Let’s start a dialogue!
So, before I get into to problems and solutions, let me just say that I appreciate all the volunteer work people have been doing to prepare for the Streamy Awards. I’ve been waiting four years for the 2nd Annual Vloggie Awards (not gonna happen), so it’s vitally important to me that the 2nd Annual Streamy Awards are successful and that the event continues for years and years to come. That said, however, these are the early years of the awards show, an adjustment period where we need to work through the kinks and adapt our methods to best serve the medium; web series.
A lot has happened over the past week: members of the IAWTV voted to finalize the nominations for the Streamys; official nominees were announced; and a For Your Consideration mail plan appeared online (later to be removed after many community members disapproved). As with any new award show, there are some issues that need ironing out… in an effort to keep this blog post brief, I’ll try to do some of this using point form.
Streamy Awards voting process
The nomination process, as judged by members of the IAWTV, was a long and difficult one. Members were sent an email on February 21st with a link to a web form on Polldaddy.com and were given until February 27th to complete it. The biggest problem was that there were hundreds of videos to watch and no way to save the form as you went through the different categories. This meant that voters had to either do it all in one sitting, or keep their browsers open and computers on until they completed it. Personally, I was scared my browser was going to crash… luckily it didn’t, but apparently Zadi Diaz’s did. FIVE TIMES! Perhaps a lot of this stress could have been alleviated if we had an ability to save our progress and continue another day.
Another issue was the videos themselves. Some videos were embedded in the header of the poll, but they weren’t necessarily the videos that were submitted by creators in the $10 certified submissions. In fact, they included videos published in 2010 and trailers, both of which shouldn’t count in the voting process. These mix ups, and the fact that not all shows were embedded in the header, meant that we had to visit every web site of every web series – which caused more issues since not all sites clearly displayed the date their videos were published (pretty important since we’re judging videos published in 2009).
Note: Streamy organizers are aware of the embed problem. If they embedded the wrong video for your series, please contact Joshua Cohen at joshua at streamys dot org with the proper embed code.
For Your Consideration program
Yesterday I noticed an email in my Spam Filter confirming our nomination for Best Hosted Web Series (W00T!). The email was sent on March 2nd and had detailed information on dates and deadlines for sending materials to help prepare for the final voting process and the Streamys ceremony. For those who were following Matt Enlow’s and my blog posts on For Your Consideration Screenings and DVD Screeners, this is where things get a little more controversial.
Screenings
It was announced in this email that there were going to be IAWTV For Your Consideration screenings in Los Angeles and New York on Thursday, March 11th. Nominees were asked to submit a one-minute video of their show by March 6th to screen at the events. This sounds pretty cool, I gotta admit, but there are a few issues that arise from this:
- How much can IAWTV members get out of a one-minute clip?
- Can people submit one-minute sizzle reels and trailers? Is that fair?
- Independent nominees may be too busy to make custom videos for the screenings, won’t major studios have the upper hand since they can hire someone to edit and submit this for them?
I love meeting my colleagues (especially at Tubefilter’s legendary meetups), so this is a fun idea, but I’m not sure showing one-minute of each show is going to give people a really good look at what’s out there.
Mail outs
Also included in the email was a link to the new For Your Consideration program, which offered nominees a chance to send DVD screeners or an email to IAWTV voting members. This was the pricing breakdown:
- DVD Screeners: $5.89/DVD. You send to all 220 members for $1295.80, or you could choose a smaller number of members to send them to that fits your budget (members are random).
- Emails: For $99, the Streamy Awards can send an email to all 220 members on your behalf.
And that was the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Upon hearing of this, many of us took to Twitter to get our frustrations out. Shortly thereafter we started to chat on TinyChat to discuss our concerns (unfortunately for me, my mic wasn’t working so I couldn’t really explain my stance… which is why I’m writing this blog post today). Over 50 industry professionals joined the discussion, including Streamys organizer and Tubefilter co-founder Brady Brim-DeForest, ICM agent and IAWTV board member George Ruiz, and many web series creators. A few things that came out of that conversation were:
- Members of the community are concerned and we really need to talk about these issues
- A group should be established (whether in virtual space or in the real world, or both)
- New media is all about new technologies. Why follow old media models of mail outs and screenings when we already have access to a free world-wide screening room already? (The web)
If anything, the best thing I think to come out of this discussion is that we’re creating a dialogue. Creators and Streamy organizers are having meetings and organizing the future together instead of apart. This is important, especially if you want the awards show to last and not fall victim to the same politics that killed PodTech’s Vloggies.
Note: The Streamys 2010 For Your Consideration Program (mail-out) is no longer available. It was taken down after the discussions last night.
A Potential Solution
As I said before, new media is about adopting new technologies. So why not create a web site around the nomination and voting process?
Public Submissions
Firstly, it’s really nice that we have the public submission option, but why not separate it from the certified (or creator) submissions? We could have a 100% fan-submitted (non-IAWTV) award for each overall series category. The Streamy Awards may choose whether they’d like to include this in the official ceremony, or if they’d prefer to announce the winners at the Craft Awards Ceremony, or even a live stream! (Online fans might prefer the latter) Separating the public submissions from certified entries would make it easier to manage the next suggestion I have for the future of voting.
Certified Submissions
Create a private site where creators can:
- Submit their own series for consideration; and
- Manage a profile that includes the name of the series, a brief description, up to 3 embedded videos (not including trailers or sizzle reels, and must be published in the correct calendar year), as well as a link to the series’ web site.
These profiles will make it much easier for voting IAWTV members to navigate through the hundreds of series they have to review (there were over 60 nominees for Best Comedy Web Series ALONE!) and find the videos they should be watching. This site can give all series a level playing ground when the member voting opens. Much like the Polldaddy form used this year, a similar form can be built into the web site linking to the series profiles, and giving IAWTV members voting accounts that allow them to make their choices and SAVE them along the way.
Once the technology is completed, this will actually give Streamy organizers LESS work. They won’t have to collect so much information because creators would have already done it themselves!
Your feedback
And you may find yourself… asking whether the certified submissions for this new site will cost. Let me know what you think of that idea. Should it be free? Are you willing to pay a small fee (this year’s certified submission was $10)?
And you may find yourself… wondering how to submit an embed code for your series since some corporation owns your work and you can’t upload it publicly? Blip.tv offers a private upload and embed service. You can upload your video there, set it to private, take the Flash embed code and submit it to the new site!
And you may find yourself… disapproving of the site because you want to judge on the show’s interactivity on the web? Fine! Link to the original web site to go see for yourself, especially in the case of Best Interactive Web Series. Again, I don’t want to take traffic away from the original sites, I want to make it easier for voting members to see the correct eligible videos and give everyone a level playing ground to be “screened”.
What is your opinion on all this? What do you think of my proposed solution? Have an idea on how to improve the process? Suggest it in the comments below!
Note: Keep in mind that some comments may be held for moderation, there is no need to submit your comment twice. Please do not use this as a way to promote your web series, but as a way to find the best solution for the future of the Streamy Awards. And, lastly, please be patient and kind with your fellow creators’ ideas… let’s keep this civil! We should come to a logical solution, not a revolution.
SUBSCRIBE
I think the first thing that comes to mind is “Thank you.” The fact that this dialogue is even happening with the IAWTV is great. Not only is there dialogue but it’s a discussion that people are paying attention to and making changes based off of. So thanks for caring enough about the medium and the event to talk about it all.
I have to agree with you completely that as an organization dedicated to the promotion of new media, it only makes sense for the IAWTV to develop a web-based submission and evaluation process. Your idea seems to be reasonable and fair. As content creators, we can and should manage submissions for consideration. That’s the very least we can do. We’re part of the community to so we can either help improve the process or be dissatisfied and complain. I vote that we all help improve the process and this seems reasonable. As for cost, I personally wouldn’t mind $10 for certified submissions. Realistically someone will have to pay for the maintenance of the site and that’s a small price.
All in all it seems like a lot better solution than 1-minute clips or mailings. I don’t even check snail mail anymore. Let’s no go backwards.
thx Casey for expressing your concerns – as a new player in the mix i’ve got my eyes and ears wide open hoping to help in anyway and like you – want to ensure that the Streamy Awards continue to grow/last for a long long time.
Casey,
First of all, thank you and everyone else who participated in that chat last night. It was the first chance I’ve ever had to be involved in any discussion about the awards. Despite not being nominated, I still deeply care about how the awards proceed in the future to make the process fair to all shows and creators. Given that, the opportunity to participate was very valuable to me.
It has been good to get an idea of how voting went this year. I think one of the things that angered me so much was the lack of transparency surrounding the entire proceeding. Having now gained insight into how things went, I know I can better showcase my material in the future, and can see how things were made difficult this year.
I very much like the proposal you have fleshed out in this entry. I think giving creators a bit more control in setting things up, as well as creating a space they can post their videos, is an excellent idea, as it makes it possible for them to ensure the accuracy of all the information. I also very much like your earlier idea of limiting FCY campaigns to the internet through webpages, social media such as Twitter, and other tools that can be accessed by everyone.
As for cost, I think that as long as the price is under $50, it should be fair to virtually anyone interested in submitting. I think that if you take the number of submissions this year as a base estimate, and line it up with the costs of running the website you propose, the overall cost per submission would be very low. And honestly, I only expect this field to get wider next year.
Also, to touch on a point that was discussed during your visit to New Mediacracy, I think one website with clear instructions will alleviate the problems of vast differences in technological knowledge level between show creators, and would create an optimized environment for everyone’s submissions. I think creators should either learn how to work on the web, or get someone on their team who does. But for those who for whatever reason can’t or won’t, this option would give them a recourse.
The only thing I can add to your suggestion is that, as someone who helps run a show website, I would have loved a little heads up of the windows I could expect voting members to visit the sites. For example, I know there was a first round of voting in mid-February. Unfortunately, that was also the weekend that the northeast was being slammed by record storms, and anyone using a hosting solution based in that area may well have had problems on their hands. I know we did – especially with video loading times. Not saying they need to tell us exact dates, but if I knew to be on guard during weekends, for example, I could have probably undone some of the damage from that snow storm.
One question for you: I understand there is a program to ensure that proper videos were linked. Is that only for nominees or for anyone who submitted. If any videos from Issues was embedded, I’d love to be able to assure the accuracy of them.
Wonderful post overall. Excellent ideas for how to improve the submission and nomination processes! Thank you so much for leading a discussion like this!
Apocalypse2001 (from twitter :) )
more people need to hear about what you’ve suggested here. You were very precise and clear. You didn’t write things that blurred your ideas. Good! :P
P.S. my site still needs a few tweeks. It doesn’t have a comment section :P
@Michelle: I’m not sure what you mean about there being a program to ensure that proper videos were linked. I believe the Streamys volunteers tried to get as many embed codes as they could, but some sites don’t allow embeds.
Only voting members would have noticed that some of the embedded videos were from the wrong year or the wrong video (not the one they selected themselves in the certified submission form). But going forward… if anyone has a series that is up for consideration and they are afraid the Streamys have embedded the wrong video, they can always contact Joshua Cohen as mentioned above.
Does that answer your question?
Casey – I think your online, show-managed screening room idea is pretty much what should be front and center for future Streamys. I think most of us in the IAWTV would prefer to look at stuff this way, because it is not event/time specific. I’d take it a step farther – I think the thing should be year-round. I’m just solidifying the idea in my mind as I type, but providing we keep the basic eligibility rules consistent (3 eps in a given year), encourage creators to make “official eligibility” submissions whenever they meet the min requirements, even if that is early in the year. Then IAWTV voters don’t have to try to watch 2,000 shows in January every year – they can watch as the shows become eligible (if they like). There’s more noodling that needs to be done here, but I think that combination is a winner. Actual “please consider X person for X award” should be done closer to award time (I’m working on a process for that in my brain), but basic “this show is eligible” could be done year-round.
Additionally, I think that shows should be able to campaign, at least over email (if not offline and with screenings as well – controversial, I know, but I’m working through a more detailed explanation for my own blog…soon). Shows that make their official submission (and I do think there should be a cost – this is how awards shows and film fests make income, and I think $10 is too low) should get access, at awards time, to official mailing lists of voters (or some kind of protected distribution system). Those IAWTV voters need to be able to opt-out of lists (I, for instance, would probably stay on the email list, but opt-out of receiving DVDs or anything in the olde tyme mails).
Anyway, thanks (as always) for being a thought-leader on this (I relish using douchebag day-job language on your cool blog).
-David
Creator, GOLD
Casey,
First, thanks for the Talking Heads reference near the end there.
Thank you for putting up this post. I tried to join in with the TinyChat last night, but for some reason everything was lagging behind by ten minutes, so I couldn’t participate and just followed along sporadically via Michelle’s computer.
Your proposal sounds pretty darn good to me. I understand that voting needs to be as streamlined as possible for the judges and without having seen the actual site that was used, the general idea sounds good. I love the idea of allowing the creators to manage profiles and ensure that what goes up is what they think best exemplifies their work. Along with eliminating the need for judges to waste time hopping from site to site, it eliminates the rest of the site as a factor when judging the show. Since some productions go beyond video (and I hope this trend grows), your suggestion of providing a link back to the actual site would take care of that matter. I wouldn’t want judges to have to watch every episode of every show, so the profile would be an excellent place for content creators to give some background and explain any interactive content or other bells and whistles that judges might want to be aware of, but simply don’t have time to play around with.
I was thinking yesterday that there should be some type of people’s choice awards for all of the different categories even if those awards aren’t connected to the Streamys for whatever reason. As nice as recognition from our peers is, we’d all be pretty sunk without a fan base encouraging us and, especially in the case of shows without corporate backing, kicking in some donations. That show wouldn’t have to be a big endeavor (I’ll save my rant on the actual Streamys presentation for another time), but instead could be a low-key, internet-based, possibly interactive (beyond voting, of course) affair.
Regarding the For Your Consideration program, I’m glad to see it’s gone. I could sort of understand the mailers, especially with the PollDaddy problems that you mentioned. The email part, however, was totally ridiculous. I could understand if some of this had been done much earlier in the process, but now that it’s narrowed down to the final nominees, everyone is pretty well aware of which shows to be looking at. Plus, I doubt you and the other judges would have wanted a bunch of form emails cluttering up your inboxes. Also, why on earth would it cost that much to send out emails?
Thank you, again, for providing this forum. I understand that a lot of things will need to be worked out by IAWTV members behind closed doors, but I appreciate the outreach to non-members, especially those beyond the L.A. bubble. It is, after all, the world wide web, and we need to think in those terms instead of falling back on the practices of older media.
Also, everything Michelle said gets seconded.
@Eric: Glad you got the Talking Heads reference… ;) I felt the blog post needed a little subliminal silliness.
“We should come to a logical solution, not a revolution.”
Wait…what? Are you sure you’re Casey McKinnion? ;)
All joking aside, I think that your potential solution is spot on. I would argue against costs of any kind to the creators, but that’s just me trying to watch out for the truly indie creators out there. The Streamy’s should absolutely utilize the web as efficiently and effectively as you’ve laid out, whether they were to follow your solution to the letter or find a comparable path. Nice thinking on this.
Matthew
I want to echo @Eric about reaching beyond the LA bubble. Being outside of the area makes it feel pretty difficult at times. Thanks for keeping others in mind.
I can also say the campaigning aspect is a little scary to me. Being that the medium is mostly dependent on independent producers, that seems to give an advantage to those who have been able to secure more additional funding for awards promotion. I would rather focus the funding on producing more shows and hopefully let the shows speak for themselves. That’s not to say active social networking and the like aren’t appropriate. I would just feel concerned about funded shows being able to crowd out indies. Mainly cuz I’m indie and poor as well. :-)
Casey mentioned on FB that she wanted thoughts from others on this topic. The following is copied from my response there. ;)
1. I think there’s a lot of great work that wasn’t nominated.
2. I think there’s a lot of great work that WAS nominated.
3. I think I don’t envy the tough choices ahead of you and the other IAWTV members that have to vote, although I am jealous of them (I procrastinated and didn’t apply in time to vote this year).
4. I think most of the FYC issues will be forgotten by Apr 11, though I’m encouraged by the progress the dialog has taken and the IAWTV’s quick response and willingness to adapt.
5. I think if we want to be here when the networks and studios move into this industry full force, we have to keep our priorities straight. Mistakes were made, yes, and are being addressed, but a broken system is still better than no system, or worse, a system where we’re once again the outsiders looking in.
6. I think that the Streamys represent the culmination of OUR work, OUR sweat, OUR efforts to mold original content for the web into something legitimate and recognizable. For every independent creator that’s worked to turn this from a hobby or a curiosity to an industry, the Streamys are an important validation of what we’ve collectively accomplished. We may have our disagreements, but at the end of the day we have to stand shoulder to shoulder, protect and promote each other like family, and never let our disagreements ultimately divide us. We’re building a multi-billion dollar industry from scratch. We won’t always agree on how to do that, but we are all doing it together.
Jeff Koenig
Broadcast Assassin
FilmSnobbery
Casey,
Thank you for offering such thoughtful feedback. Of course, many of your concerns — like the optimal format for an in-person screening and the shortcomings of the voting mechanism — have been considered exhaustively. All decisions have tradeoffs and, as a startup organization with significant resource constraints, growing pangs are inevitable. Honest feedback and earnest community support will help us improve. I have to say, despite a few hiccups, I’m very proud of what we’ve accomplished so far this season.
So, thanks, and please realize that we, like you, are devoted creators doing our best to build an engaging entertainment experience that supports and highlights an open ecosystem.
Jamison Tilsner
The Streamys
Good points guys, thanks for having a constructive brainstorm. As you can see the Streamys are listening.
There’s a lot of good ideas here, particularly in the way that voters can watch the series. It’s an evolving process — last year all the voters had were links out to the shows’ sites. This year there was a carousel with all of the videos that could be embedded through it. For the most part, it worked well. Some video players just wouldn’t allow for embedding in that system. Not perfect, but definitely improving. I know I was able to watch several series I had never seen before.
The Streamys is in many ways a scrappy, indie web show itself. It has people working for little or no money and relies on the favors of companies and talented people who can lend a hand. Resources are tight and we make the best of what we have to work with. We all believe in this space and want to see it grow and for creators of all kinds to make a living off of their creative online works.
Here’s to a bright 2010 for web series and online video. We’re all in this together.
Marc Hustvedt
:):):)
Marc,
Darn you for tugging at my heartstrings a little with that description of The Streamys. I’m supposed to be angry and you’re making it more difficult.
On the one hand, I understand that something that came off as really indie (and cheap) wouldn’t have a lot of appeal to the viewers and advertisers that we’re trying to get interested in the medium. On the other hand, I wish The Streamys had more of an indie feel and a bit less Hollywood glitz and glamour, but I have a rather low threshold of tolerance for those things in general, so I guess that’s more of a problem with me.
While I do like seeing folks get recognized for their hard work, I’m much more interested in the conversation that’s developing around the awards and the IAWTV. I think it’s really strengthening the community and I’m glad to see so many big names actively participating in the discussion. Within the past week or so I’ve gone from screaming my head off and plotting an East Coast uprising to being really hopeful for the future of this industry and this community.
Eric,
As I’ve said before, though it is a bit frustrating to be on the outside looking in, mainly due to a lack of transparency, I don’t believe anyone working on the Streamys is doing anything to intentionally promote or put down certain shows. And I think it’s helpful to clarify that it’s not anger I feel (well, maybe I did a bit over the weekend), but just general frustration because until Casey described the process, I had no idea how it worked. Now that I do, I can talk about it, instead of just getting angry.
Casey,
Yup, all questions answered. I was just confused by what you wrote regarding the improper links and who exactly it applied to. All clear now! And as I said before, wonderful ideas. I’d love to see this model or one very like it be adopted next year.
Jeff,
A brilliant post and great feedback, as always. This is why I miss having forums to hang out with you on.
David,
My only concern with posting videos throughout the year is that videos that post (and are watched) early may be forgotten by the time the final round gets in, much the same as web presence waxes and wanes as shows release and go dormant. I’m all for creators getting to load shows and manage their portfolios whenever they want, but I’m not sure if watching should occur all year.
Michelle – I hear your concern about the year-round thing, and I absolutely think that some sort of pre-voting push for everyone would be needed as well. But the simple fact (as reported on Streamys.org) is that some 2,000 shows were submitted this year. 2,000 shows will have a hard time getting an equal, fair screening in a 1-month timespan. And trying to be fair and equitable to 2000 shows is hell on the voters. Mistakes will be made. Good shows will be overlooked.
I think that, especially for small, indie shows like yours and mine, a heads-up in a less crazy time of year will at least help ensure that more than 1 episode (or even just a part of an episode) gets watched, which is the danger when 2,000 shows are competing in a really narrow timespan. It’s not an either/or – it’s an additional opportunity to get eyeballs on shows which, tho deserving, may struggle for brainspace in a narrow timeframe.
-David
GOLD
Really great conversation guys. I’ve been thinking about this whole situation alot (obviously), and I’ve been hesitant to comment until I’ve entirely formulated my opinions.
I will say, though, that there’s something deeply concerning about limiting the ways in which we communicate with one another. Controlling the distribution of Screeners, flyers, and e-mail (and what we say about other shows, which was in the fine print of the rules of the proposed FYC program) seems deeply antithetical to the ideas of the web and transmedia. Sure, no one wants to get spammed, but I’d rather suffer through a barrage of unsolicited e-mails and screeners for the chance to find just one transcendent communiqué from a fellow creator. The web is multi-media, just like ARGs, physical meetups, and yes, DVD screeners. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t have a distribution system for all of this, but there are limitations to the web that we seem to be ignoring. My show is not 100% digital, and doesn’t exclusively live online. A singular platform experience is always going to be insufficient, whether you’re at a screening, watching it online, or on DVD. Let’s open ourselves up to the true possibilities of transmedia communications.
Creating an official IAWTV website where creators can submit their web series and maintain their own profile is an excellent idea! It streamlines the submission process and eliminates the need for an official “for your consideration” DVD and e-mail program.
I was surprised when I heard the details of this year’s aforementioned “for your consideration” program. Creating a demand by hosting an award show and then profiting by controlling access to the judges sounds shady. I’m sure it was unintentional and I’m glad to see that the program was quickly removed.
I also thought, to a much lesser extent, that the initial $10 certified submission process was a problem. I had no issue with the amount but by having two ways to submit side by side, is there anyone who wouldn’t automatically think that the $10 submission would give them a better chance? In this case I think it was the presentation that brought up the questions. In the future I feel initial Streamy submissions should either be free of have a fee attached, one or the other. That levels the playing field for everyone and doesn’t cause confusion or speculation.
Hopefully all these issues can be ironed out by next year so we can all concentrate on enjoying the process and the awards!
PS – Casey, Please tell Rudy thanks for bringing up our knitting show Let’s Knit2gether on New Mediacracy #8. Our show is long running and successful in the knitting space but we realize it’s not one of the “cool” shows. We don’t get mentioned often outside knitting and it really makes our day. Thanks!