This a.m. I got a reminder from some of my U.K. twitter folks that today is Ada Lovelace Day: a day of international blogging established to draw attention to the achievements of women in techology. Technology, however, is defined rather broadly to include innovators, entrepreurs and tech journalists. I'd like to take this one step further to acknowedge the women who create hyperlocal journalism online, for many of them are not just writing about their towns and cities, but are also building the sites (yes, the dreadded "back end"), doing podcasts, and creating video. While some men are sitting around wringing their hands and kvetching that there's "no business model" and "you can't make money on hyperlocal" these women are out there doing the work of hyperlocal. Some are making money, while others are creating incredible influence in both big and small ways. Here's a list of ten that I know who've been constants in hyperlocal but still do not receive the requisite national attention that men whose efforts are half as successful have received...
1. Debra Gallant & Liz George of Baristanet who took a simple Wordpress blog and built it out into a highly successful (yes, moneymaking) hyperlocal site covering Bloomfielded, NJ and surrounding suburbs.
2. Lise LePage founder of iBrattleboro Along w/partner Chris Grotke, Lise works on back end, community building, and article writing for a site that has become a go-to for news in Brattleboro, VT.
3. Maureen Mann, former managing editor of The Forum (Deerfield, NH) What happens when the place you live has absolutely no news coverage? Maureen and several other "citizens" got together and created this hyperlocal site. There are a number of women on the staff as well as Maureen who keep the folks off Deerfield and the surrounding areas informed.
4. Ruby Sinreich of Orange Politics At the hyperlocal panel at BlogWorld Expo, Ruby made a point that sometimes you don't do hyperlocal for the money but for the influence. OP has a major influence not just on bloggers but on the politics of Chapel Hill, NC. Oh, and she also works on the "back end" maintaining this Drupal-based site.
5. Heather Brandon of Urban Compass I met Heather close to 5 years ago now, when she was keeping Urban Compass, a blog about Springfield, MA for the Springfield Republican's Masslive.com site. Since then, she's taken this important hyperlocal blog out from under the auspices of the msm, and has also moved to Hartford, CT--where she now blogs on both Springfiled, MA and Hartford, CT. She's had some of the best coverage on the flap at the Hartford Courant over incivility in their forums...and the criminal charges against the Mayor of Hartford (who was the most vocal critic of the Courant's forums, including a protest on the steps of the paper. such drama!) Oh, and Heather also does the artwork and "back end" of her site as well.
6. Christine Stuart of CT NewsJunkie The place to go for the scoop on the Connecticut political scene. Christine has also done some work for Fox 61, the Hartford Fox affiliate.
7. Gena Haskett of Out on the Stoop Since 2004, Genia has kept this modest blog filled with thoughtful commentary on the political scene, being a woman, and life in Los Angeles. Witty, wise, smart and down to earth.
8. Tracy Record of West Seattle Blog This is the little blog that really, really could! In a (relatively) short period of time, Tracy's built this site into something really special (and money-making) Oh, and she's also great at using Twitter.
9. Borges of KickTime and companion wiki Kickapedia
Kicktime is a huge hyperlocal site serving the Kickapoo Valley, Wisconsin. It's companion site Kickapedia, provides a listing of local businesses, farms, etc. Borges is also the site admin, who's in charge of the "back end"
10. And, last but not least, my compadre Lisa Williams, founder of Placeblogger.com and H2otown What can I say about Lisa that I haven't already said? When it comes to Placeblogger, Lisa and I are out there with the Big Boys of aggregation, probably the only women doing hyperlocal aggregation, that's for sure.
I know that there are a whole lot more women that I could add to this list, all over the country, who are making hyperlocal happen. If you know of other women who are making hyperlocal happen, please add them in the comments.
Happy Ada Lovelace Day everybody!
Note: There are so many women doing hyperlocal--and I have to apologize to all the women I couldn't include in this post....
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Tuesday, March 03, 2009
How Big Corporate Newspapers Fail Community (and a little about why)
I've been sitting on this post a couple of days because I wasn't quite sure how to start it--but tonight, I read Mike Masnick's TechDirt post commenting on Howard Owens' defense of GateHouse's suit against NYTimes Co. (the post has been removed.) Mike contends that if the only thing of value a newspaper is providing its community is headlines and ledes that are easily stolen by a competitor, then the newspaper has somehow failed the community. Now, I can't speak to Gatehouse's properties or Howard's work with them because I have not witnessed them firsthand or spoken directly with Howard about them, but I can speak to the ways that other newspapers fail their communities....and why.
One of the main ways in which newspapers fail communities is by not maintaining civil environments in their forums and comments sections. This has been a bugaboo of mine for some time now, and when I read about the recent flare-up at a Scripps property, where the defendant in a carjacking case complained to the court about anonymous commenters on several newspaper forums and comments sections and I keep hearing the same excuses (some call them "reasons") Here they are, in no particular order:
1. moderating comments is censoring "free speech"--even if the comments are uncivil.
2. moderating stifles participation--people need "instant gratification"
3. moderation is only done *after* someone complains about the comments
4. moderation isn't done in-house but by a bot that manages the site
5. too many comments come in too fast to moderate each one
6. the proper number of staff needed to moderate the volume of comments would be too costly.
Of these six commonly cited reasons, only numbers 5 and 6 make sense. When thousands of comments come in on a daily basis, and there are only one or two (if lucky) staff members to moderate them, then proper moderation can't be done. This is unfortunate, given that it takes a long time for a community to begin to police itself.
In effect, moderation just doesn't scale for most newspapers. There's little income generated from communities (from what I understand) to justify paying for extra staff, yet extra staff is needed if comments are going to be properly moderated to create civil environments and constructive conversation.
As for the other reasons--they are definitely excuses for community neglect and result in poor-quality conversation and sentiments among staff members that range from simply negative to outwardly hostile. Staff begins to get the perception that "the people" only want to verbally assault them (can you blame staff for feeling this way? I can't.) Some staff folks begin to feel that those commenting aren't "our readers" (esp. if a board is not administered locally) while other staff at other papers begin to single out particular readers whose views they do not agree with and ban or do other things to their accounts (as well as not respond to their complaints.)
Not moderating properly has nothing to do with "free speech" and it has nothing to do with "stifling" conversation or that people need immediate gratification.
When I've asked about verification software--to make sure that posters have real identities and valid email addys--I hear that these moderation options are often used. But since many of them are automated, there's little direct viewing of the registration materials by staff.
Still, the problem of insufficient staff would make it impossible to properly review every registration.
Once again, it's a problem of scale.....newspaper "communities" don't scale. And if they don't scale, they are failing any attempt to create a cohesive community for a newspaper.
Community isn't just the physical space--the boundaries of a town or its businesses. Communities, esp. for newspapers, are occurring online. And if there is no moderation within those burgeoning communities to set the tone and then find the right people to police them, those who do not care about them will run them. This dynamic occurs in improperly moderated face to face communities, and bleeds over into online (see Clay Shirky on this one.)
Because no matter how great the technology, it's people that make a community. If a newspaper doesn't properly moderate, and the trolls and other disruptors take over, it is not the people's fault--it's that nobody bothered to lay the foundation for a good community. That may not be the people who constitute the staff, but the fact that there just isn't enough staff to properly police the community....
And maybe this is where, once again, hyperlocal can be better than corporate...
Just a thought.
Just to clarify: moderation doesn't mean that people cannot be anonymous nor use pseudonyms and a recent court in Maryland ruled that, in lawsuits, media companies need not reveal the names of anonymous posters: "It seems to be pretty much following a recent trend that we've been seeing -- that there is at least a qualified right to speak anonymously on the Internet," Bayard said. "Courts are going to require the plaintiff or others seeking identities to make a heightened showing that they have a valid cause of action." This is great as far as anonymity is concerned, but does not address the issues of community policing and if withholding a comment from posting constitutes a form of "censorship." No anonymous, hyperbolic or ad hominem poster has ever argued this one, and it's doubtful that they ever will.
Note Over at The Noisy Channel, there's some discussion about putting comments behind a pay wall. This just might lead to more civil and productive conversation. Would people pay for conversation? It would also show who *wants* conversaton. IMO, though, conversation is better handled in small communities, on hyperlocal sites, where they scale and someone can be paid to properly moderate.
One of the main ways in which newspapers fail communities is by not maintaining civil environments in their forums and comments sections. This has been a bugaboo of mine for some time now, and when I read about the recent flare-up at a Scripps property, where the defendant in a carjacking case complained to the court about anonymous commenters on several newspaper forums and comments sections and I keep hearing the same excuses (some call them "reasons") Here they are, in no particular order:
1. moderating comments is censoring "free speech"--even if the comments are uncivil.
2. moderating stifles participation--people need "instant gratification"
3. moderation is only done *after* someone complains about the comments
4. moderation isn't done in-house but by a bot that manages the site
5. too many comments come in too fast to moderate each one
6. the proper number of staff needed to moderate the volume of comments would be too costly.
Of these six commonly cited reasons, only numbers 5 and 6 make sense. When thousands of comments come in on a daily basis, and there are only one or two (if lucky) staff members to moderate them, then proper moderation can't be done. This is unfortunate, given that it takes a long time for a community to begin to police itself.
In effect, moderation just doesn't scale for most newspapers. There's little income generated from communities (from what I understand) to justify paying for extra staff, yet extra staff is needed if comments are going to be properly moderated to create civil environments and constructive conversation.
As for the other reasons--they are definitely excuses for community neglect and result in poor-quality conversation and sentiments among staff members that range from simply negative to outwardly hostile. Staff begins to get the perception that "the people" only want to verbally assault them (can you blame staff for feeling this way? I can't.) Some staff folks begin to feel that those commenting aren't "our readers" (esp. if a board is not administered locally) while other staff at other papers begin to single out particular readers whose views they do not agree with and ban or do other things to their accounts (as well as not respond to their complaints.)
Not moderating properly has nothing to do with "free speech" and it has nothing to do with "stifling" conversation or that people need immediate gratification.
When I've asked about verification software--to make sure that posters have real identities and valid email addys--I hear that these moderation options are often used. But since many of them are automated, there's little direct viewing of the registration materials by staff.
Still, the problem of insufficient staff would make it impossible to properly review every registration.
Once again, it's a problem of scale.....newspaper "communities" don't scale. And if they don't scale, they are failing any attempt to create a cohesive community for a newspaper.
Community isn't just the physical space--the boundaries of a town or its businesses. Communities, esp. for newspapers, are occurring online. And if there is no moderation within those burgeoning communities to set the tone and then find the right people to police them, those who do not care about them will run them. This dynamic occurs in improperly moderated face to face communities, and bleeds over into online (see Clay Shirky on this one.)
Because no matter how great the technology, it's people that make a community. If a newspaper doesn't properly moderate, and the trolls and other disruptors take over, it is not the people's fault--it's that nobody bothered to lay the foundation for a good community. That may not be the people who constitute the staff, but the fact that there just isn't enough staff to properly police the community....
And maybe this is where, once again, hyperlocal can be better than corporate...
Just a thought.
Just to clarify: moderation doesn't mean that people cannot be anonymous nor use pseudonyms and a recent court in Maryland ruled that, in lawsuits, media companies need not reveal the names of anonymous posters: "It seems to be pretty much following a recent trend that we've been seeing -- that there is at least a qualified right to speak anonymously on the Internet," Bayard said. "Courts are going to require the plaintiff or others seeking identities to make a heightened showing that they have a valid cause of action." This is great as far as anonymity is concerned, but does not address the issues of community policing and if withholding a comment from posting constitutes a form of "censorship." No anonymous, hyperbolic or ad hominem poster has ever argued this one, and it's doubtful that they ever will.
Note Over at The Noisy Channel, there's some discussion about putting comments behind a pay wall. This just might lead to more civil and productive conversation. Would people pay for conversation? It would also show who *wants* conversaton. IMO, though, conversation is better handled in small communities, on hyperlocal sites, where they scale and someone can be paid to properly moderate.
Monday, February 16, 2009
A few late words on SocComm09
Last week I had the opportunity to attend Jeff Pulver's social media summit, SocComm '09....here's what I took away from it....
Jeff really is, as Chris Brogan said, a true thought leader. And it's not just because of what Jeff's already done, it's how he thinks about things that may happen in the future. He's one of those guys I've wanted to spend some time around for awhile (and one of the reasons I'd like to get back to NYC--just to occasionally hit his Social Media breakfasts.)
And as Chris and I said to each other in the hallway, "why is it that I have to go away from Massachusetts to run into you?" so odd how we live in the same state but rarely at the same functions in state. Life's funny that way sometimes...
High points of the day were, for me:
Jeff Jarvis interacting with the crowd during his presentation. I've seen Jeff a number of times since 2005, and this was the first time I'd seen him have fun with the crowd. He treated the crowd as if we were (and are)peers, skipping over some of his powerpoint slides saying "you probably already know this" and then had a great back and forth with the audience over the question "how would Google run a restaurant?" The energy was so positive and so good that it made me think he must be pretty fun as a professor...
Shelly Palmer was also fantastic! I've been reading Shelly off and on for about 2 years now, in various places, and on his blog and he was refreshingly no B.S. when it came to the idea of "social networking" (and that it's been around forever.) Shelly wrote his own take on Twitter at SocCom here. Shelly's also one of the few people I've allowed to put me on a newsletter mailing list that I haven't kvetched about. Usually, I find the automatic placing on newsletter lists of people whose business cards you get to be a little presumptuous, but with Shelly, since I read him anyway, it really is a decent way of keeping up with him (although I wouldn't advise too many other people to do that with me--you may end up with a snarky email, as I hate spam.)
Brock Meeks from the Center for Democracy and Technology provided vital counterpoints to a discussion on anonymity that was veering into the absurd. I am always shocked how so many people in the United States do not understand the importance of anonymity (or, more appropriately, pseudonumity) in U.S. history--and are so quick to want to throw away pseudonumity/anonymity as some sort of remedy for online incivility. While we may not suffer from political prosecution for our views (not at this time in history anyway) there are many other reasons for using pseudonymns or being anonymous. We have a long way to go with privacy online to dismiss the importance of anonymity or pseudonumity.
The discussion between Sandra Fathi and Rob Key on "Social Media and Multiple Personality Disorder" also brought up many good points about privacy and protecting one's privacy online. Lots of good thoughts about the blurry line between employees and employers, between one's private online life and if the company one works for should be part of that life. It's another area where the law and people's perceptions of their privacy online have not caught up with the realities of the Internet.
And now for the not so great stuff:
I hesitate to write this because, I've noticed recently, that people are far more aggressive to those critical of their work than they were in the past. The old social media advice used to be to just read the criticism and take it into account--don't necessarily respond. Have a thick skin and get on with life. But now, it's not just responding, but in some cases also suing: using the provisions of the DMCA to stifle speech (as in the case of a rodeo group v. an animal rights group) or claiming defamation (as when an SF chiropractor sued a local artist for a negative review on Yelp) I'm really peeved by this, and will just post my thoughts anyway....
The Mommyblogger panel wasn't that interesting. The panel leader didn't need to explain what a mommyblogger is, and most of what the panel said had to do with "the purchasing power of moms"--a party line I'd heard so many times before over the past four years that, when I start to hear it, I go to my "happy space." Later, in comparing notes with other audience members, we were all rather bothered that the mommyblogger panel didn't address issues around their children's use of social networks or the impact of what they do on their children's privacy --two very important issues that mothers *should* be concerned about.
IMO, the emphasis on mommyblogging diminishes the contributions of women overall to the blogosphere and social media. We are not all mommies, and being a mommy may give one perspective, but not the only perspective held by women vis a vis social media.
and I'm sorry, but while some folks may find him funny, I really wasn't impressed by Gary Vaynerchuck (and know he's now following me on Twitter.) Much of what Gary was saying, around the F-bombs and other sundry swears--wasn't anything new and revolutionary to the bulk of us in the crowd (maybe to a few young guns, but not overall.) I've been both attending and speaking at "social media" conferences of one stripe or another since 2005, and so many times I've heard "you can make money being a content producer!" that I just want to throw up. It used to be "you can make money from blogging!" now the old hype is extended out to all other kinds of social media. Please! it's very difficult for the majority of people to make money strictly from their user-generated content: reasons range from lack of "popular appeal" (let's face it: frat boy behavior and young chicks with big boobs will always get more attention than most other folks) to invisibility in Google. One can make money from a variety of resources connected to their online personae, but when it comes to UGC, the eggs-in-one-basket adage holds true.
Also, enough with "Old media's dead!" stuff. Man! We've been hearing that one for years as well and it's really not quite dead yet (to quote the old man in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.) It was esp. weird coming from a guy who, the day after the conference, I saw being very civil on the Today Show. A note to Gary: if you are leveraging old media, as it appears, to bolster new media, then say so. Nothing wrong with that--everybody does it to one degree or another. Don't commit "sins of omission"--just be transparent! (although props again to Shelly Palmer for pointing out that GV makes money from his wine concern as well...)
Maybe it was meant to be comedic relief...but, well, I felt the same way when, at the PDF a couple of years ago, I heard Tom Friedman tell an anecdote I'd heard innumerable times on TV. It was, well, kind of boring....
Another disappointment was the lack of women presenters. Yes, there was one--who seemed a little naive about what she was doing, and that was a little disappointing too. There are many other highly qualified women working in social media--like Sandra Fathi--that it would have been nice to hear one of them address larger issues of social media pertaining to marketing, media, and communications.
Or are women just not there yet in the numbers that men are--and, therefore, give the impression of being "invisible"?
I don't know, but, Jeff Pulver, if you're reading this, let's chat (not that I'm the most qualified, but I might have some really good connections--after all, "I know everybody" ;-) )
So, that's my take on SocComm. Whether you like it or not. It just is--transparent and truthful.
Update Jeff Pulver has a full list of related SocComm blog posts
SocComm social media socialnetworking
Jeff really is, as Chris Brogan said, a true thought leader. And it's not just because of what Jeff's already done, it's how he thinks about things that may happen in the future. He's one of those guys I've wanted to spend some time around for awhile (and one of the reasons I'd like to get back to NYC--just to occasionally hit his Social Media breakfasts.)
And as Chris and I said to each other in the hallway, "why is it that I have to go away from Massachusetts to run into you?" so odd how we live in the same state but rarely at the same functions in state. Life's funny that way sometimes...
High points of the day were, for me:
Jeff Jarvis interacting with the crowd during his presentation. I've seen Jeff a number of times since 2005, and this was the first time I'd seen him have fun with the crowd. He treated the crowd as if we were (and are)peers, skipping over some of his powerpoint slides saying "you probably already know this" and then had a great back and forth with the audience over the question "how would Google run a restaurant?" The energy was so positive and so good that it made me think he must be pretty fun as a professor...
Shelly Palmer was also fantastic! I've been reading Shelly off and on for about 2 years now, in various places, and on his blog and he was refreshingly no B.S. when it came to the idea of "social networking" (and that it's been around forever.) Shelly wrote his own take on Twitter at SocCom here. Shelly's also one of the few people I've allowed to put me on a newsletter mailing list that I haven't kvetched about. Usually, I find the automatic placing on newsletter lists of people whose business cards you get to be a little presumptuous, but with Shelly, since I read him anyway, it really is a decent way of keeping up with him (although I wouldn't advise too many other people to do that with me--you may end up with a snarky email, as I hate spam.)
Brock Meeks from the Center for Democracy and Technology provided vital counterpoints to a discussion on anonymity that was veering into the absurd. I am always shocked how so many people in the United States do not understand the importance of anonymity (or, more appropriately, pseudonumity) in U.S. history--and are so quick to want to throw away pseudonumity/anonymity as some sort of remedy for online incivility. While we may not suffer from political prosecution for our views (not at this time in history anyway) there are many other reasons for using pseudonymns or being anonymous. We have a long way to go with privacy online to dismiss the importance of anonymity or pseudonumity.
The discussion between Sandra Fathi and Rob Key on "Social Media and Multiple Personality Disorder" also brought up many good points about privacy and protecting one's privacy online. Lots of good thoughts about the blurry line between employees and employers, between one's private online life and if the company one works for should be part of that life. It's another area where the law and people's perceptions of their privacy online have not caught up with the realities of the Internet.
And now for the not so great stuff:
I hesitate to write this because, I've noticed recently, that people are far more aggressive to those critical of their work than they were in the past. The old social media advice used to be to just read the criticism and take it into account--don't necessarily respond. Have a thick skin and get on with life. But now, it's not just responding, but in some cases also suing: using the provisions of the DMCA to stifle speech (as in the case of a rodeo group v. an animal rights group) or claiming defamation (as when an SF chiropractor sued a local artist for a negative review on Yelp) I'm really peeved by this, and will just post my thoughts anyway....
The Mommyblogger panel wasn't that interesting. The panel leader didn't need to explain what a mommyblogger is, and most of what the panel said had to do with "the purchasing power of moms"--a party line I'd heard so many times before over the past four years that, when I start to hear it, I go to my "happy space." Later, in comparing notes with other audience members, we were all rather bothered that the mommyblogger panel didn't address issues around their children's use of social networks or the impact of what they do on their children's privacy --two very important issues that mothers *should* be concerned about.
IMO, the emphasis on mommyblogging diminishes the contributions of women overall to the blogosphere and social media. We are not all mommies, and being a mommy may give one perspective, but not the only perspective held by women vis a vis social media.
and I'm sorry, but while some folks may find him funny, I really wasn't impressed by Gary Vaynerchuck (and know he's now following me on Twitter.) Much of what Gary was saying, around the F-bombs and other sundry swears--wasn't anything new and revolutionary to the bulk of us in the crowd (maybe to a few young guns, but not overall.) I've been both attending and speaking at "social media" conferences of one stripe or another since 2005, and so many times I've heard "you can make money being a content producer!" that I just want to throw up. It used to be "you can make money from blogging!" now the old hype is extended out to all other kinds of social media. Please! it's very difficult for the majority of people to make money strictly from their user-generated content: reasons range from lack of "popular appeal" (let's face it: frat boy behavior and young chicks with big boobs will always get more attention than most other folks) to invisibility in Google. One can make money from a variety of resources connected to their online personae, but when it comes to UGC, the eggs-in-one-basket adage holds true.
Also, enough with "Old media's dead!" stuff. Man! We've been hearing that one for years as well and it's really not quite dead yet (to quote the old man in Monty Python and the Holy Grail.) It was esp. weird coming from a guy who, the day after the conference, I saw being very civil on the Today Show. A note to Gary: if you are leveraging old media, as it appears, to bolster new media, then say so. Nothing wrong with that--everybody does it to one degree or another. Don't commit "sins of omission"--just be transparent! (although props again to Shelly Palmer for pointing out that GV makes money from his wine concern as well...)
Maybe it was meant to be comedic relief...but, well, I felt the same way when, at the PDF a couple of years ago, I heard Tom Friedman tell an anecdote I'd heard innumerable times on TV. It was, well, kind of boring....
Another disappointment was the lack of women presenters. Yes, there was one--who seemed a little naive about what she was doing, and that was a little disappointing too. There are many other highly qualified women working in social media--like Sandra Fathi--that it would have been nice to hear one of them address larger issues of social media pertaining to marketing, media, and communications.
Or are women just not there yet in the numbers that men are--and, therefore, give the impression of being "invisible"?
I don't know, but, Jeff Pulver, if you're reading this, let's chat (not that I'm the most qualified, but I might have some really good connections--after all, "I know everybody" ;-) )
So, that's my take on SocComm. Whether you like it or not. It just is--transparent and truthful.
Update Jeff Pulver has a full list of related SocComm blog posts
SocComm social media socialnetworking
Monday, February 09, 2009
On the Twitter Team for SocComm09
I'm in New York again (my favorite city in the whole world)and this time to be part of the "Twitter Team" for Jeff Pulver's SocComm09.
Along with finally getting to meet Jeff (another one of those guys I've known off and on for a couple of years and through other folks and a myriad of conversations) I'm very interested in hearing Fred Wilson, as well as Shelley Palmer. Can't wait to catch up with Howard Greenstein
--who I've also known for a few years, off and on, both f2f and thru online and *should* have a chat with as it's been awhile-- and to say hi to Jeff Jarvis (if he's going to have a chance to say "hi" to any of the Twitter Team, or if he'll be bombarded by admirers....seen that happen a time or two...)
There's only one session that I have no interest in. I won't make any scathing notes about it though. As I discovered, there are some issues where I'm just better off saving my breath.
But I might also not stick around for Gary Vaynerchuck. Sure, lots of people like what he does--and I do indeed love a good wine and appreciate recommendations--but Gary's hyper-testosterone-induced delivery isn't fun for me. Perhaps I'm just not his audience...
I wonder, though, who's on the rest of the Twitter team. I have a few ideas, and it's a pretty good guess that I already know some of them. While I'm not NY-based, I'm around in lots of different circles (you'd be surprised the places I go and the people I know :) ) so there's a very good chance of previous acquaintance.
Well, I'll know for sure tomorrow...
If you're interested, you can follow me on twitter: @tishgrier and the hastag is #soccomm09
See you there!
Along with finally getting to meet Jeff (another one of those guys I've known off and on for a couple of years and through other folks and a myriad of conversations) I'm very interested in hearing Fred Wilson, as well as Shelley Palmer. Can't wait to catch up with Howard Greenstein
--who I've also known for a few years, off and on, both f2f and thru online and *should* have a chat with as it's been awhile-- and to say hi to Jeff Jarvis (if he's going to have a chance to say "hi" to any of the Twitter Team, or if he'll be bombarded by admirers....seen that happen a time or two...)
There's only one session that I have no interest in. I won't make any scathing notes about it though. As I discovered, there are some issues where I'm just better off saving my breath.
But I might also not stick around for Gary Vaynerchuck. Sure, lots of people like what he does--and I do indeed love a good wine and appreciate recommendations--but Gary's hyper-testosterone-induced delivery isn't fun for me. Perhaps I'm just not his audience...
I wonder, though, who's on the rest of the Twitter team. I have a few ideas, and it's a pretty good guess that I already know some of them. While I'm not NY-based, I'm around in lots of different circles (you'd be surprised the places I go and the people I know :) ) so there's a very good chance of previous acquaintance.
Well, I'll know for sure tomorrow...
If you're interested, you can follow me on twitter: @tishgrier and the hastag is #soccomm09
See you there!
Thursday, February 05, 2009
Five Steps for Keeping Your Twitter Stream Spam Free
It was bad enough that some of us have noticed a rise in "Twitter zombies"--now, thanks to a new commercial tool (tweettornado.com) you may have to block more than you follow. Dancho Danchev in ZDNet describes this pesky pollution device as having the potential to "empower(ing) phishers, spammers, malware authors and everyone in between with the ability to generate bogus Twitter accounts and spread their campaigns across the micro-blogging service."
How does TweetTornado do its dirty deeds? Danchev says that it "allows users to create unlimited Twitter accounts, add unlimited number of followers, which combined with its ability to automatically update all of bogus accounts through proxy servers with an identical message make it the perfect Twitter spam tool." It essentially exploits a flaw in Twitter's new registration system that doesn't require valid email addresses for new subscribers. (see Danchev's post for more tech-oriented details.)
Oh, thanks a lot Twitter. How hard can it be to send out an automated message to validate new subscribers--and keep the rest of us safe?
Now, there may be a ton of aggressive marketers (as well as nefarious spammers, phishers, etc.) that will think TweetTornado is a cool tool for helping them get their messages into *your* unsuspecting Twitter stream. That's where the best defense is a good offense. Here are a five short steps for keeping your Twitter stream spam-free:
1. Never automatically follow anyone!
2. Read the tweets. What's the content? are they saying anything cool? Linking to anything good? (but be careful of the links! they could take you somewhere you don't want to go.)
3. Check how many followers they have. If they are following tons of people, but few are following back, something's not cool.
4. Read profiles. What does the profile tell you about the follower?
5. Feel free to block! Twitter isn't a contest. It doesn't help you to have as many people follow you as you can get. Esp. if those followers are doing nothing for your stream--and might even be polluting it with spam and phishing schemes.
And if you inadvertently end up following a spammer, or even if somebody you think is ok begins to overly-self promote (or some other weirdness starts to occur), there's nothing wrong with un-following and even blocking. I will un-follow someone if I get a "gut feeling" about them, and I will definitely block a spammer. Whether it's a porn spammer, a phisher, or an overly aggressive marketer, spam is spam. Do away with it a.s.a.p.!
The key is to use your good judgment. And eventually, TweetTornado will end up in the deadpool.
Further: TechCrunch IT mentions "twitter squatting" The Twitter equivalent of domain squatting. And it was bound to happen.
How does TweetTornado do its dirty deeds? Danchev says that it "allows users to create unlimited Twitter accounts, add unlimited number of followers, which combined with its ability to automatically update all of bogus accounts through proxy servers with an identical message make it the perfect Twitter spam tool." It essentially exploits a flaw in Twitter's new registration system that doesn't require valid email addresses for new subscribers. (see Danchev's post for more tech-oriented details.)
Oh, thanks a lot Twitter. How hard can it be to send out an automated message to validate new subscribers--and keep the rest of us safe?
Now, there may be a ton of aggressive marketers (as well as nefarious spammers, phishers, etc.) that will think TweetTornado is a cool tool for helping them get their messages into *your* unsuspecting Twitter stream. That's where the best defense is a good offense. Here are a five short steps for keeping your Twitter stream spam-free:
And if you inadvertently end up following a spammer, or even if somebody you think is ok begins to overly-self promote (or some other weirdness starts to occur), there's nothing wrong with un-following and even blocking. I will un-follow someone if I get a "gut feeling" about them, and I will definitely block a spammer. Whether it's a porn spammer, a phisher, or an overly aggressive marketer, spam is spam. Do away with it a.s.a.p.!
The key is to use your good judgment. And eventually, TweetTornado will end up in the deadpool.
Further: TechCrunch IT mentions "twitter squatting" The Twitter equivalent of domain squatting. And it was bound to happen.
Tuesday, February 03, 2009
Scoopt shuts down, Pajamas Media quits blogs
Two upheavals in the citizen-generated media world: Scoopt, which sold "amateur" pics to news agencies is shutting down and right-wing blog network Pajamas Media is shuttering its blogging arm in favor of Pajamas TV (a talking-head video franchise)
Scoopt was the first agency to sell citizen generated photo-journalism. Scoopt gave owners of sold photos 40% of what they made and held a 12-month exclusivity on photos. Founder Kyle MacRae says Scoopt was the first agency to "monetise citizen journalism"--not sure of that claim when it comes to print, but they may indeed have been the first to pay for citizen-generate news photos (London bombing photos being the first.) Scoopt was purchased by Getty Images, so it makes me wonder if Getty Images is planning to accept "citizen" photo-journalism directly from citizens. If Getty moves in this direction, will they pay for the photos, and what sort of terms will they have on exclusivity?
Meanwhile, Pajamas Media really is stabbing right-wing bloggers where they live--sadly--and putting its efforts into Pajamas TV. I saw the Pajamas TV people pitching pretty heavily in the exhibitors' hall at BlogWorld Expo, but had no idea they'd be shutting down their blogs in favor of the video end of things. Pam Gellar at Atlas Shrugs, an original PJM blogger registers deep frustration:
And Ann Althouse raises some important points about video:must say, I can barely stand to watch any political talking heads TV shows, even on network TV and cable TV. I just have no patience waiting for people to say something that I could read in 1/10 the time. . ." True! very true! Ann then notes Instapundit's remarks re Pajamas TV, and wonders "But do you want to watch him on web TV?
For me, Instapundit was always a quick read--and most interesting for the links he gave to lesser-known bloggers. How does linking translate into video? It doesn't!
Linking aside, IMO, moving to an all-video platform this is a *really* stupid move, as not everyone wants to be doing video. Not everyone has the face for video. The old saying used to be "you have a face for radio." Well, in new media, you could have a "face for blogs" without having to go into the video space.
And not everyone has the time to sit and listen to a talking head--let alone find a way to reference a talking head to comment on said talking head's prattle.
So, while there were never enough catastrophes to help keep Scoopt afloat, the collapse of Pajamas seems to be predicated on mismanagement. I hate to see anything shut down, but we are indeed in a time of experimentation, and we are learning as we go along. As Scoopt's MacRae wrote in a piece for the Press-Gazette in 2006: "The trouble with any start-up, especially a dotcom start-up in a brand new media space, is that you don't know any of the answers before you have to sell your house to find out."
There are lessons to be learned from both Scoopt and Pajamas' closings--but the lesson isn't that "citizen journalism doesn't work," as I'm sure old media would like to say. It's more that we are in a transition, and that we haven't found the right business model yet for new media any more than we have for old media like newspapers and TV (which is also having its problems with a failing business model.)
It would be nice if someone would do a post-mortem on Scoopt and Pajamas. Would be interesting to hear the lessons learned from folks in the know....
Just a thought...
(hat tip to @gmarkham for the Scoopt scoop)
Scoopt was the first agency to sell citizen generated photo-journalism. Scoopt gave owners of sold photos 40% of what they made and held a 12-month exclusivity on photos. Founder Kyle MacRae says Scoopt was the first agency to "monetise citizen journalism"--not sure of that claim when it comes to print, but they may indeed have been the first to pay for citizen-generate news photos (London bombing photos being the first.) Scoopt was purchased by Getty Images, so it makes me wonder if Getty Images is planning to accept "citizen" photo-journalism directly from citizens. If Getty moves in this direction, will they pay for the photos, and what sort of terms will they have on exclusivity?
Meanwhile, Pajamas Media really is stabbing right-wing bloggers where they live--sadly--and putting its efforts into Pajamas TV. I saw the Pajamas TV people pitching pretty heavily in the exhibitors' hall at BlogWorld Expo, but had no idea they'd be shutting down their blogs in favor of the video end of things. Pam Gellar at Atlas Shrugs, an original PJM blogger registers deep frustration:
I was one of the original pajama bloggers. I thought PJM was going to rival AP, UPI, Reuters. Finally, a news portal of citizen bloggers and journalists that would counter the Pali stringers and left wing biased journalists of the news gathering agencies. But PJM went off the rails. Simon decided to chase big names for big money, but to what end? Who needed another NRO or WSJ Best of the Web? And unlike the left, where Soros, Hollywood libtards and Google-type asshats embarrassingly fund the leftwing sites vis a vis Moveon.org et al, the right has none of that. None. We live on fumes. G-d bless our small advertisers and our readers who contribute.
And Ann Althouse raises some important points about video:must say, I can barely stand to watch any political talking heads TV shows, even on network TV and cable TV. I just have no patience waiting for people to say something that I could read in 1/10 the time. . ." True! very true! Ann then notes Instapundit's remarks re Pajamas TV, and wonders "But do you want to watch him on web TV?
For me, Instapundit was always a quick read--and most interesting for the links he gave to lesser-known bloggers. How does linking translate into video? It doesn't!
Linking aside, IMO, moving to an all-video platform this is a *really* stupid move, as not everyone wants to be doing video. Not everyone has the face for video. The old saying used to be "you have a face for radio." Well, in new media, you could have a "face for blogs" without having to go into the video space.
And not everyone has the time to sit and listen to a talking head--let alone find a way to reference a talking head to comment on said talking head's prattle.
So, while there were never enough catastrophes to help keep Scoopt afloat, the collapse of Pajamas seems to be predicated on mismanagement. I hate to see anything shut down, but we are indeed in a time of experimentation, and we are learning as we go along. As Scoopt's MacRae wrote in a piece for the Press-Gazette in 2006: "The trouble with any start-up, especially a dotcom start-up in a brand new media space, is that you don't know any of the answers before you have to sell your house to find out."
There are lessons to be learned from both Scoopt and Pajamas' closings--but the lesson isn't that "citizen journalism doesn't work," as I'm sure old media would like to say. It's more that we are in a transition, and that we haven't found the right business model yet for new media any more than we have for old media like newspapers and TV (which is also having its problems with a failing business model.)
It would be nice if someone would do a post-mortem on Scoopt and Pajamas. Would be interesting to hear the lessons learned from folks in the know....
Just a thought...
(hat tip to @gmarkham for the Scoopt scoop)
Friday, January 30, 2009
The Newspaper Industry Can't Say They Weren't Warned...
Take a look at this news report on "electronic newspapers" from 1981 (via @johncabell)
I was stunned by the editor of the S.F. Examiner who said that it was just an experiment and they didn't plan to make any money from it. Well, maybe not in 1981, but the fact that 500 of the 2,000 people in the Bay Area with computers subscribed to the "electronic" version should have been a bit of a clue that things just might shift if computers became cheap and ubiquitous.
Guess nobody thought the technology would change. Wow. You'd think we were still using crystal sets rather than transistor radios or something....
If there's one thing that's constant, it's that technology changes. Think about it...
I was stunned by the editor of the S.F. Examiner who said that it was just an experiment and they didn't plan to make any money from it. Well, maybe not in 1981, but the fact that 500 of the 2,000 people in the Bay Area with computers subscribed to the "electronic" version should have been a bit of a clue that things just might shift if computers became cheap and ubiquitous.
Guess nobody thought the technology would change. Wow. You'd think we were still using crystal sets rather than transistor radios or something....
If there's one thing that's constant, it's that technology changes. Think about it...
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Spitting incident prompts Arrington "time off" from TechCrunch
Ok...the stuff we worried about a couple of years ago with the Kathy Sierra incident has crossed over into Real Life: Mike Arrington--good guy to some, really bad guy to others in the tech media space--has decided to take some time off from TechCrunch after being spat on:
Honestly, I like Arrington. Not in that fanboy way that so many in the Silicon Valley gush about him. I like what he does. I admire his tenacity and the way he's built up TechCrunch. I like the way he brought some great people to TechCrunch like Duncan Riley, who, unlike some others, never ignored my comments and actually came here and commented on posts.
And it frightens and saddens me that not only would someone spit on him, but that someone else would threaten him and his family....
Lots of people believe that it's the blogosphere that brings out the unbalanced. But is it the blogosphere, or is it something else? Murders of journalists, according to the CPJ, totals 136 since 2003. Most of those murders were politically motivated. In the U.S., murders of journalists have been connected to investigations into organized crime.
Usually, it's entertainment celebrities who suffer the wrath of unbalanced individuals, and in the past few years, it's been both male and female celebrities who have had to fear for their lives from the unbalanced.
So is it more that the blogosphere breeds a type of "celebrity" and that this is what brings out the unbalanced rather than organized crime or political opponents? Maybe it's not that the blogosphere is full of the unbalanced any more than movie theaters or the average American tv-loaded home breeds the unbalanced, but that the empahsis on "celebrity" in the blogosphere brings out the crazies....
As for Arrington, taking some time away may be helpful for him overall. At times the guy has sounded so physically and emotionally drained that I just wanted to give him a bowl of chicken soup and a warm blanket....
Yet, as in the Sierra incident, maybe we need to look at how we in the blogosphere use our words. As for me, I've begun to back off from slinging zingers. Not for disagreeing--I'll always disagree when it's there. But not to be mean. Not all disagreement is mean, even though it may look that way for the person who's theory is being picked apart. We bloggers (and jouranlists) need to learn to tolerate criticism. But we don't need to attack unjustly. "I want them ("opponents) to compete hard with us, but fight clean." said Arrington towards the end of his post. And there's a big difference between fighting hard and clean, and fighting by character assassination.
Maybe we in the blogosphere need to realize that we are dealing in a level of celebrity as much as we deal in a form of journalism. And that we have to watch our words because of the celebrity--that it shouldn't be "open season" on prominent bloggers any more than it should be "open season" on celebrities.
Maybe it isn't that Arrington has to suck it up and just deal with someone spitting on him. Nobody should "just deal" with that. Maybe we need to torque down the celebrity quotient out here. I don't know how we can do that, but we could try...
Meanwhile, Mike--if you need a place to go where nobody knows you, think about Western Mass. If you like snow, we've got it. We've also got broadband.
Just a thought...
Update Duncan Riley shares his thoughts about the incident. He says the types of things that only someone who really cares would say about a person. Despite the way he was treated by Mike. And maybe Riley has a very good point.
Yesterday I was battling the flu, jetlag and little sleep, and had been battered for three days straight with product pitches from entrepreneurs desperate for press. The event was over and I was on my way back to my hotel. The last thing I wanted was another product pitch as I hurried to the car that would drive me to Davos for the next event. So when I saw this person approach me out of the corner of my eye, I turned away slightly and avoided eye contact. Sometimes that works. But in this case all it did was make me vulnerable to the last thing I expected.
In the past I’ve been grabbed, pulled, shoved and otherwise abused at events, but never spat on. I think this is where I’m going to draw a line.
Honestly, I like Arrington. Not in that fanboy way that so many in the Silicon Valley gush about him. I like what he does. I admire his tenacity and the way he's built up TechCrunch. I like the way he brought some great people to TechCrunch like Duncan Riley, who, unlike some others, never ignored my comments and actually came here and commented on posts.
And it frightens and saddens me that not only would someone spit on him, but that someone else would threaten him and his family....
Lots of people believe that it's the blogosphere that brings out the unbalanced. But is it the blogosphere, or is it something else? Murders of journalists, according to the CPJ, totals 136 since 2003. Most of those murders were politically motivated. In the U.S., murders of journalists have been connected to investigations into organized crime.
Usually, it's entertainment celebrities who suffer the wrath of unbalanced individuals, and in the past few years, it's been both male and female celebrities who have had to fear for their lives from the unbalanced.
So is it more that the blogosphere breeds a type of "celebrity" and that this is what brings out the unbalanced rather than organized crime or political opponents? Maybe it's not that the blogosphere is full of the unbalanced any more than movie theaters or the average American tv-loaded home breeds the unbalanced, but that the empahsis on "celebrity" in the blogosphere brings out the crazies....
As for Arrington, taking some time away may be helpful for him overall. At times the guy has sounded so physically and emotionally drained that I just wanted to give him a bowl of chicken soup and a warm blanket....
Yet, as in the Sierra incident, maybe we need to look at how we in the blogosphere use our words. As for me, I've begun to back off from slinging zingers. Not for disagreeing--I'll always disagree when it's there. But not to be mean. Not all disagreement is mean, even though it may look that way for the person who's theory is being picked apart. We bloggers (and jouranlists) need to learn to tolerate criticism. But we don't need to attack unjustly. "I want them ("opponents) to compete hard with us, but fight clean." said Arrington towards the end of his post. And there's a big difference between fighting hard and clean, and fighting by character assassination.
Maybe we in the blogosphere need to realize that we are dealing in a level of celebrity as much as we deal in a form of journalism. And that we have to watch our words because of the celebrity--that it shouldn't be "open season" on prominent bloggers any more than it should be "open season" on celebrities.
Maybe it isn't that Arrington has to suck it up and just deal with someone spitting on him. Nobody should "just deal" with that. Maybe we need to torque down the celebrity quotient out here. I don't know how we can do that, but we could try...
Meanwhile, Mike--if you need a place to go where nobody knows you, think about Western Mass. If you like snow, we've got it. We've also got broadband.
Just a thought...
Update Duncan Riley shares his thoughts about the incident. He says the types of things that only someone who really cares would say about a person. Despite the way he was treated by Mike. And maybe Riley has a very good point.
Social Media & Monetizing UGC panel at #SIIA
This is an interesting panel,w ith Joe Robinson, CEO of A Small World; John Blossom, President of Shore Communications; Chuck Schilling, Research Dir Nielsen Online; Robert Barber, CEO Environmental Data Resources; and Shawn, Gold, Chairman of SocialApproach.
Joe Robinson says that he's able to monetize the sharing of content. Interesting. But how?
That's the thing: will anyone be able to *really* address how to monetize UGC? Has anything changed from when Steve Outing's Enthusiast's Group didn't work out?
John Blossom: I looked over his book "Content Nation" last night (got a free copy) and he really gets social media. "Opportunities (financial) scale to niche markets."
Robert Barber laid social media tools on top of his data and increased the value of that data. Added a "quality layer" of commentary that provided revenue opportunities. "EDR's core resource is data"--I'm thinking about EveryBlock, and whether or not Barber's experience with monetization can help an EveryBlock model. "EDR launched a community called "Common Ground" last year, where niche professionals can talk about world of assessing environmental risk. " This community is an asset! "Would you rather have people" sharing info on Facebook, or on a site where other professionals can discuss and share. (This is a good point--value in exclusive communities for particular professions.)
Chuck Schilling: Speaking about BuzzMetrics (yes! I know who they are!) that monitors "buzz" (conversation) around brands in social media context. Helping clients get "a certain level of comfort" with communicating with customers on this
How will soc. media survive in this space?
John Blossom: the concept of endorsement. People will endorse on personal level and influence friends (vs. listening to celebs.)
Joe Robinson: pitching high-end brands. Brands that come to him want results right away--they can deliver people who are talking about products. Social media helps word-of-mouth buzz (I'm thinking of Andy Sernovitz here...)
Shawn Gold talking about Addidas on MySpace, and use of widgets, badges, etc. 21 Million people interacted with Addidas stuff on other people's MySpace pages. Harness and measuring will make soc. media scale.
About UGC: Robert's UGC is very valuable (yes, it is.) "What happens day to day is that someone buys an environmental report on a property. they visit a property. the environmental person" will come back and if they've observed something on the property not on the governmental report, they can add it to the report. This helps assess environmental risk.
**So, technically, by "crowdsourcing" within EDR's social network (or, "UGC database") they are giving more updated information than the Governmental reports can keep up on. Like doing "due dilligence." This is very cool...and monetizing this helps keep EDR going.
Chuck from Nielsen, sounds like at BuzzMetrics they are filtering all the "noise" of conversation out there so that businesses can understand what's being said, why, etc. "How, from a brand perspective, does this lead down to purchase?" Trying to help people track and understand conversation (or, UGC...)
Shawn says not a lot of great subscription models for UGC--true, as most don't want to pay for UGC.
Joe: People use Facebook as an application. Contextualizing social media then can allow for monetization (well??) "Social media is the place where people are coming together" (yes, interesting to hear this explanation--I thought it was self-evident.)
John: sees a "layered" model working for BtoB. Lawyer's network that allows info on obscure cases to be uploaded by lawyers. news can then be generated by journalists in B to B sector, which can also be monetized.
There seems to be some real value in B to B social networks that crowdsource information (like at EDR and among lawyers)
Can social networks become e-commerce platforms? switching from media platforms to transactions platforms. Perspective on virtual goods space?
Joe: "ultimately, they see people come in..." like hotel booking agent which ties to user profiles and transactions going on. (but Small World is a restricted community--different from other soc. networks. however, this may fly in Facebook, but how much will we have to give up in our profiles. will it be another Beacon fiasco??)
Chuck: product called Net Effect will track a person to see if advertising is effective.
Measuring the effectiveness of online advertising may need refinement. As we know, click-thru metrics just don't tell the whole story. I liked what I heard earlier about ads that allow for e-commerce transactions from the ad (will talk more about this in my post on the SIIA Previews event that took place on Monday.)
John: Intertwining of media and community in BtoB community.
So, essentially, it may be easier to monetize UGC in a B to B environment than to monetize UGC in a B to C or in, say, the type of environment that was in the Enthusiast's Group. Overall monetization of UGC, IMO, will always be difficult, but there are models for B to B that seem to work. The crowdsourcing of professional info, as with EDR is one of those (I like this--as it does not exploit the people who are adding to the government reports, who are doing it freely and to further the accuracy of information in that community and profession.)
Shawn brings up the idea of reaching into other social networks for marketing. HOWEVER: it's one thing to transfer one's information into a new social network, and other for marketers to reach into that info. IMO, the partnership between LinkedIn and BusinessExchange is a good way to go as it is not directly marketing related.
Interesting panel. Didn't totally solve the problem of monetizing UGC, but did bring up interesting points.
Joe Robinson says that he's able to monetize the sharing of content. Interesting. But how?
That's the thing: will anyone be able to *really* address how to monetize UGC? Has anything changed from when Steve Outing's Enthusiast's Group didn't work out?
John Blossom: I looked over his book "Content Nation" last night (got a free copy) and he really gets social media. "Opportunities (financial) scale to niche markets."
Robert Barber laid social media tools on top of his data and increased the value of that data. Added a "quality layer" of commentary that provided revenue opportunities. "EDR's core resource is data"--I'm thinking about EveryBlock, and whether or not Barber's experience with monetization can help an EveryBlock model. "EDR launched a community called "Common Ground" last year, where niche professionals can talk about world of assessing environmental risk. " This community is an asset! "Would you rather have people" sharing info on Facebook, or on a site where other professionals can discuss and share. (This is a good point--value in exclusive communities for particular professions.)
Chuck Schilling: Speaking about BuzzMetrics (yes! I know who they are!) that monitors "buzz" (conversation) around brands in social media context. Helping clients get "a certain level of comfort" with communicating with customers on this
How will soc. media survive in this space?
John Blossom: the concept of endorsement. People will endorse on personal level and influence friends (vs. listening to celebs.)
Joe Robinson: pitching high-end brands. Brands that come to him want results right away--they can deliver people who are talking about products. Social media helps word-of-mouth buzz (I'm thinking of Andy Sernovitz here...)
Shawn Gold talking about Addidas on MySpace, and use of widgets, badges, etc. 21 Million people interacted with Addidas stuff on other people's MySpace pages. Harness and measuring will make soc. media scale.
About UGC: Robert's UGC is very valuable (yes, it is.) "What happens day to day is that someone buys an environmental report on a property. they visit a property. the environmental person" will come back and if they've observed something on the property not on the governmental report, they can add it to the report. This helps assess environmental risk.
**So, technically, by "crowdsourcing" within EDR's social network (or, "UGC database") they are giving more updated information than the Governmental reports can keep up on. Like doing "due dilligence." This is very cool...and monetizing this helps keep EDR going.
Chuck from Nielsen, sounds like at BuzzMetrics they are filtering all the "noise" of conversation out there so that businesses can understand what's being said, why, etc. "How, from a brand perspective, does this lead down to purchase?" Trying to help people track and understand conversation (or, UGC...)
Shawn says not a lot of great subscription models for UGC--true, as most don't want to pay for UGC.
Joe: People use Facebook as an application. Contextualizing social media then can allow for monetization (well??) "Social media is the place where people are coming together" (yes, interesting to hear this explanation--I thought it was self-evident.)
John: sees a "layered" model working for BtoB. Lawyer's network that allows info on obscure cases to be uploaded by lawyers. news can then be generated by journalists in B to B sector, which can also be monetized.
There seems to be some real value in B to B social networks that crowdsource information (like at EDR and among lawyers)
Can social networks become e-commerce platforms? switching from media platforms to transactions platforms. Perspective on virtual goods space?
Joe: "ultimately, they see people come in..." like hotel booking agent which ties to user profiles and transactions going on. (but Small World is a restricted community--different from other soc. networks. however, this may fly in Facebook, but how much will we have to give up in our profiles. will it be another Beacon fiasco??)
Chuck: product called Net Effect will track a person to see if advertising is effective.
Measuring the effectiveness of online advertising may need refinement. As we know, click-thru metrics just don't tell the whole story. I liked what I heard earlier about ads that allow for e-commerce transactions from the ad (will talk more about this in my post on the SIIA Previews event that took place on Monday.)
John: Intertwining of media and community in BtoB community.
So, essentially, it may be easier to monetize UGC in a B to B environment than to monetize UGC in a B to C or in, say, the type of environment that was in the Enthusiast's Group. Overall monetization of UGC, IMO, will always be difficult, but there are models for B to B that seem to work. The crowdsourcing of professional info, as with EDR is one of those (I like this--as it does not exploit the people who are adding to the government reports, who are doing it freely and to further the accuracy of information in that community and profession.)
Shawn brings up the idea of reaching into other social networks for marketing. HOWEVER: it's one thing to transfer one's information into a new social network, and other for marketers to reach into that info. IMO, the partnership between LinkedIn and BusinessExchange is a good way to go as it is not directly marketing related.
Interesting panel. Didn't totally solve the problem of monetizing UGC, but did bring up interesting points.
Henry Blodget and "The Rise of Online Journalism'" #SIIA
This summary is not available. Please
click here to view the post.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Some notes on the late afternoon at the SIIA Summit
Kristian Hammond's presentation on "Frictionless Information" was about how to keep Google from eating your lunch. The best thing about this presentation is that it will be available online. I can't begin to transcribe or paraphrase it--don't know if it's that I need some coffee or there's just TMI...
On the "What's the Value of Value-Add?" panel, a comment's made about the Blogger's table (where I'm sitting--pic thankx to Larry Schwartz of Newstex
and feeling a bit dissed...I wonder what some of the corporatos here think of bloggers....
A few nuggets from the "Thriving on Chaos: Profiting from the New, New Era of Political, Economic and Technology Change": There's an overall sense with this panel that things are on a way-downward trajectory. Talking about "different kinds of business models and business partners" (Dan'l Lewin, Microsoft) And I keep thinking, "what are those new business models??" Can someone explain please??
"Money velocity drives information velocity" Jim Kollegger CEO, Genesys Partners, Inc.
Steve Lohr from the NYTimes notes that the Times was expecting online to help support print, but that surely isn't going to happen in this economy.
Relying on quality of content and subscriptions in the future--Neal Lipschutz, SVP and Mg. Editor, Dow Jones Newswire.
News*paper* vs. News *business.* People still interested in news--Jon Miller, Foundig Ptnr Velocity Interactive Grp. & fmr CEO AOL. And that consumers will drive applications back to business rather than the reverse (as in the past.)
"Video consumption taking off" Jon Miller-- but haven't they been predicting this for awhile now? Is it really, as Jon suggests, going to take off because of new mobile devices (iPhone) that make it easier for video?
Just wish guys like this would talk more to Early Adopters of all ages to find out what people--not just young people--do with their toys and social networking...
On the "What's the Value of Value-Add?" panel, a comment's made about the Blogger's table (where I'm sitting--pic thankx to Larry Schwartz of Newstex
and feeling a bit dissed...I wonder what some of the corporatos here think of bloggers....A few nuggets from the "Thriving on Chaos: Profiting from the New, New Era of Political, Economic and Technology Change": There's an overall sense with this panel that things are on a way-downward trajectory. Talking about "different kinds of business models and business partners" (Dan'l Lewin, Microsoft) And I keep thinking, "what are those new business models??" Can someone explain please??
"Money velocity drives information velocity" Jim Kollegger CEO, Genesys Partners, Inc.
Steve Lohr from the NYTimes notes that the Times was expecting online to help support print, but that surely isn't going to happen in this economy.
Relying on quality of content and subscriptions in the future--Neal Lipschutz, SVP and Mg. Editor, Dow Jones Newswire.
News*paper* vs. News *business.* People still interested in news--Jon Miller, Foundig Ptnr Velocity Interactive Grp. & fmr CEO AOL. And that consumers will drive applications back to business rather than the reverse (as in the past.)
"Video consumption taking off" Jon Miller-- but haven't they been predicting this for awhile now? Is it really, as Jon suggests, going to take off because of new mobile devices (iPhone) that make it easier for video?
Just wish guys like this would talk more to Early Adopters of all ages to find out what people--not just young people--do with their toys and social networking...
Some interesting comments from SIIA panel on licensing digital info
There is a perception that young people are the only ones that don't understand copyright--but that's not exclusive to young people. Lots of bloggers, and people who are trying to collaborate in corporate settings, and a whole host of others don't understand the copyright as well as other rights and licensing of content.
"Just because you Google something doesn't mean you can use it in a Powerpoint presentation" Mindy Pennington, Manager, External Content, Library Svcs, Pfizer Global Research & Development.
Ed Colleran, Sr. Director, International Relations from the Copyright Clearance Center: they have created tools to help make it clear about licensing and use of digital content (I wonder what kinds of tools those might be?)
When content is connected with ongoing business, licensing and such becomes a different issue than when individuals use it. I'm wondering if anyone on this panel can comment on the GateHouse vs. NYTimesCo.?
Ed Colleran mentions how the Financial Times releases a certain number of articles for free, then some after registering, which can then lead to purchasing (sounds like a "freemium" model.)
This conversation also makes me think of small-town online newspapers, and if people will buy content from a small paper if they can't get it for free (honestly, I'd say yes...)
Looking at iTunes, if it's easy to pay, and people want the info or product,they will pay--(to paraphrase) Caitlin Grusauskas, a 3rd yr student at Columbia U. School of Law
Dominic Young on the biggest challenges facing content providers: "things like ACAP can help. Innovating in creating the business models that will work for publishers is important" (yes, and knowledge of different business models are important--is that knowledge there?) Right products to attract the biggest audiences.
Ed Colleran: not about text only. people want video, photo, etc. CCC sees that as licensing all that content a big thing. Ed sees future in Creative Commons, esp. for smaller content producers.
Mindy Pennington: publishers more flexible and relevant on what is/isn't licensed and how much is licensing. Esp. for info that's more along the lines of corporate info.
Caitlin: To have multiple licensing, multipule pricing structures. to enable people to share accordingly, is important.
Ed C.: people need to be educated on what they can and can't use. (this is a media literacy issue. how do we begin to work media literacy into the school curriculum. would we get more "media literate" if everyone had to take a journalism class?)
Lots of things said by this panel are things I've heard before, but there don't seem to be any new insights. Hearing about content use between people in corporate settings is one issue (this was new to me). Individual use outside of corporations another. And corporations using and building businesses on other people's content is another issue. There are so many types and kinds of publishers that it may require a variety of licenses, but will knowledge of these licenses be known only to people who access that kind of content regularly? When access to all kinds of content crosses different sectors of the populace, how might the populace know all the kinds of rights they can or cannot obtain?
"Just because you Google something doesn't mean you can use it in a Powerpoint presentation" Mindy Pennington, Manager, External Content, Library Svcs, Pfizer Global Research & Development.
Ed Colleran, Sr. Director, International Relations from the Copyright Clearance Center: they have created tools to help make it clear about licensing and use of digital content (I wonder what kinds of tools those might be?)
When content is connected with ongoing business, licensing and such becomes a different issue than when individuals use it. I'm wondering if anyone on this panel can comment on the GateHouse vs. NYTimesCo.?
Ed Colleran mentions how the Financial Times releases a certain number of articles for free, then some after registering, which can then lead to purchasing (sounds like a "freemium" model.)
This conversation also makes me think of small-town online newspapers, and if people will buy content from a small paper if they can't get it for free (honestly, I'd say yes...)
Looking at iTunes, if it's easy to pay, and people want the info or product,they will pay--(to paraphrase) Caitlin Grusauskas, a 3rd yr student at Columbia U. School of Law
Dominic Young on the biggest challenges facing content providers: "things like ACAP can help. Innovating in creating the business models that will work for publishers is important" (yes, and knowledge of different business models are important--is that knowledge there?) Right products to attract the biggest audiences.
Ed Colleran: not about text only. people want video, photo, etc. CCC sees that as licensing all that content a big thing. Ed sees future in Creative Commons, esp. for smaller content producers.
Mindy Pennington: publishers more flexible and relevant on what is/isn't licensed and how much is licensing. Esp. for info that's more along the lines of corporate info.
Caitlin: To have multiple licensing, multipule pricing structures. to enable people to share accordingly, is important.
Ed C.: people need to be educated on what they can and can't use. (this is a media literacy issue. how do we begin to work media literacy into the school curriculum. would we get more "media literate" if everyone had to take a journalism class?)
Lots of things said by this panel are things I've heard before, but there don't seem to be any new insights. Hearing about content use between people in corporate settings is one issue (this was new to me). Individual use outside of corporations another. And corporations using and building businesses on other people's content is another issue. There are so many types and kinds of publishers that it may require a variety of licenses, but will knowledge of these licenses be known only to people who access that kind of content regularly? When access to all kinds of content crosses different sectors of the populace, how might the populace know all the kinds of rights they can or cannot obtain?
Some Observations from the Sink or Swim panel #SIIA
There's much discussion here about writing for the Web being different from writing for print. This is true, but there's still no answer on how to monetize...
Michael Wolff talked about creating a site where one doesn't pay for content. IMO, this thinking seems to distort why we--I'm thinking of bloggers here--link to one another. There's definitely a disconnect between how individuals link to one another, and how (or why) an organization might link, or even aggregate. Even though a link is a link, the money-making off of free content is problematic.
Kevin English makes a point that one cannot make a business work without a revenue stream. Okleigh Thorne makes a comment that BtoBs make money differently--have different rev stream. That's mostly because they are serving a different community than general interest publications like the daily newspaper. Bob Merry, ed in chief of Congressional Quarterly says they still rely on advertising.
Vivek Shad (Time, Inc. online) comments that it's not print vs. web. It's about the advertising; click-through rates are low on display advertising. "If advertising is how we'll fund content...if there's a loss of confidence in brand advertising....then...
"we should move from a brand to a direct model...." Michael Wolff
Interesting that the conversation is moving about the types of advertising...
"technology not as a way just to create cheaper content", but the means of moving that cheaper content (Wolff.)
Lots of talk about how the Web has "killed" content. Bob Merry suggests that platforms have to be better (that's a thought.)
Someone raised the question about foreign correspondents. Wolff notes that we've already lost a lot of those. We have access to native information sources, so we're no longer dependent on the NYTimes or Time magazine. Wolff doesn't see a problem of Time shutting its foreign bureau. But could the job of the "foreign correspondent" end up being one that's take up by rich guys who have the money to travel to places and report on them? Could we be inadvertently stratifying professions so that only the wealthy have access to professions that used to be open and ways for people to move up the social ladder?
Just a thought...
The panel on content monetization will be interesting....
Michael Wolff talked about creating a site where one doesn't pay for content. IMO, this thinking seems to distort why we--I'm thinking of bloggers here--link to one another. There's definitely a disconnect between how individuals link to one another, and how (or why) an organization might link, or even aggregate. Even though a link is a link, the money-making off of free content is problematic.
Kevin English makes a point that one cannot make a business work without a revenue stream. Okleigh Thorne makes a comment that BtoBs make money differently--have different rev stream. That's mostly because they are serving a different community than general interest publications like the daily newspaper. Bob Merry, ed in chief of Congressional Quarterly says they still rely on advertising.
Vivek Shad (Time, Inc. online) comments that it's not print vs. web. It's about the advertising; click-through rates are low on display advertising. "If advertising is how we'll fund content...if there's a loss of confidence in brand advertising....then...
"we should move from a brand to a direct model...." Michael Wolff
Interesting that the conversation is moving about the types of advertising...
"technology not as a way just to create cheaper content", but the means of moving that cheaper content (Wolff.)
Lots of talk about how the Web has "killed" content. Bob Merry suggests that platforms have to be better (that's a thought.)
Someone raised the question about foreign correspondents. Wolff notes that we've already lost a lot of those. We have access to native information sources, so we're no longer dependent on the NYTimes or Time magazine. Wolff doesn't see a problem of Time shutting its foreign bureau. But could the job of the "foreign correspondent" end up being one that's take up by rich guys who have the money to travel to places and report on them? Could we be inadvertently stratifying professions so that only the wealthy have access to professions that used to be open and ways for people to move up the social ladder?
Just a thought...
The panel on content monetization will be interesting....
Liveblogging from the Software & Information Industry Association Summit--Keynote #SIIA
Invited to attend the Software & Info Industry Summit as a blogger, feel like I have Arrived. Cipriani, the meeting place for the the event, is gorgeous. Someone even checked my coat for me. There's something to attending an event like this--a sense of being part of something important. There's a sense of being a mover and shaker, not just someone who's toiling away somewhere in the middle of nowhere. Working as I do--with start-ups and cutting edge projects--can be an isolating experience. And even though I haven't met any of the folks attending just yet (a mixed group of men and women) I have a sense that I should be here.
The keynote is Marjorie Scardino, Chief Executive of Pearson. So often there's loads of squawking about how women don't keynote events--well, here's a woman keynoting an event. She's speaking on "sink or swim" and her own failure with a small newspaper she and her husband founded. Yes, revenues have to exceed expenses to survive. She notes that in the current economic situation there's not a lot to offset the losses in the financial markets. But there is much we can do in the Information industry, making it "the electricity of our times."
She sees much for the education--and for products and services that educate. Products that will educate and train the new workforce in new skills--"we don't know all the jobs of the 21st century." Not just "cool ideas" but ideas and products that will make a difference.
This is quite true. As I observed yesterday at the SIIA Previews event, the companies that presented were no-b.s. products. Platforms or SaaS that had more than advertising as a revenue stream, didn't distribute tons of no tchochkies, presentations that were delightfully free of comedic flash-and dash.
Ms. Scardino continues: We need to know skills of what students and employees and citizens will need for the 21st. century. What are the 21st c. skills. Managing information, working flexibly, working in groups, and communicating effectively will be necessary skills in the 21st century (according to a report.) The really vital skill will be able to connect answers to search queries and to be able to connect it to other results--judging the output of what you get. "It's a form of critical thinking that isn't part of our education system. . . We aren't doing enough to close the Achievement Gap with other countries."
"Technology can't solve the lag in our education system. . . Our teachers and classrooms need to be part of the always on generation as much as President Obama and his blackberry."
As I see it though, the lag is between the grown ups and the kids. Kids are online but there's no guidance from educators or parents as to how to manage information, how to be discerning when viewing information (like Wikipedia entries) how to balance social life and face to face interaction with online communication and interaction. Kids are often on their own, developing skills and a way of interacting that many adults don't understand--and they don't understand because they don't use the devices or the social networking sites or the things that adults consider "toys." When I talk with adults who begin to use Facebook and/or Twitter, they adults begin to understand the attraction, and how to communicate. But the resistance to social networking is amazing...even for business use, like on LinkedIn.
Ms. Scardino talks about releasing software and allowing customers to help fix it. I always wonder if that's the job of customers. Then again, it opens the process of development, and often customer input helps engineers,who can't anticipate all of the customer's needs or wants or see all the bugs.
"Good ideas don't always come from the top." And Apple is mentioned. "We have to have inclusive and interactive (collaborative?) cultures."
"Our content and technology are inextricably bound."
"See software as a tool to achieve somebody's goal." Not as an end it itself, or an art....
"We use technology to free us to do more with our intellects and our personalities."
Ultimately, things are changing too fast. Ms. Scardino notes that those of us who are on the cutting edge are far more fluid than most other folks. And we simply do not know what all the necessary skills will be for the 21st century worker. This is right. We are really in a strange place, at a time of amazing innovation, and immense social change. As my friend, elderblogger Ronni Bennett once said, we're probably in something like the Renaissance, but we won't know what that time is in our time. The term won't come about until way after we're dead. We hedge around with terms like "Information Age" and such, but those terms will morph as much as what my various titles have been over the years (online journalist, professional blogger, social media consultant, etc., etc., etc.....)
We're in a q & a period now....which I won't transcribe. I'm in listening mode right now...more to follow....
A short note on a questions I asked I wondered if Ms. Scardino had any suggestions as to how to bring parents and teachers up to speed. Sadly, she remarked about parents "friending" their kids on Facebook, and how kids wouldn't friend their parents. and that's the thing: parents have to think of themselves as people and "friend" their own friends Learning about social networking isn't about being a "helicopter parent" online, but should be about getting into it and doing it with *your* friends and family members.
Sheesh! why is it so hard for so many adults to grasp that it is O.K. to use Facebook and LinkedIn for their *own* social networking. That it's not going to kill them or even compromise their reputations...
If adults refuse to experience social networks on a personal level--not as helicopters mimicking their kids--they will never get how social networks function and how soc. networks can become important to a person's life.
The keynote is Marjorie Scardino, Chief Executive of Pearson. So often there's loads of squawking about how women don't keynote events--well, here's a woman keynoting an event. She's speaking on "sink or swim" and her own failure with a small newspaper she and her husband founded. Yes, revenues have to exceed expenses to survive. She notes that in the current economic situation there's not a lot to offset the losses in the financial markets. But there is much we can do in the Information industry, making it "the electricity of our times."
She sees much for the education--and for products and services that educate. Products that will educate and train the new workforce in new skills--"we don't know all the jobs of the 21st century." Not just "cool ideas" but ideas and products that will make a difference.
This is quite true. As I observed yesterday at the SIIA Previews event, the companies that presented were no-b.s. products. Platforms or SaaS that had more than advertising as a revenue stream, didn't distribute tons of no tchochkies, presentations that were delightfully free of comedic flash-and dash.
Ms. Scardino continues: We need to know skills of what students and employees and citizens will need for the 21st. century. What are the 21st c. skills. Managing information, working flexibly, working in groups, and communicating effectively will be necessary skills in the 21st century (according to a report.) The really vital skill will be able to connect answers to search queries and to be able to connect it to other results--judging the output of what you get. "It's a form of critical thinking that isn't part of our education system. . . We aren't doing enough to close the Achievement Gap with other countries."
"Technology can't solve the lag in our education system. . . Our teachers and classrooms need to be part of the always on generation as much as President Obama and his blackberry."
As I see it though, the lag is between the grown ups and the kids. Kids are online but there's no guidance from educators or parents as to how to manage information, how to be discerning when viewing information (like Wikipedia entries) how to balance social life and face to face interaction with online communication and interaction. Kids are often on their own, developing skills and a way of interacting that many adults don't understand--and they don't understand because they don't use the devices or the social networking sites or the things that adults consider "toys." When I talk with adults who begin to use Facebook and/or Twitter, they adults begin to understand the attraction, and how to communicate. But the resistance to social networking is amazing...even for business use, like on LinkedIn.
Ms. Scardino talks about releasing software and allowing customers to help fix it. I always wonder if that's the job of customers. Then again, it opens the process of development, and often customer input helps engineers,who can't anticipate all of the customer's needs or wants or see all the bugs.
"Good ideas don't always come from the top." And Apple is mentioned. "We have to have inclusive and interactive (collaborative?) cultures."
"Our content and technology are inextricably bound."
"See software as a tool to achieve somebody's goal." Not as an end it itself, or an art....
"We use technology to free us to do more with our intellects and our personalities."
Ultimately, things are changing too fast. Ms. Scardino notes that those of us who are on the cutting edge are far more fluid than most other folks. And we simply do not know what all the necessary skills will be for the 21st century worker. This is right. We are really in a strange place, at a time of amazing innovation, and immense social change. As my friend, elderblogger Ronni Bennett once said, we're probably in something like the Renaissance, but we won't know what that time is in our time. The term won't come about until way after we're dead. We hedge around with terms like "Information Age" and such, but those terms will morph as much as what my various titles have been over the years (online journalist, professional blogger, social media consultant, etc., etc., etc.....)
We're in a q & a period now....which I won't transcribe. I'm in listening mode right now...more to follow....
A short note on a questions I asked I wondered if Ms. Scardino had any suggestions as to how to bring parents and teachers up to speed. Sadly, she remarked about parents "friending" their kids on Facebook, and how kids wouldn't friend their parents. and that's the thing: parents have to think of themselves as people and "friend" their own friends Learning about social networking isn't about being a "helicopter parent" online, but should be about getting into it and doing it with *your* friends and family members.
Sheesh! why is it so hard for so many adults to grasp that it is O.K. to use Facebook and LinkedIn for their *own* social networking. That it's not going to kill them or even compromise their reputations...
If adults refuse to experience social networks on a personal level--not as helicopters mimicking their kids--they will never get how social networks function and how soc. networks can become important to a person's life.
Monday, January 26, 2009
NYTCo. agrees to no longer aggregate Gatehouse RSS feeds.
Update 3/2/09: Howard Owens (who used to be with GateHouse) explains the reasons for the suit. A very important read.
Update Zach Seward's wrap-up q&a on GH v. NYTCo. on NeimanLab blog
One of the things I predicted in the Gatehouse v. NYTCo. case was that NYTCo. would have to stop aggregating Gatehouse's RSS feeds. This is indeed one of the provisionsin the Agreement reached with Gatehouse
In paragraph(1), GateHouse is requested to implement technological solutions that will prevent the Defendant from copying original content from Gatehouse...
There is, however, nothing to stop linking or deep-linking--just as long as original content is not used.
Take a moment and read the entire agreement...and here's a a bit more from Dan Kennedy on the matter
A little more on requesting aggregators don't link: at Placeblogger.com, we sometimes get requests from bloggers not to aggregate their feeds. Rarely, but we do get them. When this happens, we stop aggregating their feed. As a blogger, if I found my feed being aggregated by a site which had content that I found objectionable for some reason, I would expect the site to drop my feed if I sent them a request to do so. However I'm not sure if GateHouse was able to have that kind of informal request for removal that bloggers have. Perhaps they had to resort to legal action to have their feed removed. Still, this doesn't necessarily set a precendent, inasmuch as it is an agreement between these two parties. We will have to see....
Update Zach Seward's wrap-up q&a on GH v. NYTCo. on NeimanLab blog
One of the things I predicted in the Gatehouse v. NYTCo. case was that NYTCo. would have to stop aggregating Gatehouse's RSS feeds. This is indeed one of the provisionsin the Agreement reached with Gatehouse
2)Defendants shall remove all GateHouse RSS feeds from the aggregation tool currently being used to copy and display Gatehouse's original headlines and ledes on boston.com's yourtown websites, and shall refrain from accessing such feeds for so long as GateHouse maintains any Solution(s) described in >
paragraph (1) to this Letter of Agreement. . .
In paragraph(1), GateHouse is requested to implement technological solutions that will prevent the Defendant from copying original content from Gatehouse...
There is, however, nothing to stop linking or deep-linking--just as long as original content is not used.
Take a moment and read the entire agreement...and here's a a bit more from Dan Kennedy on the matter
A little more on requesting aggregators don't link: at Placeblogger.com, we sometimes get requests from bloggers not to aggregate their feeds. Rarely, but we do get them. When this happens, we stop aggregating their feed. As a blogger, if I found my feed being aggregated by a site which had content that I found objectionable for some reason, I would expect the site to drop my feed if I sent them a request to do so. However I'm not sure if GateHouse was able to have that kind of informal request for removal that bloggers have. Perhaps they had to resort to legal action to have their feed removed. Still, this doesn't necessarily set a precendent, inasmuch as it is an agreement between these two parties. We will have to see....
Gatehouse and NYTCo. Reach Settlement in Aggregation Dispute
Update 1/28/09: Dan Kennedy has the full text of a memo
from Rick Daniels, President of GateHouse Media New England explaining to GH employees about the settlement...
Just in from @NeimanLab on Twitter: GateHouse v. New York Times Co. has been settled, court officials say. (ZMS) (settlement reached over the weekend--see below)
and
Settlement in GH v. NYT Co. was encouraged by Dan Kennedy & others as way for both parties to avoid wide-reaching ruling on links. (ZMS)
Here's a short piece from the AP on the matter
This is incredible! and the right move. As I spoke last week w/a reporter from the Boston Globe, I felt there was no way out of this for either party that wouldn't
inflict some serious damage to the fabric of the Web.
I can't wait to hear about the settlement. I have a feeling that Gatehouse will settle for having their feed removed, and, perhaps, for a small amount of money.
Another reason for settling is that Gatehouse may have been called to reveal their traffic logs--as an analysis of their traffic logs would be the only thing that would help the court conclude that Gatehouse was indeed losing traffic to NYTCo. But, Gatehouse may have felt that to reveal their traffic logs would have been more than they wanted to reveal.
It might have felt too much like they would be revealing some of the seasoning that makes their online sausage. (pardon the cheezy metaphor)
Overall, though, I'm not surprised that they reached a settlement. That's what happened in AP vs. Drudge Retort, a case that would have, essentially, forced the AP to specifically define what is a sufficient amount of text for Fair Use in text-based media (like it is for certain uses of film and music.)
Latest update from @NeimanLab: Court officer says GH v NYT was settled this weekend; court notified Sunday afternoon. No documents filed yet. That's all for now. (ZMS)
Guess we'll have to wait to know more...
from Rick Daniels, President of GateHouse Media New England explaining to GH employees about the settlement...
Just in from @NeimanLab on Twitter: GateHouse v. New York Times Co. has been settled, court officials say. (ZMS) (settlement reached over the weekend--see below)
and
Settlement in GH v. NYT Co. was encouraged by Dan Kennedy & others as way for both parties to avoid wide-reaching ruling on links. (ZMS)
Here's a short piece from the AP on the matter
This is incredible! and the right move. As I spoke last week w/a reporter from the Boston Globe, I felt there was no way out of this for either party that wouldn't
inflict some serious damage to the fabric of the Web.
I can't wait to hear about the settlement. I have a feeling that Gatehouse will settle for having their feed removed, and, perhaps, for a small amount of money.
Another reason for settling is that Gatehouse may have been called to reveal their traffic logs--as an analysis of their traffic logs would be the only thing that would help the court conclude that Gatehouse was indeed losing traffic to NYTCo. But, Gatehouse may have felt that to reveal their traffic logs would have been more than they wanted to reveal.
It might have felt too much like they would be revealing some of the seasoning that makes their online sausage. (pardon the cheezy metaphor)
Overall, though, I'm not surprised that they reached a settlement. That's what happened in AP vs. Drudge Retort, a case that would have, essentially, forced the AP to specifically define what is a sufficient amount of text for Fair Use in text-based media (like it is for certain uses of film and music.)
Latest update from @NeimanLab: Court officer says GH v NYT was settled this weekend; court notified Sunday afternoon. No documents filed yet. That's all for now. (ZMS)
Guess we'll have to wait to know more...
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
What Journalists Get about Twitter, Social Media "Gurus" (and others) Don't
Over the weekend, I blurted out a four-tweet kvetch about journalists and social media types that went something like this: Journalists handle twitter far better than many marketers and p.r. people. And *far* better than most social media people. amazing!
And: freelance writers handle twitter pretty well too. not surprised, really.. . .
Then: It was when the baby diape(r) company started to follow me that I knew something had gone horribly wrong with marketing on Twitter. . .
That ended with: Journalist, however, give interesting links, aren't totally self-absorbed, are very helpful and often quite funny. even when being serious.
What got me going on this train of thought was all the "followers" that I'd recently accumulated on Twitter. Some of them were journalists from the Dallas Morning News, and other assorted journalists that I'd bumped into either as colleagues from Poynter's E-Media TidBits column or who'd read/heard about me from somewhere....
But it was the other followers--the weird "social media consultants" or "social media gurus" or baby-diaper companies, or mom-marketing firms or other (what I'd call) scam artists (not legit marketers/p.r./or others) for whom every tweet is a promotion for their latest get-rich-quick scheme that prompted the kvetch. But I wasn't the only one who'd been assailed by these social media polluters. Indeed, Michael Pinto of Fanboy.com seems to be having the same trouble with what he refers to as "a cancer" on Twitter and "zombies":
That's another thing I've noticed, too, when I see the profiles of these "guru zombies": lots of high numbers. It's as if, all of a sudden, because you have huge numbers you must be significant or are saying something important on Twitter...(maybe it has something to do with this post on "Twitter metrics" that got them started...)
When all they're doing is shoving their lousy marketing message in front of audiences who don't give a damn!
Seriously. Why the heck is the baby diaper company following me, a middle-aged single woman with *no* children and nothing in my profile anywhere that says I am remotely connected to children! Oh, sure, maybe I have friends that have children, but those friends are too busy raising their children to be playing around on Twitter!
The egregious behavior of social media clods is what then lead me to observing my journalism friends, what they're tweeting and how they tweet. Few of them tweet headlines. Most journalists do not engage in horrific over the top self promotion that I see among the "gurus" (as well as some p.r. and marketing folk), including multiple links back to their own or their client's blogs, re-tweets of A-listers tweets and other ass-kissing behavior, and what seems to be a constant drone of "me! me! look at me! I'm social!!!"
If there's one thing that says you're not social, it's telling everyone how social you are....
So, while I may allow some of these droning zombies to follow me, I certainly don't follow them back. I don't want their chatter clouding my conversation with people who are really doing it right: my journalist friends...
And what are my journalist friends doing right? It's real simple: they are engaging in conversations! Here are seven things journalists I know are doing right on Twitter
1. they post what they're doing. if it's meaningful. not just crap. or crap about clients or client meetings or anything like that
2. they post links to their blog posts--but rarely re-tweet the same link for attention.
3. they answer "@" messages and direct messages :-)
4. they ask questions *and* answer questions!
5. they will even email you if you ask them to!
6. they don't post multiple links back to items within their own blog posts, esp.
if they can post a direct link (with a few exceptions.)
7. they don't try to prove their being social by doing any Twitter equivalent of jumping up in down and waving their hands in front of your face, including re-tweeting messages from A-listers that you probably follow, too. They simply don't have to prove how important they are in social media. Even if they are.
Odd, isn't it? For the longest time we've blasted journalists for their inability to understand blogging, when so many are doing darned well at microblogging. Maybe it's because, in the microblogging 'sphere, the newspapers that journalists write for keep their own brodcast-style Twitter streams (which we can choose to follow, or not, as the case may be.) Journalists are then free to tweet what they want, when they want, how they want. And in doing so, have created some really great conversations without being smarmy "gurus" about it.
A further amusing point A young p.r. guy @AaronU got peeved that I took a potshot at p.r. folks, and started following me. He seems to understand social media, and appears to handle his tweets rather judiciously.
For more on zombies Check out Alan Patrick's Paris Hilton, Twitter Flight, and other viral afflictions of social media for a good giggle.
And: freelance writers handle twitter pretty well too. not surprised, really.. . .
Then: It was when the baby diape(r) company started to follow me that I knew something had gone horribly wrong with marketing on Twitter. . .
That ended with: Journalist, however, give interesting links, aren't totally self-absorbed, are very helpful and often quite funny. even when being serious.
What got me going on this train of thought was all the "followers" that I'd recently accumulated on Twitter. Some of them were journalists from the Dallas Morning News, and other assorted journalists that I'd bumped into either as colleagues from Poynter's E-Media TidBits column or who'd read/heard about me from somewhere....
But it was the other followers--the weird "social media consultants" or "social media gurus" or baby-diaper companies, or mom-marketing firms or other (what I'd call) scam artists (not legit marketers/p.r./or others) for whom every tweet is a promotion for their latest get-rich-quick scheme that prompted the kvetch. But I wasn't the only one who'd been assailed by these social media polluters. Indeed, Michael Pinto of Fanboy.com seems to be having the same trouble with what he refers to as "a cancer" on Twitter and "zombies":
They don’t care who it is or what that person is interested in because their first prize is the “auto-follow”. By finding enough folks who don’t have auto-follow turned off they artificially inflate their number of followers which inflates their “expertise” in the field. Most start out by doing this to each other, but before long they need to prey on the flesh of the living.
That's another thing I've noticed, too, when I see the profiles of these "guru zombies": lots of high numbers. It's as if, all of a sudden, because you have huge numbers you must be significant or are saying something important on Twitter...(maybe it has something to do with this post on "Twitter metrics" that got them started...)
When all they're doing is shoving their lousy marketing message in front of audiences who don't give a damn!
Seriously. Why the heck is the baby diaper company following me, a middle-aged single woman with *no* children and nothing in my profile anywhere that says I am remotely connected to children! Oh, sure, maybe I have friends that have children, but those friends are too busy raising their children to be playing around on Twitter!
The egregious behavior of social media clods is what then lead me to observing my journalism friends, what they're tweeting and how they tweet. Few of them tweet headlines. Most journalists do not engage in horrific over the top self promotion that I see among the "gurus" (as well as some p.r. and marketing folk), including multiple links back to their own or their client's blogs, re-tweets of A-listers tweets and other ass-kissing behavior, and what seems to be a constant drone of "me! me! look at me! I'm social!!!"
If there's one thing that says you're not social, it's telling everyone how social you are....
So, while I may allow some of these droning zombies to follow me, I certainly don't follow them back. I don't want their chatter clouding my conversation with people who are really doing it right: my journalist friends...
And what are my journalist friends doing right? It's real simple: they are engaging in conversations! Here are seven things journalists I know are doing right on Twitter
1. they post what they're doing. if it's meaningful. not just crap. or crap about clients or client meetings or anything like that
2. they post links to their blog posts--but rarely re-tweet the same link for attention.
3. they answer "@" messages and direct messages :-)
4. they ask questions *and* answer questions!
5. they will even email you if you ask them to!
6. they don't post multiple links back to items within their own blog posts, esp.
if they can post a direct link (with a few exceptions.)
7. they don't try to prove their being social by doing any Twitter equivalent of jumping up in down and waving their hands in front of your face, including re-tweeting messages from A-listers that you probably follow, too. They simply don't have to prove how important they are in social media. Even if they are.
Odd, isn't it? For the longest time we've blasted journalists for their inability to understand blogging, when so many are doing darned well at microblogging. Maybe it's because, in the microblogging 'sphere, the newspapers that journalists write for keep their own brodcast-style Twitter streams (which we can choose to follow, or not, as the case may be.) Journalists are then free to tweet what they want, when they want, how they want. And in doing so, have created some really great conversations without being smarmy "gurus" about it.
A further amusing point A young p.r. guy @AaronU got peeved that I took a potshot at p.r. folks, and started following me. He seems to understand social media, and appears to handle his tweets rather judiciously.
For more on zombies Check out Alan Patrick's Paris Hilton, Twitter Flight, and other viral afflictions of social media for a good giggle.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Today We Begin a New Era. . .
Watch CBS Videos Online
As I sit watching the Inauguration of Barak Obama,can't help but to think how much our country has changed in 48 years--48 years ago John Fitzgerald Kennedy became our first Roman Catholic President....
My Mother always reminded me of JFK's Inauguration. I happen to have been born during that historic inauguration, and I can't help but to think what that inauguration mean to my Mother (she was Roman Catholic.)
Because the Inauguration of Barak Obama means so much to me...
Some might wonder why--as I'm not African-American. But the thing is, growing up at the beginning of another New Era, I saw the changes in both the law of the land and in social attitudes that helped to bring about the election of Barak Obama....
This morning, one of the broadcasters reminded all of us that, in 1961, when Obama was born, his parents would not have been able to marry in many of the United States. It would have been called "miscegenation."
Along the way of my live, I had a number of friends who were "bi-racial" like Obama, and who went thru similar struggles with identity that Obama went thru. And I remember how it was difficult to explain to my parents, born and raised during a time of prominence for the KKK--when cross-burnings (even on the property of Roman Catholics) and lynchings happened regularly, that is was just as much o.k. for me to be friends with them, as it became o.k., in their time, for my Southern Protestant Father to be married to my Italian Roman Catholic Mother (yes, they were, in their time, considered "bi-racial"--how odd...but true. Look it up in the history books...)
We don't talk much about what happened to Roman Catholics in the United States--how the Vatican really didn't pay the U.S. all that much mind, that R.C.'s had, in many ways, to find their own way in this country; had to endure employment discrimination and "racial" discrimination and a host of other humiliations along the way. And even the wrath of the KKK....with cross burnings and being run out of towns (as had happened to my Italian grandparents in the 1910's...)
When Kennedy became President, his rise meant a lot to the Roman Catholic community of the U.S. It meant that, finally, Catholics were part of this Protestant country. That they were equal, not another race, not Pope-worshipers who would sell the country out to the Vatican.
And the Kennedys, both John and Bobby, alongside Rev. Martin Luther King,Jr., set in motion the attitude necessary to dismantle legislation and social attitudes that barred African-Americans from freedoms that kept them from being fully citizens of the United States. They stuck themselves in the door and helped to hold it open for change of that era's Old Regime...
So, today, as we watch Barak Obama become President, we see the fruits of that era that began on January 20, 1961 come to bear. We can turn a page, and say yes, we have come a very long way. We have changed as a nation. So much so that it's no big deal for whites and blacks to be friends (as it was when I was a kid), to see a "bi-racial" couple with "mixed" babies, any more than it is to have an African-American President and a Roman Catholic Vice-President (yes, our first.)
As Bob Schieffer remarked, there is now a generation that will be able to say they never knew a country that *didn't* have an African-American President. And I'm very glad to say that I've been able to see this, the culmination of so many changes that were launched 48 years ago, happen in my lifetime.
It is a day of much hope, and grace, and looking toward the future that we have not seen in a very long time. It is an amazing day indeed.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Gatehouse sues NYTCo (Boston.com) over aggregation: But do they have a point?
Things have been buzzing over here about the news that Gatehouse has sued NYTCo, the parent company of Boston.com, for aggregating headlines its headlines on Boston.com's new hyperlocal sites....
Now, in hyperlocal-land, getting aggregated is a good thing--(theoretically)it's supposed to drive traffic to the smaller, lower ranked site. But is that always the case--and is it the case in the Boston media landscape? I put in a call to my good friend Dan Kennedy, who is perhaps the *one* guy who really knows the Boston newspaper scene. In his post "How the Gatehouse Suit Looks from Both Sides", Dan looks at both sides of the situation. I would suggest to anyone reading this that they go directly to Dan's post, which is full of a number of important links....<Update Dan adds more resources in this post from 12/24/08)
However, here's a few insights I gained from my conversation with Dan: even though Gatehouse's viewpoint may be arguing from a point of weakness, maybe they have a point when it comes to which pages Boston.com uses Gatehouse headlines. Dan explained to me that Newton, the first page Boston.com launched their hyperlocal initiative, is chock full of hyperlocal media. So, Boston.com has a number of resources to aggregate content from. However, when it comes to a place like Waltham, Dan explained, all Waltham has is Gatehouse's content. So, what ends up on Boston.com's page is all Gatehouse headlines. That, IMO, isn't so great. From the position of someone who's interested in the diversity of the local media landscape, if I go to a site and see headlines from *only* one or two major media sources (as I'm likely to see on many of the Topix.com pages) I find the site a waste of my time. If all I'm getting are the headlines from other mainstream sites, then either someone at the aggregator isn't doing their job, or the region has nothing to offer me but msm content. So, why should one paper be the one-stop-shopping site for all the msm content in one region?? If one major paper wants to be the one-stop-shopping site, then aggregation isn't about revealing anything or being a guide, it's potentially a land-grab for ad dollars.
What Boston.com *should* do is aggregate in areas that are content-rich--not just roll out whatever they feel like rolling out for whatever reason. By not aggregating in areas that are content rich, it is not acting as a guide to local media--which I believe is the reason for their hyperlocal pages (IMO, they're a dumb idea anyway, as I feel the hyperlocal aggregation should be done by other hyperlocals...just call me a purist...)
Boston.com also may want to re-think selling ads against aggregated content. Yes, I work for Placeblogger.com, which is an aggregation site--but we do not sell ads. We are trying to figure out a revenue model that won't rely on ads against aggregated headlines. However, two other hyperlocal aggregation sites, BlogNetNews and Outside.In, have ads against their aggregated hyperlocal headlines. (BNN also offers a widget--which may end up sending pageviews back to the BNN site rather than to the blog where the headline resides. Don't know for sure.)
Still, Gatehouse's case may have a "chilling effect" on aggregation sites overall--including news review sites like NewsTrust.net , Digg, and any other site that might want to share news with others and be supported by something other than grants or V.C. money. It may end up that, unless a site is willing to forego making money, or that it comes up with some other way to make money than by selling ads against other aggregated content, then shared-news sites and other aggregators (sadly) might not be long for this world.
Update: Check out Danny Sanchez's post that gives a view from the tech side of the newspaper.
Now, in hyperlocal-land, getting aggregated is a good thing--(theoretically)it's supposed to drive traffic to the smaller, lower ranked site. But is that always the case--and is it the case in the Boston media landscape? I put in a call to my good friend Dan Kennedy, who is perhaps the *one* guy who really knows the Boston newspaper scene. In his post "How the Gatehouse Suit Looks from Both Sides", Dan looks at both sides of the situation. I would suggest to anyone reading this that they go directly to Dan's post, which is full of a number of important links....<Update Dan adds more resources in this post from 12/24/08)
However, here's a few insights I gained from my conversation with Dan: even though Gatehouse's viewpoint may be arguing from a point of weakness, maybe they have a point when it comes to which pages Boston.com uses Gatehouse headlines. Dan explained to me that Newton, the first page Boston.com launched their hyperlocal initiative, is chock full of hyperlocal media. So, Boston.com has a number of resources to aggregate content from. However, when it comes to a place like Waltham, Dan explained, all Waltham has is Gatehouse's content. So, what ends up on Boston.com's page is all Gatehouse headlines. That, IMO, isn't so great. From the position of someone who's interested in the diversity of the local media landscape, if I go to a site and see headlines from *only* one or two major media sources (as I'm likely to see on many of the Topix.com pages) I find the site a waste of my time. If all I'm getting are the headlines from other mainstream sites, then either someone at the aggregator isn't doing their job, or the region has nothing to offer me but msm content. So, why should one paper be the one-stop-shopping site for all the msm content in one region?? If one major paper wants to be the one-stop-shopping site, then aggregation isn't about revealing anything or being a guide, it's potentially a land-grab for ad dollars.
What Boston.com *should* do is aggregate in areas that are content-rich--not just roll out whatever they feel like rolling out for whatever reason. By not aggregating in areas that are content rich, it is not acting as a guide to local media--which I believe is the reason for their hyperlocal pages (IMO, they're a dumb idea anyway, as I feel the hyperlocal aggregation should be done by other hyperlocals...just call me a purist...)
Boston.com also may want to re-think selling ads against aggregated content. Yes, I work for Placeblogger.com, which is an aggregation site--but we do not sell ads. We are trying to figure out a revenue model that won't rely on ads against aggregated headlines. However, two other hyperlocal aggregation sites, BlogNetNews and Outside.In, have ads against their aggregated hyperlocal headlines. (BNN also offers a widget--which may end up sending pageviews back to the BNN site rather than to the blog where the headline resides. Don't know for sure.)
Still, Gatehouse's case may have a "chilling effect" on aggregation sites overall--including news review sites like NewsTrust.net , Digg, and any other site that might want to share news with others and be supported by something other than grants or V.C. money. It may end up that, unless a site is willing to forego making money, or that it comes up with some other way to make money than by selling ads against other aggregated content, then shared-news sites and other aggregators (sadly) might not be long for this world.
Update: Check out Danny Sanchez's post that gives a view from the tech side of the newspaper.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Taking the "Social" out of Social Networking
Over a period of a couple of months, as the word has been spreading about how to market oneself or one's company through various forms of social media and social networking, I've noticed a few disturbing and rather anti-social networking trends. IMO, these spam-handed techniques seem to have evolved out of ham-handed f2f networking practices.
I started to notice the changes when a flurry of people I didn't know started following me on Twitter. Now, I've got nothing against the random following, but I do have a problem with being the social media marketer for someone's "personal brand message." So, there were lots of folks I never followed back.
Then, the blog comments started getting spammier than usual. I'd noticed it awhile back when spammers were latching on to the comments sections in online versions of print magazines the way leeches clung to Humphrey Bogart in "The African Queen." It was pretty ugly--sadly, there was no Katherine Hepburn blog moderator there to apply the salt to get rid of those nasty things...
Soon after, I started to see people leaving links to their blogs in the comments section of prominent blogger's blogs. Sure, the people sounded rather sincere: "great post! I've responded to you on my blog..." IMO, these comments weren't there because their intention was to converse with the blogger. Rather, these comments seemed more, to me anyway, to have been made simply to generate traffic back to the commenter's blog...
In a kind of sycophant-y, fanboy kind of way.
Recently, I've noticed a rise in social media marketers sending out minions to connect with bloggers. Hysterically, two guys from the same social media marketing firm, "commented" my post on community building! The first comment seemed ok and non-spam-like--but the second one, from the same company, felt most certainly like spamming. In both cases, neither person is a blogger, and neither person has any information that I can connect back to a true identity. They are, essentially, anonymous comments and hence spam--not social media marketing at all. To me, and maybe I'm old-fashioned in this, blog comments are a way of meeting other people. You comment on someone's blog because you want to connect with them, not because you want to leave your marketing message (in your "social media signature"--talk about marketingspeak! sheesh!) Even if you *do* want to leave your marketing message, you should at least try to be honestly and transparently social first!
Now, it would be easy to say that this kind of spam-handed stuff online is the result of a flaw in the ethos of social media, the influx of poorly-trained marketers, and a number of other excuses/factors that are Internet based. Then on Saturday, Chris Brogan wrote When Not To Sell Me Something a short but sweet post that expresses something I'd been thinking--about not being "sold" to when you meet someone either online or f2f.
Then it hit me that this is one reason why I don't always like business networking events. Too often I feel like I'm being sold something--or that because many don't quite understand what I do, that I'm not a potential prospect. There doesn't seem to be a desire just to chat and create a relationship first. For some it's all about whether or not a person is useful at that moment...not that they're a potential relationship that may yield something great over time. It's made me very jumpy around "business networking" situations--even though I'm a fantastic networker in so many other situations. But I can't blame the people at the events because I know they got their networking advice from some networking professional somwhere. I've heard "professional networkers" promote strategies that rank people according to whether or not they are prospects and even encourage adding those who aren't prospects to mailing lists and other spammy devices that don't build relationship or community.
Analogous to these old-time spammy devices are the kinds of stuff we're now seeing on blogs and on social networks...The spam-handed is a reflection of the ham-handed...
Seriously: how often do you genuinely connect with someone to whom you've recited your "30 second elevator pitch"? How many "unsubscribe" requests do you get from the people you plunked into your Constant Contact account without their permission? Have you ever got a good return from spamming someone's blog or direct-messaging a bigshot on Twitter?
I will never forget the women who spammed me with an offer to help me start a blog, after I'd met her at a conference where I was a speaker . Oddly, the same thing happened with a different company at the last big conference I attended--where I moderated two panels. I really didn't appreciate the sharp CEO passing my business card along to his "marketing guy," who then proceeded to try to sell me his blogging platform.
IMO, if I meet a CEO, I expect to hear *from* that CEO, not from someone in his organization. And I also expect that person to go to my blog, and my online resume, and my LinkedIn profile, and find out who I am before I get "networked" in a very un-social kind of way.
When we start to teach people--from the CEO to the Marketer to the Job Prospector-- new ways to network face-to-face that are meant to create relationships, we might begin to see a change in how people network online. "Social Networking" is about being open and genuine when meeting new contacts--not a contest to see how many new prospects we can get from that stack of business cards or how many new "friendings" we can generate on the various social networks. If all your doing is playing a numbers game, rather than exercising a friendmaking skill, then don't be surprised by the results.
I started to notice the changes when a flurry of people I didn't know started following me on Twitter. Now, I've got nothing against the random following, but I do have a problem with being the social media marketer for someone's "personal brand message." So, there were lots of folks I never followed back.
Then, the blog comments started getting spammier than usual. I'd noticed it awhile back when spammers were latching on to the comments sections in online versions of print magazines the way leeches clung to Humphrey Bogart in "The African Queen." It was pretty ugly--sadly, there was no Katherine Hepburn blog moderator there to apply the salt to get rid of those nasty things...
Soon after, I started to see people leaving links to their blogs in the comments section of prominent blogger's blogs. Sure, the people sounded rather sincere: "great post! I've responded to you on my blog..." IMO, these comments weren't there because their intention was to converse with the blogger. Rather, these comments seemed more, to me anyway, to have been made simply to generate traffic back to the commenter's blog...
In a kind of sycophant-y, fanboy kind of way.
Recently, I've noticed a rise in social media marketers sending out minions to connect with bloggers. Hysterically, two guys from the same social media marketing firm, "commented" my post on community building! The first comment seemed ok and non-spam-like--but the second one, from the same company, felt most certainly like spamming. In both cases, neither person is a blogger, and neither person has any information that I can connect back to a true identity. They are, essentially, anonymous comments and hence spam--not social media marketing at all. To me, and maybe I'm old-fashioned in this, blog comments are a way of meeting other people. You comment on someone's blog because you want to connect with them, not because you want to leave your marketing message (in your "social media signature"--talk about marketingspeak! sheesh!) Even if you *do* want to leave your marketing message, you should at least try to be honestly and transparently social first!
Now, it would be easy to say that this kind of spam-handed stuff online is the result of a flaw in the ethos of social media, the influx of poorly-trained marketers, and a number of other excuses/factors that are Internet based. Then on Saturday, Chris Brogan wrote When Not To Sell Me Something a short but sweet post that expresses something I'd been thinking--about not being "sold" to when you meet someone either online or f2f.
Then it hit me that this is one reason why I don't always like business networking events. Too often I feel like I'm being sold something--or that because many don't quite understand what I do, that I'm not a potential prospect. There doesn't seem to be a desire just to chat and create a relationship first. For some it's all about whether or not a person is useful at that moment...not that they're a potential relationship that may yield something great over time. It's made me very jumpy around "business networking" situations--even though I'm a fantastic networker in so many other situations. But I can't blame the people at the events because I know they got their networking advice from some networking professional somwhere. I've heard "professional networkers" promote strategies that rank people according to whether or not they are prospects and even encourage adding those who aren't prospects to mailing lists and other spammy devices that don't build relationship or community.
Analogous to these old-time spammy devices are the kinds of stuff we're now seeing on blogs and on social networks...The spam-handed is a reflection of the ham-handed...
Seriously: how often do you genuinely connect with someone to whom you've recited your "30 second elevator pitch"? How many "unsubscribe" requests do you get from the people you plunked into your Constant Contact account without their permission? Have you ever got a good return from spamming someone's blog or direct-messaging a bigshot on Twitter?
I will never forget the women who spammed me with an offer to help me start a blog, after I'd met her at a conference where I was a speaker . Oddly, the same thing happened with a different company at the last big conference I attended--where I moderated two panels. I really didn't appreciate the sharp CEO passing my business card along to his "marketing guy," who then proceeded to try to sell me his blogging platform.
IMO, if I meet a CEO, I expect to hear *from* that CEO, not from someone in his organization. And I also expect that person to go to my blog, and my online resume, and my LinkedIn profile, and find out who I am before I get "networked" in a very un-social kind of way.
When we start to teach people--from the CEO to the Marketer to the Job Prospector-- new ways to network face-to-face that are meant to create relationships, we might begin to see a change in how people network online. "Social Networking" is about being open and genuine when meeting new contacts--not a contest to see how many new prospects we can get from that stack of business cards or how many new "friendings" we can generate on the various social networks. If all your doing is playing a numbers game, rather than exercising a friendmaking skill, then don't be surprised by the results.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)