PoiGeek.com - Thoughts, opinions etc

Before this turns into another GG-bashing session, could I re-direct it back into more of a general discussion about on-line lessons pros & cons?

Online lessons are fine IMHO, if done right. In terms of pay-per-view lessons, If the lessons were done really well (multiple angles, slow mo, closeups, industry leading text descriptions, with a personalised Q&A forum for each lesson all tied together with an advanced UI for easy organisation and navigation of content) then I think the business model would have merit. I dont appreciate people taking things they've learned, rebadging them and then offerring them as an original concept - its just dodgy and unethical.

I think the 'new' nomeclature is an attempt to attract newbies who dont know better, and then get them 'hooked' on a proprietary methodology before they get the opportunity to see that what they are doing is the same as all these other sites are offering for free.

I think the worst part about it is that it says "free" but then you have to pay.

That's just 100% dodgy. But it's on individual people's shoulders if they want to spend money on something they could get for free on other sites.

I also think that giving them her own names is dodgy, for all the reasons stated above. A backhand is a backhand in tennis; calling it a reverse forehand is just stupid.

Oh, then there's her use of language...but this isn't supposed to be a bashing session...

In conclusion:
Dodgy, dodgy, dodgy.

Is it IcON as in HoP Icon?? If so I wonder when he'll comment on this, I disagree on the saying free when its not and changing the names, although they do have free previews so I guess you'd be an idiot not to check the move first.

If people want to pay let them, personally I wouldnt part with my money without looking for free stuff on other sites, hop, youtube etc.

Does anyone know how much the videos are?

I wonder how many have been 'purchased'

I guess it depends on the relative quality of the videos; many poi 'tutorials' are simply videos of a move, occasionally from different angles. If free videos were created with a good commentary (see durb's 1.5 tutorial for example) I don't see the market for such a site.

Naming: I recall discussion back in the day of the poidia on Spherculism when despite general consensus, some members of the discussions refused to go with the most commonly held term and persisted with their own. I think that an individual's choice is fine if they are aware that they are breaking convention (to know this implies a knowledge of convention so meaning can be retained in discussions) but to teach under a completely different naming structure is counter-intuitive. Whether this a purposeful marketing ploy I can't comment.

I don't have a problem with someone trying to make money from their talent, I just don't see a site such as this as being a particularly good way of doing it.

Er - i'd say my "1.5 tutorial" is a bad example of this as A) it's the wrong name (Now called "Not 1.5s") and B) I'm not doing a commentry

Carry on

I'm confusing it with the swishy swishy one then

Sorry

I see it as basically a DVD for poi without the costs of producing the actual DVD but if GG is famed on HoP the leading online community why not use it's terminology for moves?

I was thinking well over a year ago, when considering how to get any income, that this was one of the only ways to make money teaching poi, but I didn't do it for several reasons :

I don't have the skill or recognition of other artists such as meenik
I figured it would ostracise me from the community as a sell out
I just didn't have the boobies

Boobies do sell

and there was me thinking that this would be a revamp of spherculism... *sigh*

But I'd argue, there doesn't need to be any justification...

Regardless of content, people have put alot of time and effort into making the videos. It's up to the individual whether they make their videos free or not.

You could argue the ethics of taking what you've learnt for free and then passing it on at cost - but maybe GG has locked herself away and come with it all herself so feels justified charging for it.

But then it's not charging for the moves, it's charging for the time that went into making the videos, and if they're well made, edited etc. then I don't think it's unfair to charge people.

So... if Nick charged for his YouTube videos, would people feel happy about it? And would you pay?

Is it the fact it's a relatively unknown spinner, of dubious skill/fame that knarks people, or is it the ethics behind it?

im not sure, sometimes i think you do need to justify charging a price for something.

but you can also argue that if people are going to pay for something they could get for free with a bit of effort then thats their lookout.

i think people wouldnt be happy if nick started charging for videos now, even though it would be fair enough.

i think it is a combination of a relatively unknown spinner to HOP, dubious skill level ( i think someone mentioned temple of arse somewhere along the line ) and slightly the ethics behind it. although if the videos were much better i dont think there would be as much fuss.

oh and the fact that the website says they are free

I wonder if there's any copyright trap here...

You pay to learn a move of poigeek, do a show and get paid for it in which you perform that move, poigeek sues you for unauthorized resale of product...

But then you could always claim you were doing a simple one-handed butterfly instead of the glittertastic double-twirl-opposites-show-off, no?

Odds are it isn't anything that shady. Somebody has something, and other people want it enough to pay for it - voila, a business! If nobody on the Internet is willing to pay for it, they will simply stop offering it.

I used to see martial arts sites like this all the time. Some were really exceptional quality, stuff you could really learn from, and others were average, on par with some of the better homemade Youtube videos, but it was all the same format, give or take a sparkling customer testimonial or two. What usually happened was that the armchair fencers got bored and stopped looking at that site and the serious students either passed it by right off the bat or decided to go find a real instructor anyway for any number of reasons. There's nothing wrong with selling what you have to offer, and that's more true on the Internet than anywhere at any time in history, because it's very low-maintenance and easy to do.

I wouldn't buy lessons from poigeek, but I would gladly donate to Nick. The difference is that he does it for the love of poi and since he's been a big inspiration to me as I've learned to spin, I'd like to give something back. Sites like Poi Geek aren't very inspirational, so at the end of the day it just feels like a business transaction.

I'm not personally familiar with Glitter Girl's history with HOP, or lack thereof, so I can't comment on that. But with stuff like this the market quickly sorts it out by itself.

Funny this has come up cos I just went on a little explore of old threads last night (the *do anything rather than uni assignment* type explore) after seeing Durbs ref to Temple of etc in another current thread. I was a bit surprised at the venom to GG that was expressed then.. and not surprised that Malcolm had locked the somewhat vitriolic threads those years ago. SO I totally support the not slagging off GG or anyone else here now approach. But it is a bit odd that someone would quote being 'endorsed' by HoP threads when most of the comments on them were so ... unenthusiastic.

As for me personally pay by move? No, of course I wouldn't when I can learn off so many people I know. And there is so much free stuff out there. But I don't have a problem in principle with people charging for the time it takes to make vids/host them etc. I know people like Meenik have been struggling for years to find a way to make a living from their skill and insight, and I myself have happily paid good money for DVDs like encyclopoida and Sphercular Vision. I've even produced one myself (from footage of the last UberOz) that people could learn heaps from... and sold it for a commercial price to cover costs and give the editors a few meals.

The naming thing could be a bit confusing but playing is more important than talking so I'm not so fussed, not worth a war. Aubergine/eggplant. Doona/duvet. Mobile/cell phone. Big deal, we can still make a meal...and communicate.. and keep warm.