First the good: it’s CNET so the tech side is going to work just fine. You can watch clips from News.com, the new Oakenfold video, and reviews of new gadgets just to name a few. The interface is easy to use, looks good, and could be very well be the standard for others to follow.
They have multiple sponsors and the sponsor logo appears at the bottom of the video screen. The ads run before your first video in each category but are no more then 15 seconds so it doesn’t disrupt your viewing.
As for the bad, well its CNET which means it’s a bunch of geeks (I mean that in a good way) who don’t know there head from a hole in the ground when it comes to content.
For example, Molly Wood a section editor at CNET does the Buzz Report which is more or less a videoblog. She’s terrible and I’m being nice. Now I’ve worked with TV talent over the last 6 years and I can tell you that this woman is arguably one of the worse I have ever seen. She must not have a producer because if she did they would have told her that she’s NOT STEPHEN COLBERT. The producer would have also told her to go back to being a section editor because she’s no good on cam.
Other talent, such as those who do reviews or “insider secrets”, are better but not much. What the execs at CNET need to do is find people who are good on cam especially if they going to deliver something in a more news-ish/MTV style. What they are talking about is fine the delivery needs some serious work in some cases.
On a bigger note, why do tech heavy places like CNET or G4 on cable try to force the “hip” and “cool” delivery down our throats? Find some good talent and write with them accordingly. Find their strong points and then you’ll see that the “hip” and “cool” emerge without much effort. In other words, STOP LISTENING TO CONSULTANTS!
It’s still early for CNET TV but I like what I’ve seen so far. Whether they can bring the missing pieces together and make them gel is the question. Once the big kinks are worked out I think the demographic will migrate to it.