A Meditation on the Personal Nature of American Art

The other day, I met up with Patrice Lamothe, CEO of Pearltrees. It was an interesting meeting, and I mentioned to him that I'd gone to the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art earlier that day. Funny thing is, Patrice is from Paris. So, there's something of an irony there, if you think about it....

I tend to fall into ironic conversations with people quite often. Guess that could be because I'm unassuming and don't necessarily pass value judgements--esp. when it comes to art. It's not that I don't know anything about classical art: I started my college career as a Fine Art major, and had to take art history. So, I get the basic gist of the importance of art in the culture of countries like France.

But to say that is not to value the importance of art to American culture as well. Our art, however, doesn't have quite the same long history, nor does have quite the same affect....

I loved the study of art history: how art reached a height during what we commonly call the "ancient" world of Greece and Rome, only to be lost during the Dark Ages. How it took forever for artists to figure out to sculpt a figure in a natural pose. How it took the Reformation to bring about a change in subject matter....and so forth.

American art, though, is different. We haven't had to contend with kings and clergy dukeing it out for power. We haven't had the same kind of upbringing, so to say, that would make it shocking to see someone we know posed provocatively in a picture.
We, however, have a problem with understanding the difference between advertising and metaphor, with understanding religious symbols and imagery, with keeping words out of our art...

Ever notice how American art is kind of wordy? From Roy Lichtenstein to Barbara Kruger, so much of our art has words in in. Or it is a single color canvas, European art, even modern European art, just isn't as wordy nor as monochromatic.

American art is also deeply personal. For the centuries that European art has been produced, it often wasn't particularly with the sense of art as personal expression--perhaps not until the Renassance. That's not to say there wasn't personal expression in European art--it's just that, well, American art seems so heavy with it..

In American art, it's always been there. Maybe because America as a state of creativity comes about way after those struggles for creativity and self-expression in European art....

I don't know, I'm just speculating...

But American art isn't necessarily there to get us to think about God, or to admire our monarchs, or to express some religious or mythical allegory. These things bleed through from time to time--but our sense of what is allegory and mythical, of who our kings are (elected, not born) and what God is to us is drastically different.

We also have a thing about abstraction. Most of the American art I've viewed over the past two days--in San Francisco and in San Jose--has been abstract. If not abstract, surreal or hyperreal. It seems to me that we have more of that than we do of classical art (although, yes, there's the Hudson River School and all that) And even what looks something akin to classical art--works by Thomas Eakins or John Singer Sargent--are still shockingly American in their subject matter and style.

In other words, American art, just doesn't look, nor does it feel like the art of France or Italy or Spain or anywhere else in the world. It is a strange amalgam of nothingness and being, of the future with a very immediate past that blends and makes up what is present and today. To understand some of our artists you have to understand so much of the past, while with others, you need to know nothing other than the at-that-moment images they are giving you from one slice of their lives or just of their psyches.

So maybe, in some sense, it's not all that ironic nor strange to discuss art from an American viewpoint with someone who is from Paris, where some of the world's masterpieces reside. We do occupy the same world today, a world where imagination shapes technology, and, to some, technology is itself a form of art.....

Think about it...

Four aspects that could make AOL's local "white spaces" work

Yesterday, I wrote about how AOL's new "white spaces" for local journalism might not work. There are, however, a couple of ways they might work:

1. Proprietary alogrithms. If AOL has a proprietary alogrithm (like Demand Media) that will tweak headlines to hit on the proper keywords. However, on a local level, this will still have to be connected to some sort of geo-located search capability. If AOL develops an algorithm that partners geo-tagged ads with geo-tagged headlines, there might be something to it.

2. Watch what Foursquare is doing with geo-location and geo-tagging. Foursquare had made some huge, prestigious deals with major media companies that are going to make it a real player in semantic advertising--and could either hurt or help newspapers (What does Foursquare mean for newspapers--editorsweblog.org) Which means it could also help/hurt local independent news sites with geo-location. Also see How to Make Your Small Business Geo-Ready on Mashable.

3. Semantic advertising gets better-- Google and others are working on algorithms that will match the right local ads with the right local content. There was lots of talk and lots of interest in this at the recent SIIA Information Industry Summit, as the algorithms are getting better, and Google's local search is getting better.

4. Paying reporters. People can't afford not to be paid in this economy. Sites like Demand Media, Examiner, and Newser--and other kinds of "content mills" (a contentious term)--are paying their reporters. Some of them don't pay much, but they pay. If AOL sets up some way for those who want to report on local to be paid something, then they might attract some of the local reporters who have lost their jobs, or local citizens who want to get paid something for their writing. Or they might not. Think: entrepreneurial spirit--and that some folks would rather do their own thing if they're not going to get paid. Then again, some journalists/reporters aren't entrepreneurs either and would just like a steady paycheck, no matter how low the paycheck is. Still, don't know how this might work for breaking stories. What might the pay scale/pay rate be for breaking stories, and would there be some sort of editorial oversight as there is for the evergreen content at Demand Media? Note: Jay Rosen has a new project starting between NYU and The New York Times that may pay citizen reporters. The editor will have a "war chest" at his/her discretion. Will be interesting to see what happens there, what the pay rate ends up as, etc.

So, if people give up on the entrepreneurial thing, and they're able to get paid, and there's some sort of geo-tagging that will link local ads with local content, where AOL's properties can push out other local content, then they might make money--

But if people don't like the product, then it still might not work. The social aspect has to be worked in somehow, beyond the engineering. After all, the Internet is full of people: people talk and people share things. That could also be what makes or even breaks AOL's planned content dominance in local space.

Think about it...

AOL Revisits the Citizen Shovelware concept with Patch.com (and why it won't work)

Some time back I wrote a scathing post about "citizen shovelware": that's when an "if you build it, they will come" philosophy is applied to the idea of citizen journalism, and some wise corporate dude puts up a site and expects the citizenry to populate it. It appears now that AOL is taking on the idea of citizen shovelware as it plans to expand to "hundreds" of sites, as was reported yesterday in Silicon Alley Business Insider.

As the more-or-less press release-y report notes, there are going to be bunches and bunches of empty pages put into Patch for local, probably citizen-generated, journalism--but where's the journalism going to come from? Are they going to pick up local blog feeds (as AmericanTowns.com did?) and then are they going to ask the local bloggers if they can do this? or are they just going to scrape and aggregate the content (as Topix.com did?) Are they going to then simply expect people to use their site because it's too-cool-for-school? or are they going to take the press releases and public announcements and other minutia from communities, slap the "citizen journalism" label on it, shove it into their CMS, and call their site a form of citizen journalism??

And I can't believe that the internal communication quoted in the SAI story said that AOL is planning to be "To be leaders in one of the most promising 'white spaces' on the Internet."

Honestly, given the ways in which people use social networking sites to communicate with one another and pass around hyperlocal news in the form of tweets and status updates, and given how hyperlocal sites are starting to pop up more frequently (mostly because of the downsizing of journalists and other news producers who actually liked their jobs and want to keep doing them) I have a hard time believing that this "white space" is going to get populated at all....

Oh, but there's a strategy! Recruit journalism grad students!! I wonder what the pay's going to be? Wonder how the grad students are going do the reporting, or if they're going to go around to Chamber of Commerce and BNI meetings to try to recruit local businesspeople? are they going to try to find the "superstars"--as Advance.com did in the early days of their online news sites (going way, way back to about 2004...long history, won't get into it.)

The thing about hyperlocal journalism is that it seems to grow best when people who are rooted in the communities get the projects going. I've been watching this with both the Springfield Intruder and the new Northampton Media. I know both Bill Dusty of the Intruder and Mary Serreze of No'Media, and know their deep connections to their respective communities. One doesn't grow those kinds of connections by showing up one day and announcing that you're going to be building a local news site.

The thing that gets me about all these corporate sites getting into the local journalism space and some of the folks who write so glowingly about how corporate projects might work,is that they don't know too many people who've actually put together local sites, esp. local sites in SmallTown USA. Life in SmallTown is very different from life in or near large urban areas. There's less of an acceptance of "outsiders"--that doesn't mean that it's like the movie Deliverance. What it means (if you've never lived in a small town) is that people don't warm up to you because you have a bright idea to fix their local news problems...

But when it comes to the folks that are indeed connected--well, they are really, really connected. And I don't envision too many of them working to prop up corporate run sites--or at least for all that long. Corporate owned news organizations, whether online or not, are seen as something that should be toppled. The reasons for that vary as much as the people who start the sites and the regions where they are started. But corporate news in small towns is seen as inept and slanted. Oftentimes it is. People who start local journalism sites are looking for fresh, new, independent perspectives. They're not looking for a corporate home to host their work, because that would represent another level of "the man..."

Sure, some local businessfolks might be persuaded to contribute to a new corporate site--as some of the local businessfolks have done at Masslive.com--but they don't stay over the long haul. Their commitments are more to their businesses, and if the citizen journalism interferes with their business, they have to decide which is more important.

Another aspect of having businessfolks as citizen journalists is that use might their citizen columns to, essentially, promote their businesses rather than actually report. A citizen column in a local newspaper may be seen as a form of business promotion rather than as a service to their fellow citizens. So, readers then get what might be called "sponsored content" rather than news.

Apparently, my sentiment is that AOL's idea is wrongheadded, and whether or not it has the Patch label isn't going to make a difference. I'm not surprised that they think this--one of Patch's advisors (advisory-only role) has been Jeff Jarvis, who designed Advance's pioneering "citizen" blogging efforts, and Jeff's had lots and lots to say over the years about citizens helping corporations to keep afloat (a point he and I vehemently disagree on.) Sure, there are a few citizens who want to help the newspaper stay afloat, but the ones who have the real commitment to reporting in their regions aren't going to be contributing to corporate sites: at least that's what I've seen here in Western Mass. The citizens are apt to want to topple the ailing newspapers. The sentiment is that the newspapers have fallen down on their jobs: they do not report accurately, and that there is bias in some of the reporting on important community issues. There is a feeling that the newspaper is disconnected from the people, and might be serving other interests.

And why should one corporate entity replace another in a local region? Because they can make money because they are a corporation? That's not necessarily true. I've seen a number of independent projects make good money. (but that's a topic I won't get into in depth here--that's another post....)

One of the tactics that corporate sites have taken with folks who want to start community sites is to tell them that their sites won't get found in search. Well, there's a grain of truth in that: Google's local search hasn't been all that good. Yet that was before the advent of social networking sites--where links are passed around quicker than a joint at a concert in the 1970's. And let's not forget that Google's actually working on improving geo-located search as it improves real-time search.

More than what Google's doing is what people are going to do on social sites--traffic will happen for local sites because links are posted and passed around among the people who need to read them. Local sites can also take advantage of syndication through e-readers: which they can do independently! Amazon's Kindle welcomes them, with just a working RSS feed! So the avenues for getting out there are not limited to Google search.

So, perhaps AOL should think a little further about putting up all that white space, as much as they think about what their brand, and what the Patch brand, might represent to people in a local area. Chances are that the local newspaper's brand is probably better than theirs. And that the independent local site's brand is even better.

Just a thought....

So while some folks might be

Could Google's focus on real-time search screw up finding older news?

I recently wrote a piece for Poynter.org on Google's new focus on real-time search--which, if you're looking for the most up-to-date news, esp. on an emergency, is probably a good thing. But today, as I looked for articles on the 2008 comments controversy at the Hartford Courant (which had Mayor Eddie Perez standing on the steps of the Courant giving the publisher hell) I found zip, zero, nada....

I was looking for that info so that I could put it in a piece I was working on about Engadget closing off comments due to incivility (which it had also done in 2005.) I figured it'd be good to reference both the 2008 Courant controversy, as well as the 2006 WaPo controversy that had newspaper commenters all up in arms about their First Amendment Rights (which they really don't have when they foul-mouth any publication's comments section.)

But if I can't find the articles on the previous incidents, then I can't really have a coherent article now, can I? All I'm really doing then is parroting back information on what Engadget's doing without giving any context to a discussion about how it might be different for newspapers, and how newspapers haven't had as easy a time of handling their comment boards as Engadget has...

I think I tried every single permutation of search terms I could think of, and I got all sorts of unrelated junk. Seriously unrelated junk. Junk about Tiger Woods --which for the life of me I couldn't figure out how that got into a search on "hartfor courant turns off comments."

Maybe it was the "turned off" that did it? who knows.

I tried the search in quotes, and Google found nothing. I tried it without quotes, and came up with a whole bunch more junk on what the new Miss America said about turning off TV, and something about Obama saying something about Democrats turning off TV news...

But my search had nothing to do with TV. It had to do with comments.

Even when I tried "news forum comment controversy" I got nothing.

Oh, but I did get something about a guy being shot by a cop. I have no idea what that had to do with my search, but I will say it's a timely article.

Even Wikipedia was no help: it had links only to the most recent controversies at the Courant.

It's bad enough that the collective memory of people who use the Internet is fairly short: lord knows so many don't even get that there have been huge debates going on her regarding "online civility" for around 7 or 8 years now. The issue seems to go nowhere because no one seems to recall the old conversations and that those conversations were built on....

When we are unable to access information from the past, we lose context. If we lose context, we eventually will repeat the same stupid stuff from the past. Even for the Internet, as it is evolving mores and codes and such, there needs to be context. Nothing exists in a vacuum. Not even choices to close of comments sections.

On Writing, Wanting to be Heard, and Gratitude for Editors

When we are young, the images we get of the writing life are somewhat peculiar--the image is of the writer who toils in isolation most of the time, who, almost by magic, has an editor and is then transported into the world of publishing. We are so busy studying style and so forth that we aren't taught about the process that got the book from a bunch of typed pages to a bound first edition. And, the excessive study of guys like J.D. Salinger only seem to enforce to us that writing should be solitary, done for oneself, and that someone will magically find us and publish us...oh, bullshit...

Reading Jennifer Finney Boylan's essay on J.D. Salinger, attitudes about writing, and how a writer's life isn't one of isolation at all-- that the P.R. machine helps writers to be read. Boylan's seen what I have: how the study of literature doesn't prepare one for the realities of book promotion--what she sees as a necessity in today's downward-trending publishing industry.

Boylan also considers readers "an unbelievable gift." And, indeed, she's right. It's something that so many bloggers, esp. personal bloggers, yearn for. Stories want to be told, and the telling doesn't exist in a vacuum--writing isn't just about exorcising one's soul. It's also about being read.

In being read, we are heard. Being heard is sometimes the one thing that we've yearn for our whole lives. Some of us took to blogging simply to be heard--not particularly as a form of shameless self-promotion.

Yet in the world of blogging, I'm finding that, for me, being heard just isn't enough. I have been writing most of my life as a form of self-expression, with a desire that, someday, it might be heard by others. Self-publishing has helped, but after a time it gets to be a lot of work for little return. It's not that I don't appreciate those who are reading (and yes, you know who you are) it's that, after a lifetime of writing, I want more...

Over the years, I've taken several writing classes and seminars. In those classes and seminars, it was always pointed out how editors wanted to see perfection before publication. Being well aware of my imperfections--my lack of knowledge of AP Style, my spelling problems-- I felt for the longest time that I could never find an editor who would be there for me.

So, for me, blogging was almost a way of giving up on the idea of ever making money from anything I wrote in exchange for being heard.

I've always wondered what I would need to do to be perfect enough for editors: Do I need a Master's degree? Or do I just need a bit more confidence and a lot more luck? Yet it always seemed that there was no way I'd ever be able to reach that level of perfection that would enable me to get in front of an editor....

Lately, I have been lucky enough to work with editors--and to receive pay for my writing. I am grateful for this opportunity in a way that I've never felt before. It as if I'm really being heard now. The changes to my work have not damaged my voice--rather, they've made clearer the information I've wanted to get out to others. The writing I've done hasn't been about self-expression. I have a lot of that. It's been about information--the way of getting that out to people in a way that's understandable...

Because when one spends a great deal of time writing just for oneself, the head becomes an echo chamber. Everything makes sense because one knows deeply about what is being written. But do others understand what's being written? To me, the editorial process is a way that someone else helps bring forth what's in my head so others can better understand it.

Many of us who write--well, we're not literary giants. We're also not going to be literary giants. Even then, literary giants have editors. If an editor pays attention to what I'm trying to say, and is willing to help me say it better (not change me or my expression or anything like that) then, at this point in my writing life, I couldn't have asked for a more wonderful gift.

And as much as I have gratitude for those who read, I have gratitude for those who edit. At this point in time, it's those editors that are going to help me the most...

Blogging SIIA: Henry Blodget and Info wants to be expensive

Got to see Henry Blodget keynote at last year's SIIA-IIS. This year, he's moderating a panel with Gaby Darbyshire, COO of Gawker Media, Cheryl Milone, CEO of Article One Partners, and Jim Fowler, CEO Jigsaw Data Corporation.

There's some short intros going on now, with Gaby Darbyshire talking about Gawker Media (IMO: Gawker's got a profit based on paying their reporters very little. And from folks I know who've been assoc. with Gawker, they do not inspire loyalty among their staff. Then again, maybe they don't want loyalty--only low wages Update: heard from @nicknoted via Twitter that this has changed--wages at Gawker now comparable to print. and many recent hires.)

Darbyshire: availability of facts will be more widespread

Cheryl Milone: in the patents industry. Patents are now accessible to everyone, but tools to evaluate them are scarce. Article One launched a year ago--crowdsourcing model to research validity of patents. She believes that the crowsourcind aspect is going to grow--but who are the people doing the crowdsourcing? and what incentives do they have??

Jim Fowler: B2B data collections. Also providing a crowdsourcing model--but he notes that there is a community of professionals to manage. Disrupting not just how data is collected but how data is distributed. Their data is active--where database is changing all the time. They maintain and manage the database. If people don't want to be in Jigsaw's database, they can be removed--only collect account info and (one other kind of info I can't recall. it looks, however, that what they're collecting is public knowledge anyway.)

Derbyshire talking about the NYTimes and their announcement: maybe the Times is getting people used to the idea of metered pay, and perhaps hoping that others will do the same.

Blodget points out that maybe the Times is just scared that their metered plan is not going to work--and cites the Newsday debacle.

Derbyshire counters that she can understand why NYT would want to do this.

Blodget to Milone: "your products are better, why don't traditional firms do the same?" Article One's community is incentivized with some profit distribution to community. India firms asking to leverage their firm's excess capacity by doing work for Article One. Opportunity is strong enough that she sees traditional firms doing work for them.

Blodget to Fowler: "why doesn't B & D work with you?" Fowler: :The value isn't in the data itself, but in the changes in the data." In order to resist disruption, it's to recognize there will be disruption, so they developed a business model that will make money from the change in the data (which they push out in real-time.) when they push out, 40% of customers share their data and get a price break on Jigsaw's services. Holding on to data no longer has value--sharing data has value. People will pay for up to date data, and the best way to get it is for people to share it with you.

Darbyshire says NYT is hidebound to legacies that could be damaging them. NYT has lots of columnists that they can't tell from print if they are read or not. Metrics help Gawker show that their columnists are popular. (hmmmm...kind of backs up what Cision survey found...) "Fluff" brings spike from Google, but not an overall readership. Gawker knows what works for its audience from metrics, so it can allocate resources accordingly. Immediacy of reporting, conversational tone to their posts, helps Gawker. Lack of conversation in print hobbles the news industry (note: but is news a conversation? lots of newspeople would argue that it isn't.)

Fowler: need to let innovators take their time and not be pressured to make big money fast. You can't though, hemorrhage money on an innovation project. Keep discipline. CEOs need to give their people 20% of their day to innovate--the way google does. Have them go out and find 5 or 10 innovative projects and fund them. Buying innovation, however, doesn't always work (yeah, I've seen that happen--or the innovations get squashed.)


Darbyshire: economics of whole industry is getting reset at a lower level (true for news.)

Milone taking advice from disruptive companies that have survived. "Have a deep desire to understand (the customers) needs." Even the government should listen to customer needs.

Darbyshire: older big companies might have problems becoming smaller, lighter and more nimble.

Fowler notes how Jigsaw's created an alliance with Dun & Bradstreet that's a win-win for both. "Some companies can't be saved" says Fowler, and cites Encyclopedia Brittanica, which is being buried by Wikipedia....

Note: so, it all depends on the type of content that either wants, or can be, expensive. Data, if aggregated in real-time or at least timely, can certainly be expensive. Re-selling of crowdsourced data can definitely be a good business model, if the type of info that is crowdsourced is needed, hasn't been updated in awhile, o is difficult to understand and update....and news--whether news can ever be as expensive as it was in the 20th century is debatable. The economics of news are being reset at a lower point (Derbyshire, etc.) so news may need to be "cheap."

SIIA Previews a.m.: More Great New Services & Products!

Brand Thunder: a provider of customized toolbars to increase brand loyalty and reach. Not a bad concept and I can see a lot of use for it with a number of brands. They've got some great clients already. They're quick with roll-out, so there's little delay in building--and they have a revenue share (the only downside I see is that "fans" may-uninstall the toolbar at some point. but that might not be such a bad thing in the overall life of a site and may still increase brand awareness if not brand loyalty.)

HaraBara: Green information on demand. Helps companies get useful information on the "green" space. They take in content and filter: proprietary taxonomies, do a slice and dice of content to make it relevant to the B2B customer that needs this kind of information. (and there are lots of clients that could use this to counter any bad press that might be out there etc.)They cover both current and archival information, everything from blogs to government resources. Looking at being the LexisNexis for the Green space.

NetProspex: an online lead discovery service for the B2B industry. Combines crowd-sourcing with editorial control. Has a technology that uses a manual verification at the end of the crowdsourcing process--verifies what of the crowdsourced info might be best. Throws out about 80% of what's gathered--publishes only the unique and verified information. "the Ivy League ford data." Will be adding verified social media information in the future.

Blogging SIIA-IIS: Some important notes from Ken Doctor's keynote

Here at Day 2 of the SIIA's Information Industry Summit: there's lots of talk about the Apple Tablet, and what it's going to shake up. There's a video on YouTube about it.

Ken Doctor just made a very interesting comment about news: 40% less newsprint, 20% less staff--he doesn't think the downsizing is a good thing. Thinks that what "we don't know what we don't know" and that local/region reporting suffering.

Sobering stats from Doctor: 57% go to the Internet for immediate news--25% use broadcast sites daily. And only 10% of people surveyed "say they'd consider paying for news" and 50% scan Google for headlines without going to news sites ("Google is a central utility in our lives."

Self-marketing is big--advertising taking a downturn (but, as was indicated yesterday, creative is still important.)

What by 2015? 3D TV? Doctor's book "Newsonomics" coming out next week. Some things from the book: The "Digital Dozen" will dominate (ABC< AP< BBC< Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, NBC, NYTimes, NewsCorp, NPR, Thomson Reuters, WashPo.)

The New Local (as Doctor calls it) will be "Free for all"

Global opportunities for the Digital Dozen since there are 900 Mil people speak English. Has scale, but cost structure is too high.

A new farm system: CBS is using Global Post, Reuters is using Politico...

"In the Age of Darwinian Content: We're own on and each other's editors."

Average Internet user spends 5 hours, 32 mins on social media!

Bit.ly makes 2 Billion referrals per month! whether they are articles/news or personal, there are some different stats from Rutgers on this.

Next step is Social Optimization.

Brands "advertis" on Social media with lots of coupons and offers.

The new Trfecta: Social, Mobile, Video (but I'm still not sure on video--soc. and mobile yes.)

Google now aggregating Tweets--real-time search is here...(Technology Review had something on this at the beginning of January.)

Analytics-Driven Content is roaring forward: AOL is creating content "on the fly" by looking at search (aggregation) Doctor mentions Demand Media: "increasingly, data is driving editorial content."

New models of journalism are focusing on advertising more than on quality of journalism: much is very low paid. Doctor elucidates the Examiner model (yes, I've heard of the Examiner, but don't read it...)

The Apple Table incorporates 4 of the Newsonomics laws:

Law 1: make it social
Law 2: approach the digital dozen
Law 5: gather other people's content
law 9: drive the business with data.

Some comments from me: Re Examiner and sites like that: they may have search, but do they have the brand?? IMO, I don't think so. I've seen Examiner--but if I want that kind of content, I'll go to a site like TMZ. So, what publications will Examiner hurt? Will their model be sustainable over time? And what about local coverage? Could they hurt local--where things are really hurting now....

Blogging SIIA--More great services at Afternoon Previews

Previews can be the best part of SIIA--

HearPlanet: missed most of this presentation, but it's for mobile, but they have a whole lot of ways to get content out there in real-time, to your iPhone, Android, etc. They provide white label solutions--hmmm....good for small papers??

ORLive: leader in online video solutions to medical field. Video production, production support, etc. Allows surgeons to upload videos to share with peers. Created an interactive platform for its clients. Have a dedicated video network with strong following. Also has branded and custom video channels for customers. Get about 2 million unique visitors per year, and drive a lot of audience to partners, kind of like network affiliates. Looks like a great site for those who are in the medical field, as well as those who might be reporting on it.

Snac a mobile software and services corporation. Since apps are controlled by product providers, Snac provides application that is a mobile discovery/customized dashboard for content owners (not open to the iPhone--but on many other smartphones.) "Enabling companies to connect with their mobile consumers every day." Downloadable app creates an alternate homescreen page (iPhone user-like interface) They've been in beta for several months now, and doing well. There's a 160 million user market that can benefit from this app--those are smartphone/javaphone/BREW users. Potential partnership with iPhone...

Blogging SIIA: Notes On Ken Auletta's Keynote about Google

Before his book, Ken Auletta did a piece for the New Yorker on Google, and I was shocked by it--mostly because Sergy Brin and Larry Page were so dissed by the Washington Establishmet. So, I'm very much enjoying listening to what Auletta has to say....

Auletta sees Google as a huge library--and so does the rest of the world (he discovered...)

The most important thing about Google, Auletta found in research, is the trust that they created. He's going into some detail about how advertising...

Something he learned about engineers: Google's engineers succeed because they start with the assumption that traditional ways of doing things are inefficient (what founders believe) They realized that information was media--that traditional media was inefficient. Newspapers are inefficient--printing and distribution of newspapers is inefficient.

Old media buys in big media really didn't know who was getting ads--just that lots of people got the ads. Google "messing with the magic" that old media relied on by showing who gets the ads!

Google's engineers ask: why not? Why not index all the books out there?

Google's engineers given 20% of their days to work on their own projects. An Indian engineer wonders why there's so little news on the Muslim world: hence, Google News.

Auletta outlines all the things that Google has revolutionized--and that old media was blind to or thought was "too expensive."

Most traditional media companies put engineers down on the food chain--too many levels below the CEO to be effective. Auletta would hire a really great engineer and put him at his elbow--and suggests CEOs should do that.

The Innovator's dilemma: do you sacrifice new business for something unproven? Old media has decided to preserve old business than sacrifice. And then blames the digital world for its woes!(Auletta)

Auletta: In the short run, what Google does for consumers is good. In the long run, though, if news/books become a commodity that can no longer be afforded to produce, consumers will suffer. User-generated content doesn't generate income--advertisers want content that is reliable. Google announced last week that it's going to start charging, on YouTube, for independent movies like Netflix.

Advertising won't pay for content. They--media outlets--are going to have to charge (micropayments mentioned.) After the recession, Eric Schmidt realized they would need more than just advertising and would have to figure out what to charge for. Auletta sees YouTube become a platform both for UGC and for pay content.

iTunes was terrific for music companies, but what about Apple Tablet? Will it really help media companies create a revenue stream?? Auletta's not giving an opinion on this here.

Google worries about social networking sites being the referral sites vs. Google's search results. Google is also concerned about government--and how government might intervene.

It took electricity 71 years to reach all of public. It took 50 plus years for telephone to reach public widely. But it took less time for the Internet and only 5 years for Facebook. Things moving very, very fast, scaring old media who should be (in Auletta's view) asking what's next? and looking at what Google's doing.

Note: I asked Auletta about privacy and how Google sees it: they see it mostly as information (so it's agnostic) but also that they will use information we put out there for targeted advertising. I wonder if we've come to a point where we should be advising young people to put less information online, regardless of what their friends want? Perhaps.....

Blogging SIIA: Previews of New Products Tuesday a.m.

Last year, I saw some fabulous stuff at the SIIA Previews event--which was separate last year. Nice to see the Previews event into the "big show" this year. I'll be giving short descriptions of these interesting new companies/services:

Boardroom Insiders: provides access to C-level execs, helps to provide info on these execs to facilitate connection to these people. Boardroom Insider searches many public sources to mine information about C-levels to help clients to connect on a personal level. And yes, they are mining executive Tweets and other social networking sites too--so, IMO, CEOs and other C-levels, if they're going to tweet, should tweet about more than just trite stuff like links and aphorisms. That is, unless they don't want to be found....(BTW, they are hiring unemployed business journalists!)

DeepDyve: Netflix for Research! Mostly for non-institutional researchers who need to get information that they can't afford. It's difficult for writers to get research info from publisher sites, and article prices can be very high (how true!) So, DeepDyve helps non-institutional users (yes, that's lots of us!) to get stuff we couldn't afford. Articles are for "rent" for about $.99 each. Monthly subscriptions are for those who need more. They also have revenue share with partner sites (the ones providing content.) DD have a great reciprocal relationship with publishers, who are happy to get something rather than nothing for their content. Most institutional uses see DD as complimentary to their own sites and gives access to many who wouldn't be able to afford articles otherwise. Currently, most of their content is scientific content, but will be moving into social sciences and other content in the very near future (in talks with providers)

Something to think about: could something like DeepDyve work for newspapers that want to put investigative pieces behind a "pay wall"? Perhaps.)

Parse.ly: Gives publishers easy way to recommend info to users based on what they've viewed in the past. (note: I can see this working well for newspapers with big databases.) Pars.ly does with content what Netflix, Amazon and Pandora already do. They launched private beta recently. The user enters in some information on interests, and Pars.ly recommends news for them based on these criteria. They are licensing this info to publishers--and I'm looking at a personalized recommendation widget as it might look at the Los Angeles times. Today, they are releasing their Publisher platform (with whitelabel widget--and I signed up to test Parse.ly)

More to come

Intro to SIIA--and notes on Michael Hansen/ Elsevier Health Sciences on Counter-Intuitive Strategies for Growth

This is my second year attending the SIIA Information Industry Summit--one of the most interesting conferences that I've had the pleasure of attending. It's always an interesting group of people--folks that are shaping what's going on in the world of content production.

Now, content production isn't something that crosses people's minds when it comes to publishing--we think more of journalism, or book publishing, or anything that's b2c or public facing. Yet in academic and business circles, "content production" is a big deal.

I'm watching Michale Hansen CEO of Elsevier talking about Galilleo, who was first publshed by Elsevier--speaking of course strengths and what a publishing co. can bring to the outside world. Elsivier's strength is info on health sciences.

Galilleo story Hansen's relayed is that sometimes one has to think outside the box and be counter-intuitive to know what's going to happen/change, etc.

Hansen says: One of these is government regulation--perspective on most regulation is bad. But healthcare regulations have been good: speaking of the FDA and the effect it had on pharmaceuticals (that we don't get unintentionally poisoned....)

Hansen's not going in the direction of a discussion on healthcare reform--but he agrees with most of us that there is a need for reform (esp. when we are in a "freelance economy"--my take on it. freelance economy needs nat'l healthcare to survive.)

Hansen believes there's a crisis of information, not just a crisis of costs. People are "injured" because they are getting the wrong perscriptions. Somebody didn't have the right information, and therefore, got the wrong info.

Some stats: there's a 33% chance that, if you have a chronic disease, you might not get treated according to the right protocols. There's also a 3-5% chance that you might have an "adverse event" at a hospital (?!?!) Hansen believes that these problems are a crisis of information--that if hospitals had the correct and up to date info, these things wouldn't happen.

But we don't have the "pipes" for an exchange of info between hospitals and doctors--even though we have the technology. (this is true!)

The got. have determined that there are "never events": events that are preventable and shouldn't happen, such as bedsores. But because of "never events" if this happens to you, your insurance might not pay for treatment....

As an info provider, Hansen sees Elsevir as needing to provide info, at point of care, for providers to act on. Yet, physicians don't have the time (approx. 6 mins per patient!) The task is: how to get this info to physicians so that they can consult online resources that have the right information. Elsevir has a new service that brings info to point of care....

Yet in the health info providers say this is not a good thing--that providing this info might make the info provider libel. Act counter-intuitive and provide the info anyway is Hansen's way of looking at it.

Also, provide the customer with what they need: with hospital budgets going down, how can they afford info services like Elsevir. Elsevir did an audit of Trinity Hospital's info services and found where they could reduce costs for Trinity--this was a counter-intuitive move, as they sometimes had to recommend competitor products that are cheaper.

Hansen notes that many companies that say communication is paramount to them, don't necessarily share as much information as they should. Yet this is the time when employees are most vulnerable and in need of information. That companies might counter a sense of loss of control by providing more information to its employees--not withholding it to protect the company's reputation or fear of employee reactions. Hansen relates a story of allowing employees to help figure out what budget items needed to be cut, that these things help companies to survive the downturn *and* succeeding in the production: that loyalty of employees and customers along with developing products, will keep a company vital when things are going well for the company (when many companies get complacent.)

My take: this is interesting vis journalism--mostly as it concerns local newspapers. Can they be counter-intuitive? or are so many of the local chains too highly leveraged that they cannot do anything counter-intuitive? I wonder how an individual in the newspaper industry might be able to convince a newspaper to do something counter-intuitive.

Likewise with marketing: In many smaller businesses where there's "no-time" to solve problems of marketing with social media. It makes me wonder if the resources of the business are not being allocated properly so that the right person within the company can take on the execution of social media (and I don't mean staff--staff in a small business might be the right person to execute, but should staff be responsible for the strategy? probably not.)

It's always tough listening to a CEO talk--they are often really excited about their businesses, and it can be tough to separate the info from the pitch. Yet sometimes even within pitches there is some good information. It's getting to that kernel of truth that can make them worth a listen.

Ken Auletta to keynote 2010 SIIA Information Industry Summit

Last year I got invited to liveblog the SIIA Information Industry Summit, and have been invited to liveblog the event again this year. I'm really excited to be part of this event again: last year, I learned a great deal about SaaS (software as a service,) the "content creation" business and about guys in white dinner jackets and black ties, who take your coat at the entrance to the conference (needless to say, that was something like a "well, I've arrived" moment...not to mention all the austere middle-aged men in black suits...)

The SIIA--Software and Information Industry--is an organization that few outside the B2B content, SaaS, and other B2B services know all that much about. Yet it is an incredible organization of C-level and other high-ranking executive types. Their openness to bloggers has been great: I've never been given restrictions nor have I been treated as if I were a barbarian storming the gates. In fact, I've felt very comfortable in this group.

Go figure ;-)

This year's keynote will be New Yorker communications columnist Ken Auletta. I read an article sometime ago that Auletta wrote about when Sergey Brin and Larry Page first went to Washington D.C. to meet with our fearless leaders and were summarily dismissed as kids playing around. It was a story I'd never heard, and I was totally boggled by the ways that Brin and Page were dismissed.

It left me thinking--"well, just because some people have all the power, doesn't mean they're all that knowledgeable nor that gracious..."

So I'll be looking forward to what Auletta has to say in his keynote, and whether it will differ in any way from Jeff Jarvis' views on Google.

Henry Blodgett, CEO and Editor of The Business Insider will be speaking again this year. I don't know what it is that I like about Blodgett--maybe that he still seems to ruffle the feathers of the status quo--but I found his talk at the '09 IIS to be one of the most informative. Blodgett also gave a fantastic answer to my rather direct question about the NYT/Gatehouse suit that had yet to be settled. Here's my re-cap of his '09 talk, which remains one of the best I've heard about online journalism to date.

Along with liveblogging, I scored an opportunity to interview Tracey L. Armstrong, President and CEO of the Copyright Clearance Center. In all the discussions I've heard regarding copyright, I was totally unaware of this organization and the amount of information they provide to help understand and protect copyright. I'm very curious to know what they think of copyrighted works on the web....and perhaps what they might think about paywalls around newspapers...

The SIIA Information Industry Summit takes place in NYC (my favorite city), Jan. 26 & 27. If you happen to be in NYC around those dates, and want to chat, just email. And thanks, to the SIIA for including me in their liveblogging crew.

Is "linklove" a dying concept?

As Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking tools have grown in prominence and become immediate ways to share information, is there any room left for "linklove" between blogs? I'm not so sure anymore...

But let's first recap: before the ubiquity of social media tools that facilitate community building and information sharing, linking to one another's blogs, either through blogrolls or by links in posts, was extremely important. Getting the blogroll "permalink" was most important, esp. if it came from a high-ranking blog. A permalink on a high-ranking blog would eventually help the Google Page Rank of your blog, thus putting your blog higher in search.

As we shared linklove with one another, we demonstrated community. Bloggers were often working at more than just their blogs or other nascent forms of social media (many developing them) so our sense of community was in the acknowledgment of reading one another.

It seems, though, that this type of passive community building, which lead to much value in search, has been superceded--or perhaps just shouted down--by those who believe the "community" is one that is in constant interaction with you, either on your blog or across other social media tools.

Also, I have noticed, that as "social media" and blogs have become a bigger part of marketing communications, cross-linking in the body of blog posts to other bloggers, as well as keeping blogrolls, has declined. It seems as if to give credit to the thinking of other bloggers will, somehow, take away from the value of the marketing blog's post. The idea, too, of keeping a blogroll, to some marketing clients, feels too much as if they are giving something away to "competition." The first--to not link to influencing content-- is ethically problematic when we consider that some of the content on some marketing blogs might actually be inspired by other blogs. Why the lack of links to original sources? I can understand if all other blogs are seen as "competition" but to not link back to an original source? That seems a bit like plagiarism.

Perhaps this shift from the known notion of "linklove" has happened because of the rise in SEO and its emphasis on keyworks and in-site page linking, and the lack of necessity for linking outside of one's own site. It has, though, influenced what we consider community--and how that community is measured. Is the value of a blog now in the numbers of people who might come to your blog and say "great post!" rather than in the page rank? Or is the value in the number of re-Tweets you can get for a post?

I wonder....

More food for thought: here's a nice discussion on Twitter's Little Known SEO Value--thus the re-Tweet becomes just as important, if not more, than the direct link from a high-ranking blog. Curious shift indeed--and something that causes a drastic change in understanding of what constitutes a blog's "community."

Update 1/29/10 Check out these posts from Technology Review on how Google, since December, now has real time search and how its going to be ranking Tweets. Also, URL shorteners, combined with with real-time search into social networking sites helps to spread new kinds of linklove.

Transparency in Social Media: Ethical Considerations in Marketing

Update 2/3/10: Toby Bloomberg and John Cass have completed their survey--see the results here: Where Does "Transparency" Fit in the New Social Media Marketing Model

As I see more and more consultants, marketers and web design firms offer social media services to their clients, I begin to wonder what, exactly are they offering? Most of their sites don't say exactly the kind of social media consulting they offer, but from the scuttlebutt I've gathered from here and there, what is being offered is more like social media copywriting for a blog or Twitter or Facebook. While this may be what the client wants, or is willing to accept if the only thing offered, how transparent are professionals being with their clients? And what about the customers who may come to a company's various social media pages believing they are getting in touch with a company, only to find their comments neglected and their concerns unanswered? Where, then, should transparency begin with social media marketing efforts?

Vendor to Client Transparency If you are offering social media services, be clear in the kind of services you offer. If you outsource portions of your social media, say that this is what you do. If what you are offering is a blog copywriting service, then say that's what it is. If the company is not directly writing the blog, and there are no comments, then what is being done is strictly content creation/copywriting because there is no intention to engage with anyone who comes in contact with the content.

It is the intent to engage--whether or not that engagement happens--that turns straight content into "social media" and not the platform where it is published. The platform, if it is a blog platform, is only a simple to use content management system. Content production on a simple content management system isn't necessarily "blogging." It's essentially copywriting if there is no intent to engage.

Client to Customer Transparency With the new FTC Endorsement Guides, we know that, basically, if someone takes payment to write on a blog about a product/service, he/she must have something that says they were paid. This is a great first step in transparency and truthfulness in social media! But there's one more step: when someone is hired to blog for a company, it should be disclosed that the content produced is coming from someone outside of the company.

Why might this seem like it needs to be stated? The assumption among consumers is that if they are going to a company-created social media site--whether that be a blog, Facebook page, or Twitter stream--that they are in some way interacting directly with the company. This is a specific need of customers who engage with companies online (see Deloitte/Beeline Labs "Tribalization of Business")--a need for community and communication with the company.

The customer's expectation for social media is different than for advertising or marketing materials--where it is assumed that those materials may be written by outsiders. The assumption regarding social media is that the company--directly and without reservation--wants to be social with their customers.

Therefore, it would follow that if a company is outsourcing its social media to a consultant, who is then creating copy for them via a social media platform of some kind, then it should be clearly disclosed that the
person is an outside representative of, and not an employee of, said company.

Currently, this is not the case for those who hire others to do their social media work. So, by subcontracting or outsourcing the work of social media, and not disclosing, a company is, technically, misleading its customers into believing that someone within the company will be there for them if they try to interact with the company.

How would you feel if you were that company's customer? Think about it. Wouldn't you feel betrayed? Or do you simply not expect a company to ever engage you via social media? That might be your particular thinking, but it just might not be the thinking of your customers.

Recently, I have heard some scuttlebutt along the lines of "Comcast really *doesn't care," as someone tried to get in touch with Comcast via social media, and no one was there for them.

Zappos however, still gets consistently high marks for the ways that they interact with their customers though their many social media and website endeavors.

If you can create a whole new customer base by using social media (like Zappos has done) doesn't it stand that you would want to keep that customer base happy by interacting with them through social media--if they choose to contact you through social media? (Here I am assuming that the intention to engage is there in the first place.)

So, to recap: there is a first level of transparency: vendor to client, where it is disclosed that some parts of social media are outsourced or written by the consultant. It is then ethical and fair to say that the client is not contracting for social media per se, but is contracting for regularly produced content writing services that may be published on one of the many simple to use CMS's that are usually for blogging (because a blog isn't being created either) or for publication on other social media platforms.

The second level of transparency is from client to customer, where it is fully disclosed that the content is being created not by someone who is directly affiliated with the company, but by a representative or contractor for the client. This keeps the customer from assuming that he/she is engaging directly with the company through social media channels (because they aren't.) The customer can then choose whether to continue to consume the content of this company or go to a place where the content is being produced by someone who is an employee of the company.

Now, there are a whole lot of people who believe that the Internet is the Wild West, and that anyone can do whatever they want within its confines to make a buck. But that's not the case. The Internet is, in many respect a very large community of people, and those people are looking to interact with companies in ways that have been unavailable to them in the analog world. If the only desire of companies is to repeat their analog ways in the digital realm, they are, in some respects, misleading their customers--because the core belief of customers is that they will get better customer service and have their voices heard if they connect via social media.

Are you willing to risk the customer relationships you could be cultivating through social media, and perhaps risk your company's reputation, by sacrificing transparency with both your clients and their customers?

Think about it.

Note: This post was inspired by "What does an agency owe a client in terms of content transparency?" and the survey being conducted by Toby Bloomberg and John Cass on the issue of transparency with clients.

Thoughts on 2010: Good for Journalism, Bad for Marketing .

As 2010 starts, I am reminded that I'll be starting my fifth year in social media. I started as a professional blogger for Corante (a blog most won't know about these days), and have had some pretty interesting experiences in both the marketing and journalism sectors of what has now become "social media." In 2009, I started to see a whole momentum-shift in social media as some newspapers folded and ad revenues continued to plummet; and businesses of all stripes got really itchy about using social media for their own gain--rather than to service or listen to their customers. Even if there still isn't much in the way of ROI to prove social media's worth, businesses started to see their way to exploit social media as another platform to broadcast their "marketing message." But that was 2009....here's what I think--and what my gut tells me--might happen for both journalism and marketing in the upcoming year..

Good for Journalism: Journalism gets real with hyperlocal. Thanks to the vast numbers of downsized journalists in both print and broadcast, we are going to see a whole lot more independent, hyperlocal blogs and sites devoted to towns and cities across the country, filling in the gaps where the mainstream is dropping off. Where will they get the money? Some will get grants, while others will figure out how to get local merchants to buy ads (trust me, some have already) They'll figure out how to cash in on content syndication and ad networks and other programs that are already out there, and there might even be some new ways that money gets generated.

Lots more of these independent projects will profit: esp. if they've been around for a couple of years. People will turn to them because newspapers, while they figure out what to do next, will be more than averagely awful...

Many these new projects will be founded and/or headed by women, who continue to be overlooked as either "news futurists" or "news innovators"--one of these sites, founded by publisher Mary Serreze is Northampton Media
out here in Northampton, MA. Although not formally launched just yet, Northampton Media is providing important and significant coverage on the recent spate of arsons in Northampton that claimed two lives and cost thousands in damages.

If anything I hope for this year, that may not materialize, is recognition for women as news innovators and as important players in the future of news--because so many are making that future happen in small towns all over the place.

Check out this article at Poynter.org on Rick Kupchella, former anchor at KARE-TV in Minneapolis and his BringMeTheNews site....another project pointing to the future of local (and profitable too.)

Oh, and if newspapers are smart, they'll work out some kind of deals with outfits like Helium.com and Demand Media for outsourced copy editors, many of whom will come from the ranks of downsized journalists (as many of Helium and Demand's best writers come from)....thus diminishing the fear that at least copy editing will be done in Bangalore.

The Bad News for Marketing: outsourcing social media expands

Back in the day, a bunch of really smart guys got together and wrote something called The Cluetrain Manifesto. In that manifesto was the idea that "markets are conversations" and the Internet could make those conversations happen. A lot of people in marketing found it really difficult to get this notion (actually, it's a whole like like retail sales--trust me--and thus very far removed from marketing)

What these guys didn't say is that "marketing is a conversation." However, as social media evolves, and companies get desperate to get into Facebook and Twitter and all that social media jazz, lots of marketers who'd never worked retail and who can't seem to grasp Cluetrain, just figured there were ways to make their marketing messages into "conversation."

Notice the quotes there--because many aren't concerned about what makes conversation happen, or the benefits of direct customer interaction and increased efficiency in customer service, which is what happens when a company actually *does* social media. Most companies are interested in reaping benefit from social media--such as an increase in SEO for their websites--without actually having to have any kind of conversation with anyone.

Enter the new breed of social media "consultant." Rather than actually helping a company to understand the benefits of doing social media for themselves, helping a company brainstorm innovative ways of using social media in conjunction with other marketing strategies and the like, these enterprising consultants are willing to do the social media *for* businesses and companies. Yes, that means writing their blogs for them, keeping their Facebook pages and Twitter accounts. In some cases it's even managing the LinkedIn accounts of senior execs. Marketing and Public Relations firms, too, are getting into the act, with creating new positions in their firms that are pretty much entry-level jobs that require lots of "social media management"(read: writing stuff for them) of client Facebook and Twitter accounts.

Maybe there's some blogging in that stuff, but who knows. Nowadays, how many of "the interns" really know what a blog is anyway? aren't they just passe little thingies that are great for linking strategies??? (argh!)

I'm totally baffled by this kind of consulting. The logic I hear from the many folks who do it this way is that businesses just don't have time to do social media, or they don't have the staff to do it, or some other reason why it's so impractical for them to do social media in-house (and I've been accused of being a "purist" who "just doesn't understand" that some business owners don't really care to have conversations with potential customers. huh?? they'd never make it in retail.) So much of this thinking flies in the face of all the social media success stories (see this from Gaspedal) that point out how in-house social media is what makes social media effective (creating a "market" and then a "conversation.")

Now, there are those consultants who will also argue that if you teach a company how to do social media for themselves, that they won't need the consultant any more. All I can say is if that's the case, then the consultant really isn't doing his/her job: because the world of social media moves so fast that you blink and you could have moss growing between your toes. Regardless of the hype, there's no reason to believe that Twitter and Facebook are the endpoints in social media and if you know them, that's all you need.

The matter of in-house vs. out-sourced social media won't be decided: check this great discussion on Social Media Examiner on the topic. There will, though, be a lot of companies throwing money at types and kinds of social media that, over the long term, may not get them what they want: more customers and better customer relations...

So, as I look at this, I think--where am I going to be in all of this? Will I continue to straddle both journalism and marketing, where will the opportunities be, and if there is room for "purist" thinking. Honestly, with the rise in hyperlocal sites, social media, and that direct connection with community and 'customer" is going to help journalism survive. That lack of connection that comes from outsourcing will more than likely black eye a company or two, and we won't necessarily be hearing of success stories from outsourced social media. All in all, it's going to be another exciting year in the trenches, that's for sure!

Dating, The Internet, and the Transformation of Rituals

A short while ago, David Rogers (one of the coolest guys I know, and co-founder of the BRITE conferences), in a post on his blog, brought my attention to something I'd been thinking about for a very long time: how the Internet has changed things not for the worse, but perhaps for the better....

To me, the Internet has had the most profound change on the ways in which we relate to and interact with one another. Since the early days of newsgroups, there have been a myriad of ways to passive-aggressively (or downright aggressively = flaming) interact with one another because our identities were concealed most of the time. Yet even among the kinds of nasties that went on when groups hide behind identities, I got to observe a subtle shift in the whole ritual of dating and mating....

Believe it or not, back in those days, there were tons and tons of young, single geek types who were having a hard time getting dates. And it wasn't because they all had Asperger's Syndrome or were otherwise socially awkward. That's a myth. More often than not, these young folks were working really long hours doing really obscure things with an embryonic Internet, developing things like, oh, Instant Messaging, and other stuff we now just take for granted....

They didn't have the time to go out and hang out doing the stuff that the folks who weren't in the computer industry were doing. When they did, they either couldn't talk about their work, or if they did, nobody at the bar understood a word of what they were saying. So, lots of them started to meet one another "on line", and then, sure enough, in time, some of them actually got married!

And, yeah, some of us said, "oh, it'll never last..."

oh ye who laugh first....

There were other big changes going on in the whole dating and mating thing that would impact a whole lot of us and cause us to re-evaluate how we date and mate at different periods of our lives. Divorce, for one thing. Lots of us didn't stay in marriages for one reason or another, and then managed to find ourselves "on the market" again at a time in life when most people would, in the past, would be celebrating their 25th anniversaries.

The biggest conundrum to being single and over 40 is: where do you meet someone your own age?

One thing I noticed is that socializing patterns change as we get older. What used to be "boys and girls together"--that time in your 20's when everybody just "hangs out" and you can meet people anywhere from a bar to a concert to a hockey game to an ultimate Frisbee match--is no longer there. The boys and girls have children of their own, and even ourselves don't quite have the same energy that we had in those days.

I have observed some other interesting dynamics of us over 40's. Men (single/divorced and w/o small children) tend to spend weekends on their own, often pursuing hobbies like boating (one of the "going out" hobbies) or woodworking in their own workshops. It seems that for a lot of men, their weekends are resting and recharging from their work responsibilities, which often involve supervising of others.

And they are certainly not hanging out with buddies at bars looking for chicks. That's the disgruntled married guys ;-)

Now, the advice given to over 40 women up to now has been to get out and do "guy things" in order to meet men. That means taking up boating or joining Habitat for Humanity (woodworking outside of the home) or some other "manly" hobby. However, this generation of over 40 women--lots like me--don't feel the need to follow men in their hobbies just to meet them.

We also know that if we go out with girlfriends, depending on where we live, we might be taken for a lesbian couple. Not good if you want to meet guys.

Now, there's much more I could write about this--about the changes over the generations of modes of dancing from partner to mosh pit, or how bowling is kind of like going to a bar and you're more than likely to meet someone married there too--but that would turn all of this into a huge article of some sort. Suffice to say that the rituals of folks of other generations that might have got them together just aren't there any more (see Putnam's "Bowling Alone" to get more of that theory.)

Enter the world of Internet dating!

I've heard tons of people my age who scoff at the idea of Internet dating--and most of them haven't looked at an Internet dating site since Love @AoL. When I finally decided that I wanted to start dating again, I was totally shocked by the variety of dating sites that are out there. You can have anything from the "hookup" (sites like adultfriendfinder.com) to the FWB (friends with benefits--like on fling.com). You can create cute profiles and chat on sites like Match.com and OKCupid, or you can go straight for the passive-aggressive-passing-notes-to-determine-your-soulmate style of eHarmony.com.

My, how things have changed-- Even the way we Internet-date--and in the course of maybe 10 or so years. That is, depending on how long it's been since the first official online dating site appeared.

To me, this is a total boon to both women and men. My experience in talking with a lot of women about Internet dating is that, well, they don't approach it in quite the way that might help them. First they should be thinking of what they might really want from a relationship. And be totally honest. Brutally and totally honest.

And men...well, they tend to go the other way and embellish just a bit--even in what they are looking for. I've caught a couple of guys with profiles on a number of different sites (mostly by comparing sites with other friends doing the online dating thing too) asking for vastly different kinds of relationships...

I guess they feel like it's the lottery: the more chances you have, the better you will be at winning *something*....

Aside from these quirks of women/men's natures, overall, women no longer need to become interested in things they simply aren't interested in, and men don't have to give up their spare-time recharge rituals to find a date.

And nobody has to go hand out in bars--where there's nobody anyway.

Suffice to say, then, that Internet dating, since its inception, has changed the ritual of meeting by changing the place we meet. With the Internet, we have a much better chance of finding that "community of affinity" and thus the person within that community who might be worth spending time with. We may also need to be more honest with ourselves--not just with what we want from a relationship, but also what our lives are like and what are our interests. For women, it no more having to get a dog because you might meet a nice guy walking one, and for men it's no longer taking that cooking class when you'd rather be home having a beer.

Think about it...

Upcoming Speaking Engagements

I haven't been updating the sidebar to this blog, so I thought it might be best to post where I'll be in the upcoming months...

This week, on December 11th, I will be speaking at the Center for Urban Entrepreneurship & Economic Development at Rutgers Business School in Newark, NJ. I'll be speaking on using social media for small businesses. And yes, I'll be talking some rudimentary metrics. I hope that a more in-depth conversation with this group--something beyond the basic "what is social media"--will help this group to develop their web presences.

And in March, 2010, I will be on a panel discussing new media at the "A Century of Women in Type" Conference for Smith Women in Media. It's an amazing honor to be asked to be part of an event alongside such women as Gloria Steinem, Laurel Touby (tent), and so many other amazing and fascinating women who've made huge contributions to the world of print media.

I am so grateful to have these fantastic opportunities, and really looking forward to some fascinating conversations with entrepreneurs across both business and media. It's great being able to straddle both worlds--there's just way too much to see and learn out there...

Small Business Blogs: Good for Goosing Google, Better for Customer Communications

Good thing I wasn't lighting a match the other day when a guy told me that small business owners (businesses with <100 employees) really don't care to connect with customers through their blogs--because I certainly would have lit my hair on fire with that one!

Yes, this particular social media consultant told me that blogging fits in two categories: business blogging and personal blogging. According to the guy, business blogging, and business bloggers, really don't care about comments or connecting with customers though blogs. What they're concerned about is getting more results in search and that's all they really want their blogs to do.

I was then called a "social media purist" for advocating that even small business owners should want to connect with customers through their blogs, I just about hung up on the guy. Perhaps it was morbid curiosity that kept me on the line and listening to what he had to say....

Still, I was really shocked by this way of thinking. Sure, you can goose Google by tweaking headlines and the first 200 characters in your blog to reflect the keywords that you want associated with your business. You can even create more links for yourself by having a number of keyword and content oriented blogs connected back to your website in some way.

But if that's all you're doing, and you're not connecting with other blogs or websites or bloggers--who, believe it or not, are also potential customers-- then that alone won't get you a substantial result in Google.

See, links from others help to draw your blog into search and help to "feed" Google. You get links not just by asking people to link to you or because you bought them. You get links to your blog by linking to others, by adding them to blogrolls and the like. Google used to penalize sites for paid links anyway--and even though the jury's still out on paid links, even if Google doesn't catch you the paid link might not give good return on investment.

Still, when your money is limited, buying links probably isn't as good as a small but efficient PPC ad strategy--perhaps even a PPC campaign on Facebook. Or advertising on a local TV website or an independent hyperlocal blog.

IMHO, the aim and intention for small businesses in social media should be to connect with customers. When you think about it, social media is like old fashioned retail--where chatting with your customers & potential customers created long-lasting relationships and continued sales.

And if small businesses do not want to connect socially with their customers, perhaps they should re-think getting into social media at all. It may simply not be the place for some kinds of businesses, and that's okay. In fact, more damage can be done by neglected social media than by no social media (think: old information in search.)

Think about it....

Why You Shouldn't Hire Someone to Manage Your LinkedIn Profile

Lately, I've noticed a rash of social media consultants offering to manage the LinkedIn profiles of busy professionals. It's one thing to hire someone to help write your profile out--that's like resume writing or having some good p.r. writing done. But to manage it?? You've *got* to be kidding me.

I think the idea comes from the old days of having a secretary. Having been one of those in the 1980's, I remember when The Boss would come in from a business lunch, hand me a card and say "Add this guy to the rollodex, will you?" Like a good little secretary, that's what I did...

Now, I know that a good analogy for describing what LinkedIn can be is that it is a kind of rolodex online. Well, it is, and it isn't. It is in that it's a way to keep your contacts in a place online. It isn't in that it your rolodex never left your office, and it didn't require you to have a password to get into it. Further, people in your rolodex ever able to see the other people in your rolodex? Could anybody off the street come in and search your rolodex (which could happen with LinkedIn, if you do not manage your privacy settings accordingly?)

When a businessperson hires someone to keep a LinkedIn profile, or has someone in his/her office keep track of that profile, they must first hand over a password. For some, this might not be a big deal, and they will change the password when and if that person leaves.

What, though, if that person has changed the password without telling you? What if that person has edited your information in a certain way, or added people they believe you should be connected with.

Businesspeople who do not fully understand social networking but feel they must be there may be far too trusting with the information they allow others to manage for them.

It's like I always say--if you refuse to be responsible for your online identity and who you are in social networking, then perhaps it's not the place for you. The Internet is not analogous to the old paper-and-filing-cabinet world. It is a web and everything put there has the potential to be linked everywhere else...

Further, the old paper-and-filing-cabinet world gave us a false sense of security. It was difficult to break into those places and to get information out of them. It lead us to believe that things like an office rolodex were private. But the Internet is different, and what you put there, even you are mindful of security settings, even if it is behind a password-protected wall, is, potentially, public information. (hence one must be careful with social security numbers, driver's license numbers and the like--which are not meant to be public information.) So, one has to be more responsible for one's own social identity information on the Internet than they were in the paper world.

Because, in the past, if a secretary got fired, he couldn't necessarily mess with your information. Now, he can. Ad in ways you might not even know.

So, while I can give you a whole bunch of links on the deeper and techological reasons why one should manage one's own LinkedIn profile, and not give it to a social media person nor to one's secretary, I'll simply borrow a phrase from Doc Searls which might apply: participating in LinkedIn could be said to be a public activity under private control When you give the management to someone else, you are giving away control over private real estate online.

And are you really ok with giving away the control of your business contacts and your business persona (which is contained in that profile) to someone else? Do you really want to be, on a social networking site, a lot of spin with a plethora of connections that might mean less to you than if they were sitting in a file on your desk?

And, if all you really want to do is keep track of the business cards you acquire, because they may be potential new business contacts, there are a whole host of tools to help you with that--all kinds of card readers and such. So you don't even need LinkedIn for that purpose.

Think about it....about what you want from social media. Assess whether or not you have the time for it--don't just hire someone to do it for you. Do it for yourself.