This morning I read a review of Google Video in PCMag (my favorite bathroom companion, and the magazine that first led me to Revver.com). I suddenly realized what bothers me about Google Video and YouTube, and I sent the good folks at PCMag the following letter.
I suspect my odds of getting printed are just under the odds of any of my Reader's Digest jokes getting published (I once got close enough that a Reader's Digest editor called me to ask specifics about my joke, but it never saw light of day). Anyway, here's the letter:
Dear PCMag Editors:
Two of my favorite brands are PCMag and Google. So when I read your review on Google Video, I felt obliged to point out a frequently overlooked distinction between Google video and the rest of Google. Whereas regular Google facilitates a user's access to the Internet, Google video is a giant reservoir of videos in which Google manages all of the advertising... and shares none of it with creators.
I want my website indexed by Google because I can attract visitors and serve ads to them while I solve their needs. But what's my incentive to submit my amateur videos to Google? It's called "video sharing," but it's missing a big chunk of the sharing. I'm sticking with Revver.com (which I learned about from PCMag), because I make 50% of the profits when advertisers click my link. Google and MyTube may give me a giant audience, but fame isn't paying for my next video camera or PC.
-Kevin H. Nalty
P.S. www.revverberation.com is my new blog on Revver.com if you're interested.