|
2006 ITV Class Links
Using PMWiki |
Main /
FirstAssignmentPaste your First Assignment below (don't forget to include a comment box below your entry and to enter your comments from Tiersky): - Amazon's Fishbowl - YouTube.com - CNN pipeline - MTVU.com - Rocketboom.com - Turbonick.com Write a 1-2 page summary of your experiences. What are the similarities? What are the differences between the media experience on TV, online and (optionally) on a protable device? Dig past the obvious. <Cheryl Furjanic, cheryl.furjanic@nyu.edu> Amazon’s Fishbowl Content Example #1: Teri Hatcher interview. Got to this video from the front page of Amazon.com. I have no idea how long this clip is – I don’t like that at ALL. Flash inset in the page hocking her book. I tried to rewind it at some point and had to start it from the beginning – that annoyed me. At one point, Maher makes a very funny – and relevant – joke to Hatcher about his medium: “You know that you’re on the computer [on his show]. You have a show on Television which is so 20th Century. I’m so over television. You with your top 20 show watched by 20 million – whatever. But books – people are still reading books.” Which was his segue into plugging her book. I wish there had been a control bar to skip around in the clip. This version of internet television seems like it is literally a way to put things that might have appeared on television, on the internet. Not compelling – except maybe to devoted fans of these authors/performers. (NOTE: The Hatcher interview, when not embedded as a window on her book’s sales page, also had the same time bar at the bottom, thankfully. Are they trying to make this still feel like a broadcast “show” by preventing me from skipping around in the clip?) Content Example #2: Indigo Girls Musical Performance. Sound was not great. I’m not sure if it was the computer speakers or not. At the bottom of the window was a small button called SHOW PLAYLIST which brings up the segments from that “program” as if they were chapters on a DVD. It’s interesting that they’re trying to use the typical broadcast programming idea of a “show” when at the same time all of the content is available in individual segments under category (Interviews, Musical Performances, UPS Special Deliveries and Episodes). Though I couldn’t jump around in the clip I was thankful to see a time bar at the bottom of the screen so at least I could tell how long it was. Youtube.com Part of the reason I love using YouTube is because of the integrated social network of viewers and built in “Neilson-like” ratings systems which are visible to all viewers immediately. Perhaps that’s the filmmaker in me talking. I also love the option of sorting by Most Viewed or Newest and sometimes even if I’m not looking for anything specific to watch I will check out the videos in these categories to see what is “current.” I can, at times, feel user “programmed” in that by watching one video you are led to others through the “related videos,” the metadata tags, the playlists or the director videos, among others. These kind of links allows you to use this site in the way your mind/the internet works to move onto a new ideas/video related to what you are watching/doing now. I have some of my own videos posted on YouTube and have also been really interested in the hit count, subscription and user comment aspects of the site. Though I enjoy the structure of the site, I am simultaneously amazed and annoyed that a clip of some drunk person falling into a pool might have a TON of hits, whereby a well-made (well thought-out, clever, well-produced) video might go largely unwatched. I have a slight obsession with understanding why a video “goes viral” and YouTube contributes to the ongoing mystery. The fact that YouTube calls its viewers “Users” is very interesting in that it implies that there is something to “do” on this site, other than just watch movies. Interestingly, there was an announcement made today that (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14885094/), “Warner Music has agreed to make its library of music videos available to YouTube, marking the first time that an established record company has agreed to make its content library available to the user-generated media company. Under the agreement, YouTube users will have full access to videos from Warner artists. They will also be permitted incorporate material from those videos into their own clips, which are then uploaded to YouTube. Warner and YouTube will share advertising revenue sold in connection with the video content.” The article goes onto state that, “By embracing YouTube, Warner has acknowledged that the technology behind user-generated websites could not be pushed back into a genie's bottle.” Corporate-sanctioned, user-generate video re-mixes. This is a fascinating next step in the evolution of Internet Television. Content Example #1: Bare feet in the rain. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0YZc5BX89c) (:07) I have been very interested lately (in making and watching) very short videos that show brief moments of everyday life. Though they are not “story driven,” I find them to be a welcome break where I get to see the way someone else sees the world without lots of quick cutting or embedded advertising. Often these shorts are one long take. That is what first drew me to the seven-second clip of Bare fee in the rain which I linked to by going to Recent Videos. It wasn’t as great as I thought it would be (the concept was more interesting to me that the execution) but I liked it. After that clip was over, in addition to the previous options of Watch Again or Forward to Friend there are now a series of, what look like, recommendations for other clips that are related in some way. So after Bare feet in the rain I was totally intrigued to see the Content Example below. (Not about Bare feet in the rain: When I went back to watch this clip again, I liked it less when I realized that, thomasdannerbauer, the person who posted the clip (http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=thomasdannerbauer) had a bunch of related videos that were all about his feet. I found this slightly disconcerting). Content Example #2: Noah takes a photo of himself everyday for 6 years. (5:45) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6B26asyGKDo). I loved this clip. It totally is what I’m looking for lately in content. I don’t know, exactly, how I would search for something like this because, often, these clips are the “you know then when you see them” kind. This one was great, to me, because it was the execution of an idea that I’ve had for a while (a variation of which, I’ve done before, and have seen before). I was really excited to see this succession of images of one person for 6 years, “growing up” before our eyes. After watching it I read the comments – which were varied, as usual, and point to the idea that once an idea/video is made public that any user reaction possible. In this case this video has been on YouTube for less than a month (it was added on August 27th), has had over 2,574,000 views and has inspired a handful of spoof videos (e.g. boy takes pic of self every second for 9 seconds, Phil takes a photo of himself everyday for 2 days, tribute to noah and other videos in the form of video comments). Borrowing and idea from Chris Anderson’s “The Long Tail,” - now that the most of our entertainment media no longer lives in the physical world – other things are possible. CNN Pipeline Content Example #1: LonelyGirl15 – on CNN Pipeline Top Stories. Wow, the level of mediation! I’m fascinated by the way this story has been picked up and dissected. The first footage in this story was from YouTube and the three producers from the LonelyGirl15 team are interviewed in the studio. One LonelyGirl15 producer tells the CNN anchor: “It really is because this medium is so new. I mean, when you’re watching these videos on the internet you have no idea where they’re coming from and up until now, nobody has been producing very much original content on the internet, so it’s sort of a new thing to even come across. And as I said before we’re going to see more and more shows like this and people are going to love it and continue to watch it.” Some points that I mentioned in my YouTube notes above were underscored by the producers, that they want to tell a story with the audience’s help and say that what they’re doing is fun and interesting and users are saying – let’s join this community. The producers are telling audiences to stay tuned, that the show is about the mystery. This interview seems to be a great way to sum up some of the things we’re going to be thinking about this semester and beyond. Content Example #2: 9/11/01 Rebroadcast. I found out about this from a full-page ad in the newspaper AM NewYork and though I didn’t actually see this when it aired (and I’m not sure I would have watched it if I had known it was on). I found the concept for this fascinating - that you could watch the events of a particular day as they were reported as they unfolded “live” 5 years ago. This gives the internet a bit of a way to serve as a “portal to the past” in a way that I find really fascinating. It puts a whole new spin on the “on this day in history” fact segments you sometimes see on the news or read in newspapers. NOTE: In a related story, from today’s Hollywood Reporter comes the following, which is another take on a similar idea of “re-living history:“ WWII front lines revisited in daily video podcasts. World War II just started for author-filmmaker Steven Jay Rubin. He and his production company, Fast Carrier Pictures, began a daily video podcast that presents the history of the Second Great War in real time without the benefit of hindsight or larger context.” (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/new_media/brief_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003123398) MTVU.com Content Example: Meet or Delete. I love this idea that MTV isn’t just moving their own television content online as some broadcasters are doing – but they re-thought the concept of the show and its relationship to its new location on the internet. Their television show “Room Raiders” (“lets contestants decide who to date, based soley on the contents of their bedroom” http://snipurl.com/krxd) became the Internet Television show “Meet or Delete” (Synposis: Would you reveal the innermost contents of your computer to a total stranger? Welcome to Meet or Delete, the show that hooks up dates, roommates, band members and more – one hard drive at a time. Their Mission: Get enough intel on each to figure out who would be the best match. And love connections are just the beginning – with Meet or Delete we’ll explore all the different ways people use their computers to find each other.”) (http://www.meetordelete.com/site/index.php) I find the transition of the physical version of this show into the virtual on-line really interesting. Rocketboom.com Content Example #1: Friday, September 15, 2006: Casual Friday. I watched the video of the day – the one that plays automatically when Rocketboom.com is loaded. Sometimes it annoys me that the content is loaded automatically but at the same time that adds to the immediacy of new video of the day. Each video is roughly 2 minutes long and, depending on the segment, can sometimes feel longer. Each show synopsis is written as “story links.” The Friday show’s links were as follows: joanne trains with flynn from the new york jedi lightsaber enthusiasts collective (each synopsis is actually written as story links. This episode already had 70 or so comments. The segment itself was entertaining, but somehow my admiration for Rocketboom is closely associated with its history. So a story of Joanne training with a Jedi lightsaber enthusiast is fun, but the idea that Andrew, Joanne and others are coming up with one of these ideas/shows per day and producing it for little money is part of the excitement. If I didn’t know better, I’d almost think that Condgon’s departure was a genius way to draw more/new attention to the show. Content Example #2: Rocketboom does have a search feature but I wasn’t sure what I was looking for, and unlike YouTube, I was not able to decide what to watch based on what other people are watching. Instead, for my second content example I decided to watch an old Condgon episode from the archives. I quite like that the archives are laid out in a blog –style with a still photo from each show. I chose a very old episode - October 27, 2004. There were no comments for this episode and the story links were as follows: parsec, java ateroids, ateroids hack, treasure box and samorost [via], thinking machine [via], yeti sports, google whacker, online election voting machine additional keywords: mike hall, rudy rucker, visual chess, seal bounce, scaremongering hayseeds. The subject of this show was online games. What I like about the way Rocketboom works is that you have the links right under the video so when you see something that interests you, you are able to go to the site and look it up right away. This also poses a problem related to the electronic ephemeral-nature of the internet whereby almost half of the links listed for this episode from two years ago no longer work. Turbonick.com Content Example #1: Embedded in the homepage (Nick Now!) was a video that started playing after the page had loaded. It is listed as one of “This Week’s Picks” the description of which reads: “Here’s what’s hot! Watch and clip, then click around for the WHOLE episode! NEW stuff each week! Play/Pause, Forward and Rewind buttons in addition to a time bar (which included the time of the program), volume and the ability to view the program full screen. I watched a 1.5 minute scene from Avatar: The Secret of the Fire Nation Part #2 – the tagline of which read, “Is Ba Sing Se safe? Click into TurboNick for the WHOLE episode!” Personally I couldn’t find the whole episode and don’t know if that meant that this episode is something you watch on TV or if it’s somewhere on the site that wasn’t obvious to me. At one point I was able to get the player to play an advertisement for Cookie Crisp cereal for which the pause and forward and reverse buttons were disabled – only the volume button was still operational. When the commercial ended a graphic said “And Now Back to TurboNick” – as if it were an ad on TV. The ability to change colors and graphic frames were options as well but seem like overkill and largely a way to keep kids engaged. A lot of what Internet Television seems to be about is having lots of choices available immediately. The ability to change these attributes seems in keeping with the need for choice, but makes this option/need even more explicit. Content Example #2: Nick Toons Channel – SpongeBob SquarePants: “Rock-a-Bye Bivalve” SpongeBob and Patrick raise a baby clam together. This episode promised to be Full Length! After a short commercial (which, again, you couldn’t pause or forward through), an 11:45 minute episode of the show started. Though I was excited that the entire episode where “SpongeBob and Patrick raise a baby clam together,” was made available for me to watch, I quickly got tired of it and didn’t want to sit through the 11 minutes. I might have done so if I had come across this on television and I was sitting on my living room couch, but watching this for this long on my computer didn’t seem like fun. Just because I could watch this, didn’t mean I wanted to. But perhaps I’m just not their target audience. CONCLUSIONS: Write summary of your experiences. What are the similarities? What are the differences between the media experience on TV, online and (optionally) on a portable device? Dig past the obvious. With some of the sites above, the theme of the content is what would pull users to the site. TurboNick seems to be for for kids, MTVU for teens and 20-somethings, CNN for people, mostly adults I would imagine, interested in news programming, Rocketboom used to be more focused on “what is hot on the web” (though now it seems more far reaching in its content covered), and Amazon’s Fishbowl seems to be for people interested in media about entertainment. YouTube, on the other hand, as their mission states, seems to be some kind of portal for or combination of all of these things. This seems to be the site that is most dedicated to viewer as user. All of the other sites feel as if the are the internet version of “plain old television,” where the user experience basically stops with watching the video. I think the exciting part of this class will be to figure out what makes “good” and “engaging” content beyond something that has high production quality or is the most popular thing on the web. I feel like we have already seen some interesting ways of using this “new media” and a host of others that we are yet to discover. Fiona (fc637@nyu.edu):Before this assignment I had seen Fishbowl, YouTube, and Rocketboom. Things I liked about them: Fishbowl has obvious permalink links to send the video to someone, as does Rocketboom. I actually think these links could be made more prominent, for people not used to video on the web. Rocketboom also has a great search engine that isn't just based on video tags, but seems to be based on the video transcript which is interesting. For example, if you search for 'cat', it brings you to the exact point in each video where that word was used. YouTube annoys me a bit, mostly because the site is just overwhelming with its variety of videos. It's almost like gambling, where you keep watching bad videos because you just have this FEELING that if you just look at ONE MORE video, it just might be the funniest thing you've seen yet. In looking at these different online TV formats, one term that I noticed which seemed to come up a lot to describe them was "variety show". Variety seems to be key because people now have the ability to pick and choose exactly what they want to see from an archive of shows. This leads to more specific, niche content since the videos, which are not constrained by schedule or time, no longer has to have general appeal. For example, CNN pipeline advertises that the subscriber can look up 'car crashes', something that I personally would have no interest in viewing. It's also not something you generally see on scheduled TV. This ability to choose shows enhances the 'power' of the user (a word that CNN Pipeline actually uses to advertise itself). This sense of power is also strengthened by the ability to view live video feeds simultaneously (as in CNN Pipeline), creating a sense of surreal and heightened awareness about the world around you (you are ‘immersed’ in 5 different live events at once, as if you’re some kind of superhuman). Knowledge of current events is power, and the ability to have access to as much current events knowledge as possible at any given moment equals more power (or more frustration, as 'The Paraodox of Choice' talks about). (As Howard pointed out in his comments, Pipeline fails in one aspect of user empowerment: it's difficult for the user to save videos, for example, in order to refer back to them later). In looking at sites mentioning TurboNick, I found it interesting that Nickelodeon comments about TurboNick, saying that it "compliments on-air programming", rather than saying that the programming compliments the site, or even simply saying that the site is a product in its own right. To me this suggests that the company is hesitant to fully embrace the idea of TV on the web, or has managed to deal with the inherent problems. In fact, I found complaints online that young people made about TurboNick's 20 minute long clips (not that long for any other internet TV sites) which they found to be too long. I'm guessing this is a result of the smaller viewing format since kids don't often complain about sitting in front of a big screen TV for hours. Also, TurboNick relies heavily on ads, unlike CNN Pipeline for example, and relying so much on ads seems like a kind of lazy and annoying way to fund themselves in a new interface. I tried to watch Spongebob Squarepants but the ads drove me crazy. Since much of the on-the-go video content is probably watched during the pockets of free time when the viewer is already feeling antsy and in need of entertainment, aren't they going to be less likely to tolerate the ads than they would zoning out in front of the TV? At least when there are ads on TV, I can mute them and ignore them while I surf the web, but when the ads are on my own computer, it's hard to get away. Maybe this will lead to a future of more interesting/intellectual or humorous ads, since ads could, after all, easily be an ideal length for small format viewing. As Howard pointed out in class, internet companies are considering allowing users to have options of which ads to watch, or links to ads. I would be curious to see if this results in infomercials rather than the eye-catching ads that we see on TV, where the ad serves as a kind of encyclopedia of knowledge about the product. Won Sup Shin, wss232@nyu.edu The “Two-Foot (or 12 Inch)” Interactive Experience What do you expect to watch on a video player on your PC? Other than portability or limitless playback options, what is good about online videos? I enjoy watching video clips online at sites such as Rocketboom, YouTube, or BlipTV. My appreciation of these online video sites stems from the fact that they allow me to peep into stories created without a professional producer’s touch. The pleasure I get watching these videos sometimes makes me want to grab my own DV camera or iSight to shoot anything that interests me. In addition, being able to amuse other people is a plus. In contrast to the experience of watching videos on YouTube.com or Rocketboom.com, online video sites that are tainted by “big media’s” professionalism, such as Amazon’s Fishbowl or CNN’s Pipeline, seem awkward when watched on a laptop. Although distributed online, and even though some are “available exclusively online,” clips with professional lighting, flawless editing, and typical cue-ins and cue-outs are unsuited for the 12 inch laptop. Bill Maher, host of Amazon’s Fishbowl, begins with his monologue, a worn-out format for “big media” talk shows. Turbonick.com and MTUV.com are generous enough to provide the audience with categories for so-called “User Created Content” (UCC). On these sites, however, the professional productions are the most appealing items and draw the most audience attention. UCC, which is key for online media, is dwarfed when shelved alongside videos produced by “big media.” Online video clips produced by “big media” will be more attractive to viewers if the luxurious features are removed. Anything that activates a sense of déjà vu, i.e., the feeling that you have watched it on your living room TV, such as familiar format, high-end stage layouts, or a director’s skillful touch, will make it difficult for these videos to fit the dimensions of the “two-foot” displays. Tae Ho Yoon, thy206@nyu.edu Internet Television: The New Mainstream Media - Experiential Assignment Nowadays, it is nonetheless true to affirm that the concept of “Internet Television” has become one of the most popular sources of entertainment. However, unlike the television and mass media, which have been in the sole mainstream media for a very long period of time, “Internet Television” demonstrates a strong dependency to the mainstream technology, more precisely the information technology. There is no doubt that the current popular sites as Youtube.com or Rocketboom.com were not possible with the internet connectivity through modem and with the very first web programming technology as HTML, but the rise of Flash or QuickTime, and other different media-content production tools is rather the reason of such possibility. Indeed, tracing back through the history of internet television, I feel that the technology has been first advanced, ahead of and regardless all content creations. Then, when the technology has improved enough, the theme of creative contents fulfilled a gap the technology has created. This gap, on the other hand, can also be considered as the audience or user participation. I found strong similarities between various contents on popular sites. All contents are of short-length. Many of them are purposely set short to emphasize the main core of the content or to avoid any boring-ness. However, if it was to replace or at least compete with the media experience on TV, I believe that it should be able to replicate whatever an original TV can do. On one hand, the creativity and the freedom of contents can justify such difference, and qualify Internet Television as a new genre of TV. Certainly, Internet Television is not exactly same as normal Television, and cannot replace it. First, the information transport technology from coaxial cable to Ethernet cable is very different in terms of capability and stability. For instance, cable technology has been in place for a very long time and has demonstrated a high-level of stability with a big broadcasting corporation operating it while Internet TV is often operated by smaller companies with some instabilities in connectivity. This difference can also be explained through the quality of contents. After experiencing various media contents through internet TV, there were “amateur” after-tastes. Although some contents were very creative, and could be translated into very high-quality ones, I don’t think that more complete ones won’t be able to be aired through internet television due to technological difficulties. Particularly, internet TV demonstrates a very creative mean of navigation unlike TV, and is free of different time restrictions. People are free to search for the appropriate contents of their taste, and can enjoy it whenever they need and want to. This was something that TV tried to accommodate through the creation of TiVo and other record-and-playback devices. Regarding this search and index capability, internet definitely has an edge over TV, as its main web technology is based and built on it. With the rise of Web 2.0 movement, internet TV has certainly improved in terms of technology and diverse creativities in content, which have enhanced the user interactivity with the medium of TV or the actual content. Like different operation buttons, often implemented through Flash or Quick-Time plug-ins, people are very free to interact with the contents. Beyond the concept of play/stop, some concepts like “Permalink” in Amazon’s Fishbowl or other concepts based on “tags” and “bookmarks” allowed people’s easy access to ‘their’ preferred contents. In this sense, the lack of quality is rather accommodated by the easy access. After the above examinations, there is a strong indication that internet TV is very dependent on web technology. It is true that the technology enables and enhances the content, as it is done in terms of contents’ accessibilities. However, the quality of contents is very low compared to the original television. The opposite is also true as these contents are rather creative and innovative, and they are very “user-friendly” to many users. However, I believe that there is a problem in organizing, or even filtering these contents. For example, the first list of contents one would see in YouTube.com contains all various genres of content. Like people have choice of accessing music, movie, or sports channel in a normal TV, Internet TV needs to correlate the contents and their containers, the web sites. Although the improved searching and access capabilities can accommodate this, it still constitutes one extra step to user’s participation into the contents. In this regard, once the contents’ genre or main components are fixed, the technology can further improve the quality. At the moment, all video contents mostly use either the QuickTime or Flash Video. However, if the contents are to a live music show or a sports game, then technology can be adapted to enhance the quality of music, or incorporating the sports’ statistics to further encourage user’s participation into the contents. After experiencing all the different sites featuring the concept of internet television, none of them have incited me for a constant participation into the content, and has instead occupied me for constantly searching various different contents, thus profiting the advanced searching technologies. For instance, I really enjoy watching MLB TV.com to watch live baseball games on computer. This may be due to the fact that I know that I would get the quality of content, exactly same as in TV, but also the ability to search through players’ statistics or different games’ updates through various web capabilities. After experiencing various Internet TV and other Portable Media Player, these sites and creators need to be oriented to become “Portable TV Network.” I would have more thoughts about this concept as the course progresses and my learning expands. In summary, the following points indicate my observation and my analysis. - The contents were not interactive enough. Advanced Web Technologies are simply used to allow the contents to be displayed, giving a feeling that the contents are created to satisfy the technology. However, the technology can be further used and even extended to enhance the quality of content, such as incorporating more interactivity with user. - In terms of contents, I really enjoyed short experimental contents on YouTube.com. People’s real-life experience with various obvious elements of our life was attractive, and on the other hand, amusing. Moreover, these contents, purely based on people’s sole improvisation, appeared more fresh and real than the contents on TV. However, there was need for filtering of contents. A kind of audience-director which could evaluate and further improve the quality of content as a normal TV producer would do before airing his show. KaKi | kaki[at]nyu.edu :10-Foot experience vs. 6-foot experience A strong sense of “sharing” I reviewed Amazon’s Fishbowl, YouTube, MTVU, Rocketboom and Turbonick. Here’s what I found out: I didn’t really understand what Amazon Fishbowl was...other than a collection of five interviews hosted by Bill Maher. Is this to purchase or download? Just e-mail to a friend? Or just a way to advertise his guest’s products (for purchase Amazon obviously) like Teri Hatcher’s book or the new Dixie Chix CD? The integration of the advertising was nice. The page layout could use some improvement. My conclusion is that it’s just a new way to advertise Amazon products—which is kind of interesting...but kind of time-consuming and boring as well. Next I took a look at YouTube which I have used several times before. YouTube is very community-driven and focuses on publicizing what’s popular vs. helping an individual find a video for their specific interest (although there are ways to do this too). Even if you do dig in specific category, you’ll end up looking at options like “top rated”, “most discussed”, and “most linked.” I think this works well for YouTube. The media that is uploaded to that site is generally short, funny, “viral” type videos, and I think most people come to the site looking for a quick laugh. The next site I reviewed was MTVU. While I love the design and overall hipster look/feel of the site, I found the user experience to be confusing. This site requires a somewhat savvy user. Because the landing page was so “designed” and filled with content—I was sort of irritated that the video began playing immediately upon my arrival. My eyes were wandering all over the page and I just wanted to pause the video so I could take it all in. They don’t offer a pause button on their video skin. Pretty much every category I clicked on—like “music”, “activism”, “shows”, and “featured” opened a whole new interface...and therefore a new learning curve to watch the videos. It’s not rocket-science, but it’s not near as clean and user-friendly as YouTube. Moving on to Rocketboom...I love rocketboom. Here the video also plays immediately upon launch of the site—but I didn’t find it irritating at all since the video sat in a clean white space. Rocketboom provides links directly below the video player so I know what topics are in the show—and I can find out more about them by clicking on the links. A drop-down menu within the video player skin also provides the user with the ability to jump to different sections of the video—great for those with ADD who don’t want to sit through a topic they aren’t interested in. Today was the first time I had ever seen Turbonick. I have to say I was pretty impressed. I liked the layout- I thought it was fun for kids but not too cluttered. It was also easy to navigate. I was really surprised at the amount of advertising that ran before each video. Do kids actually sit through all this? Summer Bedard, slbedard@sbcglobal.net |