Amanda, One Billion Dollars and The End Game

I love YouTube.

It’s where we regular folk find cool videos to watch. So I was a little peeved when Amanda Congdon put together a cool video and asked that it not be posted on YouTube or other distribution sites. WTF?

But I’ll get to that later.

First, here’s why YouTube isn’t worth a billion dollars.


It’s not really a part of the end game.

That’s because the end game has nothing to do with your computer.

The end game is in your pocket.

It’s everything, always on, when you want it.

Wherever you are.

What’s more important:

Your desktop or your laptop?

Your landline or your cellphone?

Everything important moves.

Ever looked at your kids MySpace page?

Know why it’s so ugly, and why she doesn’t care?

Because it’s transient. It’s fluid. It’s going to change anyway.

It’s on the move.

Like everything else.

But back to Amanda.

Value in the future (now!) is all attention based.

And how do you get attention?

By tearing down walls and being everywhere.

Just like some cat created the limited liability corporation and changed wealth creation in the 20th century, somebody’s going to create some way to deal with content control in this century.

Until then, your best bet is to go with the flow.

Explore posts in the same categories: Amanda Congdon, cellphones, llc, movement, MySpace, The End Game, YouTube

43 Comments on “Amanda, One Billion Dollars and The End Game”

  1. Brian Says:

    The corporation dates back to 1602 and the Dutch joint stock companies.

    The limited liability company (LLC) was not introduced in the US until 1977 (Wyoming), but was conceived in Germany in back in 1892.

  2. chartreuse Says:

    Thanks for the history of the corporation. Really.πŸ™‚

  3. Brian Says:

    Anytime I can help clarify tangential sentences tacked on to the end of otherwise great posts, I’m here.πŸ™‚

  4. Mark Says:

    I think Amanda has something up her sleeve that’s she’s not sharing and it’ll be interesting to see how it pans out. Also interesting, ZeFrank is credited as a writer in that video.

    She’s a smart girl. I can’t help but think there is a bigger reason why she’s not “going with the flow” of content sharing.

  5. chartreuse Says:

    I know she has something up her sleeve. But the content sharing thing I don’t get.

    And Brian, I like that sentence. There are some big words in it!

  6. Brian Says:

    Mark, I think she’s following Ze on the “no You Tube” thing.

    There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding regarding You Tube’s licensing language in its terms and conditions. She and ze seem to think that You Tube can republish their content elsewhere without consent, and that’s not true — the license expires as soon as you withdraw the content from the site.

  7. Minic Rivera Says:

    Zefrank who co-wrote that video also has that statement in his videoblog. It says: “please DO NOT upload these movies to youtube or any other vid hosting site”

  8. Adam Elend Says:

    How come no one’s mentioning the clickable ad at the end of her post? To me, that seems reason enough to limit the Youtubing (though I agree with Char and everyone else that putting up walls is the WRONG way to do this kind of stuff).

    Still, I must say it’s an interesting ad concept – watch the whole video and the end frame is a card advertising msn that’s clickable (gotta love quicktime) and takes you right to the video it advertises.

    The first tag on her video is, after all, experiment.

  9. Brian Says:

    Adam, that’s Revver, and I guess that would come out if hosted on You Tube. That’s the real reason, and it’s good enough for me. No one should be forced to give content away forr free, even if Char disagrees.

  10. chartreuse Says:

    Site Security: Keep an eye on that Brian dude. He seems like a troublemaker…

    I really don’t think that the Revver ad is the reason for the NO YouTube statement though…


  11. Man she looks hot. I like her when she’s sultry like that. All angry and hot.

  12. Mark Says:

    Loren –

    Down boy.

  13. Brian Says:

    Amanda says Revver is the reason (finally) in the later comments of her post.

    Why wouldn’t that be the reason, after all?

    You haven’t joined the Web 2.0 Socialism Party have you?πŸ™‚

  14. chartreuse Says:

    I love a good party, but too many broke chicks there!

    I guess revver’s a decent reason. How much can she make off of that?

    Wouldn’t she make more just wearing some company’s T-Shirt?

  15. Mark Says:

    To further clarify what Brian discovered, she also states she’s not opposed to YouTube. She just requests that no one post the video there as is, otherwise she won’t receive any revenue from Revver.

    From her site comment —

    “…Anyone should feel free to cut up the piece and play with it… and post it wherever. But please just don’t upload the vid *as is* somewhere else, or I will not receive any ad rev. You see, I am trying to make some money with the Revver ads…”

  16. Brian Says:

    Now you’re talking Char. But I don’t think either Amanda or Ze are into the ad sales thing. They will need help with that, and I’m sure that’s part of the deal Amanda says she’s cooking up right now.

    And also, anyone who is not already famous like Amanda and Ze should work You Tube like nobody’s business to GET famous. But beyond that, we are defitnitely moving into the monetization phase of online video, and I can’t see You Tube making money without stealing Revver’s business model.

  17. Mark Says:

    I’m still not buying that as the final reason though. I think it’s a smoke screen. Even with the gobs of traffic she’s getting at that unboomed site, she’s not making bank off Revver ads. She’s bigger than that currently, and her potential is way beyond that. I don’t see any real ROI for her, and that’s why I refuse to believe it’s her end game.

  18. chartreuse Says:

    It sounds like Amanda needs an agent who gets this internet stuffπŸ™‚

    And we are truly in the monitzation phase, but banner ads on the end of videos ain’t the answer…but that’s a post for another day…

  19. chartreuse Says:

    And I agree with Mark. That smells kinda funny…

  20. candice Says:

    In chess, the end game is the hardest part. That tends to translate elsewhere.

  21. Brian Says:

    No one said it was her end game Mark. This is clearly just an interim video until she launches her real project (she says so herself in the comments).

    There’s simply nothing wrong with making money off of something you release for free, even if it’s just a step along the way to the next big thing you plan to do.

  22. chartreuse Says:

    Candice, stay dry!

  23. Mark Says:

    I agree with you 100% Brian. My last comment was an afterthought of the one I left previous. I must have been typing it as you left yours.

    It wasn’t intended to be argumentative to your point.

  24. candice Says:

    Chartreuse, it has been raining the last four days straight, but is that what are you referring to?


  25. You got it boss. I’ve been watching him real close. Think it’s time I had a little talk with him. He’s a real smart ass.

  26. Brian Says:

    Thanks Mark, no offence taken. I, on the other hand, sound argumentative even when I’m just typing.πŸ™‚

    Hey Loren, while you’re watching me, can you tell me where you scored that hat you’re wearing in the picture at the table with Prince in NYC? It’s cool.

    Better yet, just send me one, and I’ll send you an authentic Texas gas station cowboy hat in return.πŸ™‚

  27. Amanda Says:

    Hey Char,

    I’m just trying to figure things out …experimenting. Ze’s been successfully using Revver and recommended them to me… so I thought I’d give ’em a go. Yes, this is an *interim* project…but hopefully one I can continue with as well after I start my next project. Right now I’m trying to work out a good deal… which, you know, takes time.

    Great new media commentary going on over here on your blog. I love your bio, btw.

  28. Andy H Says:

    And with that, I think we can officially crown Chartreuse as the king of comment baiting.


  29. Brian,

    What hat? What picture?

  30. chartreuse Says:

    Yeah Candice, that’s what I’m talking about. Keep me up to date, you’re my media down there!

    Amanda, the first wife hates that bio. Just remember to keep your mobile rights. In the end they will be most valuable.

    Andy, Amanda reads this site all the time. We go back to like…March.πŸ™‚

  31. Andy H Says:

    Ha, OK, but I stand by my comment. I’ve seen it happen many a time… it’s how you hooked me…

  32. chartreuse Says:

    This entire site was built on the back of your BizNicheMedia project.πŸ™‚

  33. Brian Says:

    Loren, thisun. Is that a Kangol?

  34. Minic Rivera Says:

    Yeah… Amanda reads this site… they go back to around March… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGoqFV4Kn14&search=chartreuse
    πŸ™‚

  35. chartreuse Says:

    The Blogging Times editor pull it up from the archives! Thanks Minic, you are like the New York Times!πŸ™‚

  36. howard Says:

    Minic is better. He can be trustedπŸ™‚

    How cool is that that Amanda is reading you. I feel part of an intimate crowd and like Loren says – those pictures of Amanda are red hot. wow.

  37. howard Says:

    I nominate myself as Charteruses wealth 2.0 advisor.

    I demand to be in charge of letting your readers know eher all your new found mobile rights wealth is being invested.

    I am kicking Fred’s and Trader Mike’s ass over at my site

    Do I hear a second

  38. candice Says:

    I’ll second you, Howard.

  39. chartreuse Says:

    Howard, I need to check my archives but I think you already are my financial advisor! If so, can I afford a new security guy? And can I really use my future moble profits as collateral?

  40. Minic Rivera Says:

    Char… what made you chose that Amanda photo? I’m sure you would have wanted another one from here… http://amandacongdon.com/photo/
    πŸ™‚

  41. range Says:

    The vid was interesting. Sure it’s a drag that you can’t embed it in your page through YouTube, but at least she’s got something out and between you and me, it’s better than this week’s RB. I just can’t get over the Austrian guys and Schwarzenegger.


  42. you cant even afford one site security guy. i was looking at your monthly expenses and it seems site securoty bought a chain of tatoo parlors

  43. chartreuse Says:

    figgersπŸ™‚


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: