love that it gives a voice to the unheard, a chance to the untested, and/or an unmoderated platform. And thanks to you guys for pushing it forward and putting it further into the national psyche.

Congrats to everyone that was nominated; and a toast to those exceptional series that didn’t get nominated, but still entertain me endlessly!

Now I have a whole new slew of shows to watch this weekend!

See you at the Ceremony…..

Congrats to all the nominees. See you all at the party!

Seems a little incestuous to have the nominated series’ producers as judges AND sweep the nominations. A little off-putting. I think we can all agree that The Guild doesn’t have the best visual effects nor does it have the best writing. It does however in my eyes stand a strong chance of winning “the best hookup at tubefilter” award. Weird.

Yes. You had a chance to create something special and you totally blew it with these rigged awards. A pox upon your houses!

It appears that the voters were given too many categories each and did not take the time to look at all nominations. They went with names they knew. Producers, look at your view stats during the nomination period. See if your views did not go up except by like 5-10 maybe. Like 5 of the “academy” members went to some of the nominations to check some of us out. Some of us have analytics and can actually see how few “academy” members viewed us from their resources page. I expect known names were visited more though.

There are new categories to deal with but polling, awards, data analysis and association management is not anything new. And there was way way too much mutual promotion of sponsors and partners in leu of hilighting nominees for way too long. Fail.

These awards in themselves are not a big deal but I’m afraid of this group because they are “Hollywoodizing” under the guise of supporting.

I guess the bottom line is that these aren’t necessarily the BEST shows in any of these categories. They’re simply the most popular shows, period. That’s wonderful for them and I’m not saying that these people shouldn’t be recognized for their feats on the web. I’m just saying look at your nomination results. They should tell you that something isn’t right. It would be nice if this wasn’t a popularity contest but that’s what it turned out to be. I’m just saying that it’s a flawed system in which the best in each category don’t necessarily win because in many cases, the best aren’t popular enough. It just doesn’t feel very “internet” to me. Feels Hollywood. I just thought it was going to be different..*walks away with head hung low melodramatically*.

You guys still rock tho.

That’s nice, Drew, but academy members did not even view many productions. Somebody see what percentage of winners are affiliated with an academy member, please. Why keep making a big deal out of processing 80,000 nominations (like there is no coldfusion or excel or whatever and someone is counting by hand) and not view the nominees. Kind of defeats the purpose of being open to everyone if only 10% or less of the academy actually viewed some us. That is disheartening to a lot of people and someone in the group needed to assure that it did not happen. We might not be great enough to win but we were worth a peek. I know that academy members and other nominees were not happy with what was going on but they are afraid of the tilzy/tubefilter/NewTeeVee, etc. klan and kept their heads down as not to get in trouble with them. I think the academy did not function as an effective group with members sharing insights, speaking up and working together to make the things happen that were needed to actually support and celebrate the web vid community. It was possible if there was more real work done, effective planning and consideration of the artists and less of the giant cycle of spin that just kept going.

What was extremely effective, is God knows how many hits and how much publicity the partners and sponsors created for themselves. Even when they knew viewers were looking for finalist results they did not have on time. No heads up on that so they would get the views. And even sent out teases knowing they were not ready. They are the biggest winners for sure.

@Michael, “best” is going to be very subjective regardless on what the process is. The shows that got picked do seem to be the popular shows, but one could argue that they’re popular because they have higher production budget which translates to “higher quality” for a lot of people. It’s not really fair to say they aren’t the “best” as there’s no way to argue this fact. Personally, I definitely would put Guild up there for best writing. (Visual effects, not so sure about.)

That said, I think the tough thing going forward is what the awards show will look like in the future. Because as more and more of the higher quality/hollywood-backed shows are created specifically for the Internet, we’ll start to see more of a gap between production quality between the high budget and indie content creators.

So competing against Battlestar Gallactica is certainly going to be tough for an indie filmmaker. I think that’s going to be the challenge and big question. Will there be categories for indie productions in the future? So that the non-Hollywood affiliated folks have a separate category where they don’t have to compete against, say, Joss Whedon? Regardless, any nomination process is likely to end up with a few missing gems and that’s just the way things will always be. There’s only so much space.

@Jackie, why do you keep saying that nominees were not looked at? Just based off of stat count? I’m not sure if there’s enough data to be able to tell whether it was viewed or not, as those views can take place over weeks.

I sincerely DO want to congratulate the nominees.

That said, this entire process is flawed and I hope that it will be remedied by next year (if it turns out to be profitable enough to the sponsors to warrant a next year).

I really just wanted to take a second and agree with Jacki. It’s something that I have been saying for quite a while now. “Content” creators and the surrounding “support” media (like Tubefilter, Tilzy and NewTeeVee) have talked ad-nauseam about “community.” About pulling together to build something truly special. A creative Utopia where producers would link arms and take on the cantankerous old behemoth of “Old Hollywood.”

A little misguided, certainly. But idealistic. Fun. Improbable but inspiring.

And, it seemed that internet production was heading in the right direction. After all, most of the people involved were NOT from the old guard. They were new, fresh faces. With an occasional disenfranchised Hollywood type sprinkled in here and there.

We had an unofficial mission statement. Things were going to change.

We were presented with an unprecedented opportunity to create an entirely new industry. A blank slate. We could make that industry in any image we so chose. Anything at all.

We chose “Hollywood 2.” (Though, if we’re going to officially name it, I suggest “Global Hollywood Lite.”)

And the saddest part of all. This was not imposed on us by Hollywood. We did it to ourselves. And do it every time we pass up true dialogue for cross-promotion.

Are we happy with this? Really?

The nice thing about it is that we can still change it. We can keep a sliver of our idealism intact. We simply have to ask more of our “community.” Big Hollywood hasn’t gotten us in a strangle hold yet. And, it is NOT inevitable that they SOON will.

But there is no better way to ensure that the independent producer will be shut out in the future than to act now as if they already have been.

That’s the issue here. How the founders could be so foolish to not have at least a few independent nominations is beyond me. They report on all of the amateur shows and treat them as if they are valid even when they may not deserve it, yet when it comes to this awards show it almost feels like they made them all feel like they would have a shot at recognition- but that’s impossible amongst funded projects and especially things like BSG- supplemental content from an actual TV show? That has no business in web video awards. It wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t a TV show property- that bothers me more than anything else.

@Andy, Sure it’s tough to argue what is “the best” in many categories. Yes, it’s hard, which is why the 90 person panel is a good concept. We’ll have 90 people with varying opinions and taste making the final selections. It’s the nomination process which is flawed so far.

I just can’t believe that I don’t see any shows that these sites (tubefilter/tilzy) rave about OTHER than Dr. Horrible and The Guild. There’s no variation, and for me as a viewer/creator of web shows, what would legitimize this whole process is if I could look at that list of nominees and go, “wow, ya Sandeep Parikh of The Guild IS one of the best actors on the internet!” The problem is, I don’t think he’s even close. I think the show he’s on, The Guild has an exponentially larger audience than most other shows for various reasons. The Guild has an enormous distribution deal and has been around for a couple of years. This gives everyone else NO CHANCE with the current nomination process.

Anyway, I hope it’s changed in the future.

I think we also have to realize that starting anything up is an incredible feat and a very difficult thing to do. I applaud the organizers for being able to create something so large and innovative for the future. The Streamys is doing a great amount of good in getting web series more legitimacy, and we have to remember that Hollywood IS part of the web video series universe.

As I mentioned, there are going to be some challenges ahead for indie filmmakers, but I see the Streamys as a big win for all of us (hollywood and indie producers). In fact, the smart strategy is to leverage Hollywood to bring in mainstreamers into the category. Historically, webseries has had to fight the image of being “guy getting hit in the balls with kid’s baseball swing.” Hollywood is a partner in changing that image, as higher budget, more legitimate productions move onto the web. Just like some movie goers don’t want to go see art-house films, a lot of mainstreamers do not want to see low budget web series. So they stay out of the category. But as Hollywood enters into this world, they’ll bring in new viewers, which INCREASES the possibility of them watching your indie series. This is a GOOD thing. Indie filmmakers need Hollywood to partner with to promote and drive new viewers into the web video category. It’s not a “us vs. them” mentality. It has to be cooperative for the web series world to “win.” This is a business case and you need some buy-in from the old guard to help promote the new.

Anyway, as I mentioned, I’m happy the Streamys are happening, and I think we’re definitely taking a step in the right direction. In the future, the awards or nomination process may evolve. But like any start-up, it takes time to get things perfect. I think people need to simmer down on the harsh criticism, as no other organization has stepped up to do this before, which in itself is an accomplishment.

Andy, I explained about the resources page and I also explained that there was a period of time that most of the voting was done that views and link tracking told the story. We could be off by a few early viewers but if we only got 5 hits from the resources page, and those were during the weekend of academy voting… Well, that is just not good. That even includes testing and people who looked more than once. It’s also evident in the winning results because they stayed in the realm of that they were familiar with.

My weird little series was a long shot but you guys missed some good stuff out there that deserved recognition as you were too busy with your cross promotion antics and attempts at ticket selling. It’s obvious.

It probably would not have killed them to have listed ALL the accepted submitted nominees somewhere since you were about a month late with finalists. But views on Streamy.org were reserved for sponsors and academy members who did not even look at the nominees. Not the productions.

From a conversation with a high ranking agent over coffee in Beverly Hills this morning:

“I love the Streamys. It confirms that these little throw away projects we feed into this space are clearly the best projects out there. Web TV is a joke.”

I pointed out that the nominees are actually not “the best”, that there’s a lot of good stuff out there that wasn’t nominated.

He said “Doesn’t matter. We’re in control, and the game’s over. Blogs like Tubefilter and Tilzy are suckling at our teat and they have to or they’ll go out of business. This is our game and we make the rules, online or off. Welcome to Hollywood, I thought you knew better.”

Very disheartening. As usual, I paid the bill.

Good comments above all around. It seems like there is some legitimate concerns around the diversity of nominees. Is it too late for the academy to just add an independent category of 5 shows they pick and then everybody is happy?

This is an interesting and, I think, much needed conversation.

I agree that we’ve designed an imperfect process, the pitfalls of which will certainly inform our process in the future.

@Butch: I strongly disagree with your characterization of our coverage. We never suggested or supported the notion that the community involved in internet distribution of television would “take on” old Hollywood. We anticipated an inclusive process where independent producers would face a much more level playing field. That does not disparage or dispute the often very effective development and creative infrastructure perfected by the Hollywood process over the past 60 years.

Exceptional content requires buy-in from exceptional talent. The fact of the matter is, the Hollywood system has had a monopoly on talent, and because IP distribution has only just begun to take hold, it remains a cluster of talent. AS long as that remains the case, we will continue to see quality content associated with Hollywood.

That said, the beauty of IP distribution of television, and my personal interest in it, is that a exceptional, creative, enterprising web producers, like Jesse Petrick of Heathens, can now contend with the likes of Sony, Warner Brothers, Viacom, Microsoft, etc. That’s unprecedented, and its only going to become more prevalent.

@ Jacki, How can you tell if only 10% of the academy viewed your project? I want that software!! (Besides, isn’t it possible that they watched before the voting period?)

Personally, I’m impressed with the group of nominees. Bravo guys!
I can see that many people with their own web series are disappointed that they were not included, but that will ALWAYS happen…every single year. What we CAN do is applaud all of the fantastic series that are being recognized! (because most of them are great!)

All this talk about “Did your hits increase during the nomination process?” Come on! If you can notice an increase of 85 people over 1 month, you need to do some serious marketing.

This is a very tricky process, and honestly, I expected to be a little disappointed with the choice of nominees, but I feel like a HUGE majority is totally deserving of the honor. (And “Yes” I would also consider The Guild for best writing)

To my surprise, my show was lucky enough to get a nomination, and I can definitely say that we:
A) did not have ANY funding and are TOTALLY independent.
B) Are not even close to the “most popular” shows on the web, in terms of press or #s
C) Are definitely one of the little guys

The fact is: You may have the greatest show on the web, but if you’re not pounding the pavement, marketing, advertising, etc, people are going to overlook your product. Tis the nature of the beast…

And about this “incestuous” academy….Give me a break!
Many of the academy members have been inducted because they are pioneers in this genre. They have busted their butts and given the smaller guys (like us) a larger platform to display our vision….The Guilds of the world, the You Suck at Photoshops, the Big Fantastics, The Legend of Neals…These people should be celebrated for their contributions. Many of these creators ARE members of the academy, and many of them HAVE been nominated, but Why? Because they are producing great shows that are re-writing the public’s image of “web tv.” We would have NO VOICE without these guys.

This is a very tricky, sensitive process, but I think this is a great first step. Congrats to Tubefilter, Newteevee, Tilzy, Blip…and to all the nominees.

It would also not have hurt if it were made more clear in the nominating stage that receiving more nominations improved the chances of being considered “legitimate.”

But Jacki is correct again. If the “pre-nomination” didn’t translate to even MARGINAL hits, the show wasn’t being screened and therefore the contest was simply a popularity contest. Which is ALMOST forgivable considering that this IS the first year that this awards show has been presented. EXCEPT that this isn’t the first awards show of its kind and it wouldn’t take a lot of research to figure out how to make it a bit more fair. The fact that it seems as if the promoters of this award seemed to put more effort into getting sponsorship and recognition for themselves than they did actually CONCEIVING of the awards process calls into question its legitimacy.

And, Andy, as far as Hollywood is concerned, I understand that it’s not an “Us vs Them” situation. A lot of “Us” would like to be “Them.” And it’s not a slam on Hollywood per se. But to say that having the web television industry dominated by mainstream media is actually GOOD for the independent producer is ridiculous. Right now, the chances that the web content “media” will pay attention to a small indy producer are greater than they ever will be. As more money comes to internet programming, the smaller producers will become more and more marginalized. It’s actually pretty much inevitable. As the market becomes saturated with more “professional” content it will become HARDER for indy producers to find an audience without digging deep into their pockets. I know that it’s the logical end to this.

I’m just saying, why are we rushing to that end?

I think that some people who helped to pioneer this industry are starting to feel left out in the cold.

Speaking as one of the voting Members, I can honestly say that prior to voting I had actually seen about 90% of the nominees. Why? Because I work in this medium and make it my job to know what is out there; what I wasn’t familiar with, I watched at least one episode of and, if I liked it, I watched more. I can’t speak for all the voters, but knowing some as I do, my guess is they did some version of my process. Which is to say, the Members of the IAWTV were chosen because they are active members of the online video community.

I think the term “Indie” is a bit of misnomer; even in film this term is not always accurate. (Is a Fox Atomic film truly independent?) Truth be told, “Dr. Horrible” is an “Indie” project. Funded by Joss and his partners completely outside the Old Media studio system. Did he have an advantage in his access to quality talent? Yes, but calling in favors from friends is practically the definition of “Indie.” Frankly, that is how our show got Rosario Dawson. She did a favor for a friend in voicing a minor-but-important character in our first show, Afterworld, and from that experience we asked her to help us put together Gemini Division. And here’s another shocking fact: Gemini was “Indie” too. We were funded by one of my two partners in Electric Farm, not NBC or Sony, who were only the online distributors of the show; making deals for distribution should not negate a project’s “Indie” status. Unless “Indie” must be equated with “Unseen.”

Just to beat this dead horse a few flogs longer, I see many of what I would classify as “Indie” web shows on the nomination list – After Judgment, The Haley Project, Wainy Days, With the Angels. And I voted for all these shows in various categories. In fact, my personal favorite show for 2008 was IQ-145; I voted for it in the first round but, apparently, not enough other Members felt the same way I do. That happens.

I am also a member of the WGA (Writers Guild of America) which is one of the long-standing Hollywood unions. In the 12 years I’ve been a member, I have seen the voting process constantly evolve as refinements to the process take place. I remember the days of free screening around Los Angeles to encourage voter awareness of all the projects. Those screenings were replaced by screeners to simplify the process; I’m sure in the near future it will all be done digitally. But the point is, it’s a process that will naturally evolve with the Streamys. I trust the Founders of the IAWTV to keep striving for the best – you see it in their sites and, when you meet them, you see it in their eyes. They want to make web TV special. As do we all.

But that’s just words, right? I will make a pledge here and now. That if Gemini wins an award for which I get a moment to speak, I will personally plug my favorite web show that wasn’t nominated this year. That’s not just to those in attendance – the ceremony is being broadcast live on the internet, and I will use the forum to promote the unappreciated. And maybe if a few other winners follow suit, the Streamys will take its next evolutionary step – right before your eyes – to becoming the official “Voice of the Online Community.”

Hi Fabian, it’s called analytics/ view reporting that some productions can see. Welcome to the internet.

This is a transparent process, as we are told. So guys, how long did the academy members have the list of nominees before votes were final? If it was 3-4 days as I suspect that is easy to track. I believe that is how long views were seen from your resources page. Yes, I know some productions had been seen previously by some academy members. But the ones that had not did not get their chance. And there were plenty.

Remember, the academy was largely put together later on. It’s not like they were sitting around right after nominations were in, looking over the list of submissions. I think they only had the list of all the productions for a few days. I’m not sure though. Someone shed some light on that, please.

A lot of good comments here.

@Butch, just to be clear, I’m not saying that web TV industry should be dominated by Hollywood. I’m saying we need to embrace them and allow their stature to help build-out and grow the category. To your point about “As more money comes to internet programming, the smaller producers will become more and more marginalized”, that’s the responsibility of the Tubefilter/NTV/Tilzy group to not let that happen. It has to be a balance and they’re the ones who need to figure out what to report on and publicize. My gut tells me, they’ll do the right thing and have a good mix.

Also, we indie producers have to accept that it’s worth the tradeoff on giving up some coverage for more absolute viewers. Would you rather have 40% of web media coverage that reaches 1,000 people? Or would you rather have 5% of media coverage that reaches 100,000? (e.g., 400 vs. 5,000).

@Fabian, Agree with a lot of your points but think there are some nuances here as well. I’m not sure which show you represent (please let me know), but it’s an incredible feat if you are the little guy in a category with some of the bigger players. So congrats on that! Also, I agree that all the current nominees are more than deserving and that the academy is comprised of web TV pioneers and rightfully so.

I think the nuance in this discussion (at least for me) is whether we want to have the “little guys” fight for spots against the “big guys”. Again, it would be incredibly rewarding to get a spot against bigger budget productions, etc., but there’s also something to be said about picking a handful of “moonlighting-filmmakers” who are “weekend warriors” putting together “run ‘n gun productions”, and having them have their own category. This gets more to the acknowledgment of the “little guys” that I think some of the other posters feel is lacking. To me, it’s as simple as breaking out the categories. Dr. Horrible? Gemini Division? BSG? GREAT shows. High quality shows. And I don’t know if I want to compete against them! ;)

Also, to the point about “pounding the pavement, marketing, advertising,” budget and resources are large drivers of this. So while my team might be doing all we can marketing, it’s not going to go anywhere near as far as a series with deeper pockets or better PR contacts. Throw in the growing clutter in the category, and it gets extremely difficult. You know what’s funny? I’m a huge Yankees fan, so it’s ironic that I’m starting to see the flip side of the whole equation!

Anyway, I agree with most of your points but feel that the bigger issue isn’t whether the nominees are deserving or not (they certainly are), but whether there should be a different category for the lower budget series.

@Brent, good point about the definition of “indie”. The fact though that the “little guys” are conversing with those who have worked in Hollywood does say something positive about the web medium.

Rosario & I will be there at 7:15 :)

Great points Andy! The question of whether the “little guys” should be going against the “big guys” is a good debate. Personally, I think it’s good for the medium (as we all know big budget doesn’t always translate to higher quality)…BUT, there may be a way to incorporate more categories in the future in order to give the small guys a better chance to shine.

It’s funny, because many of the “big guys” started out as the “small guys,” but their greats shows enabled them to make some $$$ and some connections, and therefore enabled them opportunities with studios, large sponsors and distribution deals. Of course, I’m speaking more of the Guilds/Big Fantastics than of the Children’s Hospitals or Battlestar Gallacticas, but this difference could make it trickier to decipher the categories if we were to divide the Big vs. Small in the future.

It’s true, with big production budget comes more money and traction for PR, advertising, etc…and that leverage (maybe more than anything else) can KILL the small web producer in the competition for views….LUCKILY we have the guys like Tilzy, NewTeevee, Tubefilter, Daisy Whitney who are helping to expand the reach of the little guys!

And thanks Jacki, for your response. I am aware of analytics software, Jacki, just not the kind that can track the academy members IP addresses and notice a “drastic” increase of academy viewers over an unknown (to you) period of time…

I am VERY confident that these Academy members made educated, knowledgeable, decisions during the voting process. Most of the members already knew MUCH more about this landscape and the existing shows than the general public (or other show producers). If there is something to be concerned about, it’s not the question of whether or not the academy members made educated decisions.

A lot of great and more importantly fair points. My first impression was, how is this really any different than the Webby’s?

I think maybe you can qualify categories by budget because I can understand the David vs Goliath sentiment. Getting nominated for a Streamy shines a light on those shows. Winning would expose them further. Does BSG really need any help? Let them win a Webby.

lol, frankly this thread sounds a lot like a debate over an election for class president/prom queen – popularity vs. talent, in-crowd vs. outcasts, suck-ups vs. rebels, etc.

its nice to be recognized by your peers, but every award show is imperfect.

And if Tay Zonday doesn’t win, I’m boycotting, umm, something.

@Brent Friedman – Thanks for that, you said a lot of things I would have had I not been so afraid of saying the wrong thing.

And as one of the little low budget “indies” that’s nominated against BSG, I’m happy it’s in the running. It’s a great show on its own, separate from the TV series, and is worthy of the attention.

The web is actually the only way our family watches television, even my husband’s shows (like The Simpsons and Reaper) and my new sci-fi (sort of) addiction (Dollhouse) are watched via web services like Hulu. Given the pace of modern life, it’s just easier since you can choose to watch things on your schedule rather than a network’s.

I’m so glad to see Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog as a nominee, I thought it was both hilarious and musically interesting, quite an accomplishment really.

Just wanted to thank everyone for the nomination! I’m totally flattered and honored. Working with such an amazingly talented group of people on “30 Days of Night: Dust to Dust” was a blast! They certainly deserve most of the credit for making me look like I knew what I was doing! Haha!

Just double checking the nomination posting, was After Judgement supposed to be indicated as nominated in both the best comedy writing and best dramatic writing categories?
Is this an error in the posting?

@daveandtom – the official list is at the Streamys website. Check there to be sure.

we are curious if no one on the nominating committee is allowed to vote for projects they themselves are affiliated with, then how did 85 percent of these people and shows get nominated as finalists? For example the agent of Felicia is on the board as are several cast members, co-producers, distributors,editors and producers of the shows she and most others are nominated for just scraping the surface of the tight closed web here. Shouldn’t some note be taken for balance as there is basically one to no degree of Felicia seperation in every category and most importantly she is a client, business partner and compatriate of everyone inducted from her ICM agent, to Joss Wedon, Sangit, Kim Evey, Sean Becker, Uta, Legend of Neil, Nathon Fillion, she was the invited guest of Tubefilter event, on and on. You see the point? All the nominees deserve their nominations it’s just they are the only thing on the menu

The Streamy Awards = Another incestuous internet video organization. A la Channel 101. What a shame.

So… how about that audience voting? Starting today?

“So… how about that audience voting? Starting today?”

I was wondering the same thing. I can’t believe the awards are in 12 days.. Hopefully they get their shit together. The Streamy’s are becoming the internet awards equivalent of vaporware.

If the only thing that were to come out of the Streamys were this conversation, that alone would validate them and make them worth the effort. We need, as a whole, to start having serious conversations about what we expect and desire the web television industry to be and how we are going to go about making those desires and expectations a reality. And while LA is undeniably a hot bed for production, these discussions need to be global and incorporate not only the veteran professionals but anyone who is making a serious attempt at producing good work for the web.

We are the pioneers. This is the only chance we get, and our only advantage is that there’s no money in web video right now. That’s not going to last. We either work together to map out the future of this industry now, or we don’t, and these decisions will be made for us by the people with enough money and influence to drown out our numbers and our enthusiasm.

There are many, many good points here, and while obviously some are opposing opinions, they are all valid.

I congratulate Brady, Drew, Marc, Joshua, and Jamison, Liz, Liz, and Chris on putting this all together. It’s not perfect, but realistically, how can it be? No matter the promise of the idea, perfection is never obtained on the first draft, and we all know it. Tubefilter, NewTeeVee, and Tilzy deserve our respect for busting their asses to get this done, regardless of if it’s done the way you, I, or someone else may have done it.

For those of you that disagree with or disapprove of this year’s awards, great! It’s perfectly valid, and I’ve seen plenty of good points raised. But rather than making assumptions, placing blame, or simply discounting the whole affair off-hand, I encourage you to sit down and really think about it. If you would have done things differently, HOW would you have done them differently? Put it in a list and offer it as suggestions to the IAWTV.

I’ve seen nothing that suggests Brady, Marc, and the rest aren’t already planning on how to improve on the show for next year. On the contrary, I’ve seen Brady specifically taking suggestions and talking about changes and improvements for the future. If your worries or frustrations are justified, I’m positive that your suggestions will be taken into account.

That said, the Streamys are just a small example of the bigger issue. One of the reasons we keep fighting for “respectability” and “legitimacy” is because we have, as a whole, done a particularly shittastic job of communicating with each other and representing ourselves as a group.

The very reason the traditional industry has unions is for the individual to be represented by a singular voice that speaks for thousands and fights for their rights and wishes. There is no web television union (yet), so it’s up to us to find a place to hash out the numerous issues we’re faced with. I created a forum on Broadcast Assassin for this very purpose, but this isn’t a plug post and whether it’s on my site or elsewhere, it still needs to happen.

What do we want from SAG, IATSE, and the other unions whose members we hire? What’s a fair deal, and who negotiates it?

What do we want from the advertisers? Is anyone really happy with the pocket change CPMs our independent shows get (when they get them) while Hulu’s pulling in $40-$50 CPMs for network TV shows?

How do we make sure that a great show, regardless of who makes it, gets a shot to find an audience and make a profit?

We need to be organized. We need to draw up the bigger picture. And most of all, we need to start talking to one another. If the IAWTV, made up of members of our little industry, can’t have a clear picture of what we all collectively want, how can we expect the rest of the world to? Find a place to start having conversations just like this one on a regular basis, or before we know it, everything we love about producing for the web – the “even playing field”, the immediacy, the ability see our projects find an audience on an unprecedented scale – will be jeopardized.

-Jeff Koenig
CEO, Broadcast Assassin

Amen to that, Jeff. Thank you.

Apparently I was in a ’set bubble’ all weekend as I was shooting a commercial and didn’t see the controversy surrounding the Streamy nominations. I am surprised by the needless vitriol but also understand some people’s frustration with the nomination process…and debate is always healthy. Regardless, what the people behind The Streamys are doing is ground breaking. They are attempting to create a legitimate platform upon which web series can be celebrated and brought forth more into the public eye. 5 years from now people will forget this squabbling, or at least it will be about the regular ‘they ran a great marketing campaign so got a nom’ quip that permeates EVERY awards show.

I know I speak for everyone who worked on ‘After Judgment’ that we are humbled and honored to have received so many nominations. Being the little guy, the small indie production, we are thrilled to be included in lists that include such successful web shows like ‘Dr. Horrible’ and ‘Gemini Division’. I look up to Felicia Day and what she has created with ‘The Guild’ and would only hope that she received multiple noms. There is a reason for her popularity, it’s called innovative, hard work. I have personally seen Tubefilter’s presence in the web community (and even mainstream Hollywood) escalate to pretty amazing heights since I met them all last fall and from my vantage point it’s been because of their love of web content and their entrepreneurial spirit. Hey guys- just put on your blinders and keep on barreling ahead. You have much to be proud of, as does the Web Community. Congratulations to all the Nominees and to everyone out there putting their creative talents behind a web show.

Taryn O’Neill
Producer/ Actress
AFTER JUDGMENT

I think that if there was a message board surrounding Oscar nominations, there would be just as much controversy. And as much as I hate that our series wasn’t nominated, it’s good to see somebody starting an awards show to help legitimize web series.

AJ Wedding
http://www.infamousweb.tv

My goodness. Lots of comments. Well, Streamy or no, we still enjoy doing our series

http://www.koldcast.tv/video/the_scarlet_letter

Watch it please and don’t have to worry about voting for it. ;-)

Full disclosure, I am an IAWTV member, so feel free to take what I say with whatever grains of salt seem appropriate.

I think that all of this debate, minus some of the more personal attacks, is healthy. Any new art form takes a lot of sorting out and a lot of soul searching from the artists creating it, and to expect any sort of consensus just a few years in is not realistic. Perhaps as unrealistic as trying to sort out the commerce versus art debate that infuses any sort of art worth pursuing. That said, a few reactions.

First I want to echo a dominant theme here that despite any flaws, what the founders of The Streamys are trying to do is important and beneficial, and I am grateful to them for doing it. Whether you believe in awards shows or not, or think of them as political boondoggles or popularity contests, I would argue that having a mechanism in place to recognize excellence (leaving out the word “best” deliberately here) inspires artists to strive for excellence. It also helps what I believe is a still uphill battle to separate out legitimate serialized shows from the one-offs, short films, and skating dogs that surround them. Further, I believe that all the founders of this event are doing what they do not for self-aggrandizement as some have implied, but out of a deep love for the art and the artists who create it. Having spent five years working for a festival whose sole purpose is to support independent artists and help them further their art, I know what it is like to be hit with the brickbats for taking an imperfect path. Any choice you make will eliminate a different choice that someone out there would have preferred. So for the founders, as others have said: filter out the negativity, take the useful feedback, and do what you are already doing–focus on making 2010 even better.

Second, while the “indie” vs “hollywood” or “big” versus “little” debates are worth having, I firmly believe that budget does not equal quality, and any correlation is ultimately minor. Talent, vision, determination, clarity of storytelling, humor–I could go on, but you get it–these things determine quality. Yes, there are some shows on the list of nominations that have bigger budgets than others, but how many web shows with equal or bigger budgets crashed and burned last year because no one wanted to watch?

Further, speaking only for myself, I would argue against breaking out a special category for certain budgets or for “independent” candidates. The defining nature of a work of art should not be how much was spent on it, or even who spent it, but how the creator conceived it being experienced. If it was conceived as a web show, it should be judged against other shows conceived in the same way. (The question of what makes a web show distinct from other types of serials is something I won’t get into so as not to sidetrack the debate.) For the purpose of an awards show, I think the current approach is a good one. If some enterprising person out there wants to start an awards show that they view as the “Spirit Awards” to the Streamy’s “Oscars”, by all means do it. But for the first crack at this, a broader definition has the greatest benefit.

Finally, I would also like to congratulate the nominees. Before joining the NYTVF, I worked as an opera director–an art form that I suppose is still relatively young at 400 or so years, but I wasn’t around to see it being born. The chance to see something new developing in all its fabulous messiness is something I would not trade, and I salute all the artists who have jumped in and started telling stories.

See you at the ceremony.

Ned Canty
Festival Director
New York Television Festival

@NedCanty,

Great comments. Definitely agree that Streamys is a fantastic step and that the organizers have done a tremendous job putting this together. no doubt that this is great for the industry.

Full disclosure on my end: I am not in the academy but our series is nominated for a couple of categories (thankfully).

One point that I respectively disagree with is the budget issue, although I understand your POV. Here’s my take. I liken this to a boxing match. A heavyweight fighter really should not be fighting a feather weight. Body type, power, etc., is too different and it’s not a “fair” fight even if the featherweight fighter is extremely skilled. This isn’t to say that a featherweight can’t be “pound for pound” a tremendous fighter, but a good heavyweight fighter is more likely to beat him (or crush him).

I know some will argue that creativity, good writing, etc is NOT limited by budget and I totally agree with this. However, FILM is a visual medium and in general, people appreciate higher production quality. And there is a big difference in quality delivered to an audience when budget differences range from, say $200 per episode to fill-in-the-blank. On top of that, marketing dollars adds to how far your audience reach is (word of mouth shouldn’t be a marketing tactic), which impacts your popularity in viewership.

The way I look at this is that some series out there (including ours) have to rely on inexperienced volunteer type support. To use a specific example, an indie run ‘n gun filmmaker’s sound person on set might be a friend’s hungover cousin who had nothing better to do on a Saturday. This person has NO film experience but the filmmaker needs help so he takes him on. The filmmaker will tell him, please point the shot gun mic to where they’re speaking, etc. But this guy has no experience to know when sound is being blown out or that volumes are too low, or that there’s a bird chirping incessantly in the background. Point is, you get what you pay for.

Compare that to a series with a larger budget who can afford to hire somebody who knows what they’re doing and can make adjustments to keep sound quality high. All these little bits contribute to the final product, and that’s why a lot of times indie productions don’t have the best lighting, because they can’t afford to higher experienced gaffers. And unlike bigger budget productions, it’s harder to convince talented folks to work for free (or deferred) when you have less of a track record. That’s part of the difficulties in living in the low budget indie world. These filmmakers do the best they can with their budget, resources, and talent that join their teams. But the levels of talent one can expect with low budget is very different than when there’s a bigger budget.

That all said, I’m still trying to wrap my head around what the best solution is. My main point though is, budget DOES matter in quality. It’s not fair to say to someone, “hey, if you write something great, you’ll have a product that can compete with battlestar gallactica.” Because that’s not true. There are certainly exceptions to the rule but in general, a bigger budget show with a more experienced crew will beat out an avg. indie filmmaker and his inexperienced crew (note that I said average. There are a ton of crappy big budget films but there is even MORE crappy indie films we never heard of because, well, they’re so crappy).

Filmmaking is the collaboration of many, many people. And money contributes to the overall talent level of these people. I think one of the underlying issues to all the debate above is “what is the true objective of the Streamys”? If it’s to only recognize the best on the web, then truthfully, maybe there shouldn’t be a separate categories for lower budget productions, because 9 times out of 10, the better content (as defined by mainstream) will have higher budgets. And I think that’s totally fair game.

However, if the objective is to acknowledge a broader group of web filmmakers, then it seems to make sense to expand categories to include more of the “little” guys, who will never beat out Battlestar Gallactica. It really just depends on what the Streamys organizers want this awards show to be.

My last point is that the only place in which you can truly evaluate and compare the quality of “conception” of a show is in the writing stage. Once you put writing into filmmaking execution, money becomes a factor.

Just my 2 cents. And as usual, take my comments with a grain of salt as I’m one of the low budget folks.

Good points Andy. The objective must be clear to reward levels of “excellence”

For next years will someone please watch our series for Streamys consideration to get us out of the garage? :-)

We tried this year but the money for a “campaign” to get Invention with Brian Forbes nominated but the money went to buying a tin of meat for the dog. So, I don’t think anyone on the nominating committee got to hear of it’s existence.

Here it is http://www.koldcast.tv/video/the_scarlet_letter

@Andy,

You make excellent points, and I do agree that in the right hands a healthy budget is most often a help rather than a hindrance. What I am slightly uncomfortable with is the idea of breaking down the categories or awards by cost. I know that part of this is looking at it from a comparative point of view–that is, I know of no awards show that separates out awards in this way. That is not an argument not to do it, but it is certainly part of my reasoning.

I speak only for myself in all of this, but I think that one of the chief benefits of The Streamys will be to help solidify the idea of web TV as a legitimate and distinct genre. My fear is that introducing budget into the consideration in some ways works against that, reinforcing some of the prejudices that are still out there.

Certainly the independent film movement has faced some of these same issues over the years, in part because no one was ever clear if “independent” meant “no studio money” or “artsy/alternative”. Again, I’m not sure where this takes the debate, but a lot of the momentum of the movement came when little guys with small budgets like Kevin Smith or Edward Burns were able to compete with the big guys on the same playing field.

In the end, no single event or organization (of festival for that matter) can meet all the needs of so many artists. All they can do is have a clear mission that they follow closely. Everyone involved seems to be open to seeing that mission more closely defined over the next few years, and this sort of debate will only help that.

Thanks again for the cogent arguments, and hope to meet you at the event.

Ned

@Ned, agree with you. I think they should certainly keep overall best categories as they have it now, where it is purely budget agnostic. My main thought is that perhaps there could be some separate categories outside of the “top/best” categories.

Looking forward to meeting you too.