Comments on: Ricky! http://pdberger.com/ricky/ The blog of a British freelance writer living in New York Wed, 20 Aug 2008 02:43:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Nick http://pdberger.com/ricky/#comment-9033 Wed, 01 Mar 2006 16:34:50 +0000 http://pdberger.com/ricky/#comment-9033 Paul - that's a fair point, but not really the point the fellow who said 'what a wanker' was trying to get across, I think. Paul - that’s a fair point, but not really the point the fellow who said ‘what a wanker’ was trying to get across, I think.

]]> by: Napfisk http://pdberger.com/ricky/#comment-9028 Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:28:15 +0000 http://pdberger.com/ricky/#comment-9028 PD, I have to agree with you and the Brit in NYC that you quote (perhaps that's you too). I personally loved The Office, but of late I'm more and more losing my interest in said RG. In fact, I thought the US Office was (unexpectedly) a lot funnier, and whenever I now see or hear RG (on Jonathan Ross's Christmas, Best of Moyles and of course his podcast), I'm not at all that infatuated anymore. I haven't even listend to every episode and certainly won't now. Could it be the wunderkind is losing it? PD, I have to agree with you and the Brit in NYC that you quote (perhaps that’s you too).
I personally loved The Office, but of late I’m more and more losing my interest in said RG. In fact, I thought the US Office was (unexpectedly) a lot funnier, and whenever I now see or hear RG (on Jonathan Ross’s Christmas, Best of Moyles and of course his podcast), I’m not at all that infatuated anymore.
I haven’t even listend to every episode and certainly won’t now.
Could it be the wunderkind is losing it?

]]> by: Maddox http://pdberger.com/ricky/#comment-9024 Wed, 01 Mar 2006 04:02:46 +0000 http://pdberger.com/ricky/#comment-9024 I'm trying to rationalize why Gervais is charging $1.95 a show. 1) He's taking a gamble. 2) It's not all that much considering songs cost 99 cents - for 3 minutes! This is 1/5th the price of a song. 3) It's really funny (esp. Karl). 4) He's got nothing to lose, already a star with a big following. He may as well lead the way. 5) $2 isn't worth much anymore, doesn't even buy you a greasy hamburger. 6) 95 pence is a token price, but it doesn't translate well into dollars. 7) Corporations may be shut out if popular blogs can grow independently. 8) This is the future of free speech. I’m trying to rationalize why Gervais is charging $1.95 a show.
1) He’s taking a gamble.
2) It’s not all that much considering songs cost 99 cents - for 3 minutes! This is 1/5th the price of a song.
3) It’s really funny (esp. Karl).
4) He’s got nothing to lose, already a star with a big following. He may as well lead the way.
5) $2 isn’t worth much anymore, doesn’t even buy you a greasy hamburger.
6) 95 pence is a token price, but it doesn’t translate well into dollars.
7) Corporations may be shut out if popular blogs can grow independently.
8) This is the future of free speech.

]]> by: pdberger http://pdberger.com/ricky/#comment-9020 Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:45:49 +0000 http://pdberger.com/ricky/#comment-9020 Nick, my point isn't that all podcasts should be free. My point is that Gervais' free podcast raised his profile exponentially in the US. To turn away from that in favor of a pay model so soon seems a little rash. We'll see. Nick, my point isn’t that all podcasts should be free. My point is that Gervais’ free podcast raised his profile exponentially in the US. To turn away from that in favor of a pay model so soon seems a little rash. We’ll see.

]]> by: Nick http://pdberger.com/ricky/#comment-9014 Tue, 28 Feb 2006 14:14:44 +0000 http://pdberger.com/ricky/#comment-9014 This Gervais complaining is all nonsense. It's not free for him to produce it, it's certainly not free to host a podcast downloaded five million times and regular listeners will know that Karl's not got a job, so why should he take all that abuse for free. All this talk if 'podcasts are supposed to be free' is daft as well. They're not 'supposed' to be anything, they're what people can make of them. So Gervais charges for his podcast - maybe it'll fail, maybe it won't, but he's not breaking any sacred laws. Two other things. Firstly, he's not 'sold out'. Gervais has turned down more lucrative, shitty jobs than most famous people and he doesn't do advertising as far as I can tell. So he's not some great philanthropist either, although we did get those first twelve for free, and heaven only knows how much the bandwith cost him (and/or the Guardian). Secondly, the only bits of the podcasts I didn't like were the annoying adverts for Channel 4. If paying for the podcast means I don't have to listen to any ads (more intrusive in audio than in any other media) then so be it. It's a model that works pretty well for HBO afterall (which Gervais's show 'Extras' is on). Also, Galloway's a scumbag. This Gervais complaining is all nonsense. It’s not free for him to produce it, it’s certainly not free to host a podcast downloaded five million times and regular listeners will know that Karl’s not got a job, so why should he take all that abuse for free. All this talk if ‘podcasts are supposed to be free’ is daft as well. They’re not ’supposed’ to be anything, they’re what people can make of them. So Gervais charges for his podcast - maybe it’ll fail, maybe it won’t, but he’s not breaking any sacred laws.

Two other things. Firstly, he’s not ’sold out’. Gervais has turned down more lucrative, shitty jobs than most famous people and he doesn’t do advertising as far as I can tell. So he’s not some great philanthropist either, although we did get those first twelve for free, and heaven only knows how much the bandwith cost him (and/or the Guardian).

Secondly, the only bits of the podcasts I didn’t like were the annoying adverts for Channel 4. If paying for the podcast means I don’t have to listen to any ads (more intrusive in audio than in any other media) then so be it. It’s a model that works pretty well for HBO afterall (which Gervais’s show ‘Extras’ is on).

Also, Galloway’s a scumbag.

]]>