Cartoon Mojo Launches Cartoon Mojo Launches

Cartoon Mojo Launches

A new site launches today: It’s a video sharing site in the YouTube mold that focuses exclusively on animated shorts. In that respect, it’s similar to sites like AniBoom and MyToons. Notably, the site was created by artists–industry veterans Louie del Carmen and Octavio Rodriguez. It remains to be seen how Cartoon Mojo will distinguish itself from its already more established brethren but there is still plenty of room for competition in this arena. Below is one of the shorts featured on their website: “Anniversary” by the boys at Ghostbot.

  • Esn

    It would be nice if someone wrote a comparison of all these sites one day…

    There are others, I’m sure. Newgrounds seems to be the biggest one out of all of them.

  • Dave

    The Ghostbot short “Anniversary” was really good, but I had to go to the site to view it. The embedded player above isn’t loading .

  • debra solomon

    ditto for me on the not loading

  • Paul N

    Wow – what a terrific short.

  • Congratulations Louie and Octavio!
    What a terrific accomplishment, Best of Luck!!!

  • Louie del Carmen

    Thanks for the comments brew people! Sorry for the erraticness of the player. Try viewing the site using Mozilla’s Firefox while we fix a bug with Mac’s Safari.

  • Won’t play in IE. No full screen in Firefox.

  • Chiskop

    We don’t need another site that really profits only the webhost. really.

    Sounds like fun, but, these people are making advertizing dollars off hard worked shorts, the artist gets nothing.

    Personal websites are all that. My mom has her own website, my twelve year old sister has a blog.Then, can every animator PLEASE have a personal website, before they dry up in obscurity?

    Obscurity has a drying effect.

  • a reader

    I thought the point was to have a central place where a number of shorts can be seen.
    Sure, everyone can have a blog of their own, but try and visit all those individual blogs. I’m an animator and I don’t go to half the places I have bookmarked on any regular basis-what about other eyes who don’t know individual names or where to find their films? The point, again, is I’d guess to just make it easier to have them seen.
    When the “webhost” starts getting rich from page views at the artists’ expense on sites like this one we’ll all be sharing snocones in hades.

  • amid

    A reader: I believe what Chiskop means when he says that the “webhost” gets paid is the site itself is paid. And that’s true– the business models of sites like YouTube down to AniBoom and Cartoon Mojo is that they sell advertising based on your work. Granted, it’ll be awhile until Cartoon Mojo is able to turn a profit because (A) there is a not-insigificant cost to serving videos, and (B) it takes A LOT of viewers (and that means A LOT of films) to be able to make money. That is why sites like Aniboom are so aggressive in trying to get filmmakers to post films on their site.

    At the end of the day, it’s a tradeoff. They are providing a service by hosting a video on their servers that otherwise you’d have to pay yourself. It is not unreasonable to expect them to want to recoup their costs for doing this. Additionally, posting a video on your own site guarantees that few people will ever see it. Videosharing sites are hubs where the chances of your work being discovered greatly increase. Most importantly, these sites allow audiences to choose what they want to see rather than having networks impose their tastes upon the public.

    Cartoon Brew TV is not the same thing as these sites since we pick and choose each film we present in our weekly show. But the reason we’re selective is that we pay each and every filmmaker whose work we show. We want to support the idea that, yes, filmmakers should get paid when their work is shown online, and the best way of supporting that is by setting that standard for Cartoon Brew’s online efforts.

  • Louie del Carmen

    Thanks for clarifying the point Amid. We didn’t set out to do this to make millions of dollars. Like Amid said, it’s a a herculean effort to make real money in this kind of endeavor. YouTube was about to fold when Google snatched them up. Otherwise they’d just be another failed venture. And as of right now I don’t think anyone gets paid uploading their stuff on YouTube?

    Right now we absorb EVERY cost including the price of bandwidth, which is not cheap. If we make enough in ads to keep the site self-sustaining then we’d be the happiest people in the world.

    Octavio and I have a combined 25 years in animation and are not in it for profeteering and exploitation for our colleagues. We simply want a venue for our fellow film makers and artists to showcase their stuff and if at the end of it, we turn a profit, we’d be the first ones to share the success with our contributors.

    Our site is simple. We show animation and nothing else. No flash games. No frills. Just a place to watch shorts.

  • Chiskop

    Here’s a business model. the videohost only gets fed trailers and snippets. the animator’s site hosts the entire video.

    This is how things are moving. e.g . HBO has a channel on youtube, they posts snippets of their programs there. these snippests drive us to turn on our tv sets at certain times or work our TiVos. HBO uses youtube to drive audiences to or cable.

    Animators posts snippets or trailers to drive audiences to their own personal sites where the entire work could be viewed. i respect what cartoonbrew and blendernation etc are doing AS BLOGGERS. They find stuff and expose it to all of us. that too can continue.

    But with your own website, you could decide to how to sell your work or make money from it. e.g. based on your video popularity, you could scrap some sponsorship from KFC or nando’s. yet the video remain’s free. but you get paid on video view.

    that’s my two cents. don’t shoot the messeger of the future dudes. Here is something most people don’t undertand: We HAVE TO make this technology work for US. We have to control it sooner or later. and make profit from our shorts. video host work to a certain extend. but watch what all these HBO’s and Showtime’s are doing. keep an eye out.

    good luck louie.

  • BobT

    I’ll give it a try, I’ll sign up later. I hope this turns out to be a success.

    The red and yellow color scheme is really hurting my eyes though. Not to mention very distracting from the animation that you want to watch.

    Would it be possible to have a less obtrusive color pallette for the site? ’cause it’s not very inviting.

  • Louie del Carmen

    Thanks Chiskop.

    I certainly agree with your message. My advice for years for people who continually pitch to studios is to make their own pilots/shorts because in the end, it’s all about proof of concept. Then you are in control of your own destiny.

    The way each individual film maker chooses to market their work is their own decision. In the end Cartoon Mojo is just another venue. But I think you’ll agree that exposure via the internet is double edged in the sense that you have freedom to position yourself in whatever fashion. But if no one knows who you are you could be sitting in some lonely corner of cyberspace waiting for people to stop by.

    Selling your own stuff is dyno-mite. But realistically it’s all about self-promotion and not profit. If your film wins the academy award then that’s different. But we all know how often that happens. Charging a buck a view or something is great but don’t put a down payment on that Porsche just yet.

    The organized media is trying to get their piece of the action and I share your sentiments about vigilance. The internet is the only (fairly) free venue left for expression and marketing and certainly worth defending.

  • ZigZag

    Louie del Carmen posted: “And as of right now I don’t think anyone gets paid uploading their stuff on YouTube?”

    Unfortunately, this is not true. Please see this article in the NY Times for a good overview of how many contributors to YouTube are making not just money, but a real salary:

    Also, Louie is quoted as saying:

    “YouTube was about to fold when Google snatched them up.”

    This is also, unfortunately inaccurate. According to Wikipedia, “YouTube offered the public a beta test of the site in May 2005, six months before the official launch in November 2005. The site grew rapidly, and in July 2006 the company announced that more than 65,000 new videos were being uploaded every day, and that the site was receiving 100 million video views per day.”

    [It continues]”In October 2006, Google Inc. announced that it had acquired YouTube for US$1.65 billion in Google stock, and the deal was finalized on November 13, 2006.”

    Clearly, Google had its eye on YouTube as soon as it gathered steam after it launched, and negotiations had most likely begun in earnest by spring 2006. They might have had server cost issues, but there was never a concern that such a successful site would go under.

    That’s it for the minor corrections. Now for the analysis…

  • ZigZag

    In my humble opinion, I applaud the essence of what Mr. del Carmen and Mr. Rodriguez are doing. Animated shorts should have a focused place where they can be viewed. I believe that if we are to further the art of animation, there should be a few concentrated places (like Cartoon Brew) to keep up with what is going on in the industry.

    However, in the end, Chiskop is correct. It is incumbent upon any site like those listed in this post to develop a model where users share profits with the site hosts themselves. After all, the site succeeds based on the animated shorts posted, and like Amid stated, the artists benefit from exposure.

    But, without compensation to the artists, a site that profits (that is the key word here) from hosting videos without splitting the profits with the creators of the site is not much different from those “entrepreneurs” we are all familiar with who ask for free design work from artists in hopes that hollow promises of “exposure” or other possible greatness would suffice.

    Like I said, Mr. Rodriguez and Mr. del Carmen are to be applauded. No one should question their motives for wanting to further the art form we all love. They have both demonstrated through their years of service to the art of animation that they have sincere motives and will go to great lengths to promote others in the field. But I believe that in order to be fair to the creators of the shorts they show, it is incumbent upon them to devise a profit-sharing plan with the users.

    To me, not only is that fair, but that would be a win-win for both the creators and the site hosts. It would compel creators to not only post their shorts online, but to also promote the site as much as they can. This, in turn, would transform the creators into a fantastic grass-roots marketing force for the site, and thus the site, creators and users will all benefit greatly.

    I for one will be looking forward to watching this site and others like it flourish, and will do all I can to campaign for its success.

  • Louie del Carmen


    Thanks for your fine analysis but we are hardly in the same business league as YouTube. When I said that no one gets paid on YouTube, I meant that as a general statement. If you or I upload our work on YT, we wouldn’t be paid by Google outright. These people who turn a profit have used YouTube to bring in viewership and are duly compensated. But of course that doesn’t happen by accident. These people put in the time, the effort and a little savvy. People make money with blogs as well. Even mail order businesses.

    As far as your quote from the bible of really accurate information called Wikipedia is concerned, I can only use my own memory (which is still pretty good I think) when recalling that as much hits and as much videos that where being uploaded at the time on YT, Chad & Steve had maxed out all their credit cards to buy more bandwidth because of all the traffic. So as successful as they seemed to be, they where not generating enough in ads to even stay afloat. I would be surprised if paying everyone for posting was in their minds at that point. It was only after Google had acquired them that talk of compensation surfaced.

    Like I said in my previous comment. Our expectations are low in the profit department. Now we plan to grow and establish our site the best we can so we can recoup the cost of putting it up. Beyond that if we actually turn a profit, we would be the first ones to share it equitably with the contributors whose work is the reason people come and watch. Some of these fine artists are people we know personally and have worked with side by side.

    I think it’s natural for people to assume that we are in it to make tons of money on the backs of artists. But it’s a curiously sad assumption especially when we put our names and reputation front and center. All we want is to establish a communitiy and give back. If at the end of the endeavor we happen to make a few pennies, that would be great. But to insinuate we are in it for profeteering is sad. I can tell you that Octavio and I are gainfully employed and are well compensated. We spent our own money and continue to because we believe in it and want to do something positive for our business.

    Let me say it clearly here: If the site becomes self-sustaining then we would consider that a success. Free site to post your work. Use it for whatever you want. If we somehow start to turn some profit. (anything over the cost of putting it up and running) We’d start sharing.

    Thank you for your well wishes Zig-Zag. You freely quote me and use our names but we don’t know yours?

  • ZigZag

    Hey Louie,

    Excellent response, as expected. You’re right to nail Wikipedia on their penchant for accuracy. That being said, I have a feeling that Google and YouTube might have gone over that article with a comb and fact-checked it. Just a hunch – I have no proof.

    As I expected, you remain sensitive, reasoned and passionate about your endeavor, and I for one will be happy to promote it to the best of my ability. All I can hope for is that you find success sooner than you might expect.

    Lastly, and sadly, I feel that I must remain anonymous because I’ve learned that I just can’t trust that people in the animation industry will be as mature in their discourse as you have been. I guess that’s a topic for another post altogether. But given that you’ve been such a good sport about this, I’ll gladly email you personally to introduce myself, though. Fair’s fair.

  • adelmo

    excelente……..muy bonita, excelente historia, excelente musica, excelente animacion,…….genial.