« May 2007 | Main | July 2007 »

June 2007

Thursday, June 28, 2007

The New Media Cocktail

image Recently I started to write a blog post about the future of media.  I planned to address the two big themes that I see playing a significant role in how we will produce and consume media in coming years.  It spiraled a bit out of control and became a 30 page e-book titled The New Media Cocktail.  It is available to download for free as a PDF.

The two themes I have identified and discuss in The New Media Cocktail are:

  • Convergence
  • The power of niches

Regular readers of this blog and listeners to my Disruptive Dialogue podcast know that I have been nearly obsessed with the future of media of late.  I have spent a lot of time reading, researching, and thinking about the issue.  Hopefully The New Media Cocktail contributes to the great thinking already taking place in this space.  I want to thank some of the most provocative bloggers in this space for forcing me to focus on and examine the trends.  In particular the words and deeds of Jeff Jarvis, Mark Cuban, Chris Anderson, Dave Winer, Chris Garrett, and Jason Calacanis had a significant impact on my outlook. 

I also want to thank three people who provided invaluable feedback to me on early drafts of The New Media CocktailShel Israel, Sarah Wurrey, and Jen White all contributed significantly to the final product.  (Though all mistakes are, of course, my own.)

It's a quick -- and I hope provocative -- read.  I encourage you to download the PDF and let me know what you think.  I plan to do a follow-up post soon with some of the feedback I receive here in the comments or in blog posts elsewhere.

Sunday, June 24, 2007

No Winners in "People Ready" Kerfuffle, But A Few Observations

image It never ceases to amaze me the way the tech blogosphere can get all up in arms over seemingly insignificant things.  The current firestorm over whether top tech bloggers like Mike Arrington, Om Malik, Fred Wilson, and Paul Kedrosky sold their souls by lending their words to a Microsoft "People Ready" campaign is just silly.

One look over at TechMeme tells you that far too many bits and bytes have been spent discussing this topic already, but since seemingly every other post in Google Reader this weekend have been on this topic, I feel compelled to get some things off my chest.

Old Media Endorses Products All The Time

Robert Scoble aptly points out that Leo Laporte does radio ads endorsing products.  Anyone who listens to AM radio regularly (or did anytime in the past several decades) no doubt has heard Paul Harvey waxing on about beds and other products.  Tune into any terrestrial radio station and you will hear a host plugging one product or another -- even news readers do this.  Folks, this is nothing new.

Would the Reaction be Different If It Wasn't Microsoft?

I can't help but wonder if this were an ad campaign engineered by Apple if the reaction wouldn't have been different.  Look at the different reactions to Microsoft's Vista campaign and Nikon's D80 blogger relations program.  Yes, there were minor differences in how the programs were communicated, but the net result is the same: bloggers get to play with expensive, high-end products at no cost for a really long time.

What's Up With John Battelle?

Let me be clear, I'm a John Battelle groupie.  I still miss the Industry Standard.  I loved The Search.  John's blog is on my "1stRead" list in Google Reader.  But what was he thinking when he threw his clients under the bus?  When you act as an agent for someone, as FM does with the blogs it reps for advertising sales, you shouldn't be publicly attacking those clients. 

At Least There's Healthy Debate This Time

One thing that strikes me as different about this blogstorm over blogger ethics is that there seems to be more of a healthy debate about the issue, with many bloggers actively wrestling with the issue.  During similar events in the past, I have been concerned by what I have seen as a rush to judgment and a "blog mob" mentality that sets in.  Here we have had some of the targets stand up to the initial mob attack, rather than folding at the first sign of controversy (notably Fred Wilson and Mike Arrington).  Unfortunately, some of the targets did throw in the towel, prematurely in my opinion.

Showing Irritation Only Emboldens Your Enemies

I don't blame Mike Arrington for getting pretty worked up in his response to this controversy.  Tabloid publications like ValleyWag can clearly get under one's skin pretty easily.  And if someone questions my integrity, you can be sure it's going to make me mad (and it has).  Unfortunately, showing that anger encourages more attacks, as Mike discovered when ValleyWag struck again.  It's important to try to remember schoolyard bullies and two-year old kids in cases like this.  If you show a reaction to their behavior, they keep at it.  If you ignore it, they get bored and move on.

For More Reading...

There's some really good thinking on this subject beyond what I referenced above.  I especially would commend to your attention two differing points of view.  Scott Karp tends to agree with me that this is much ado about nothing, but speaks to a need for bloggers to establish and stick to personal standards.  Jeff Jarvis and I couldn't be farther apart on this issue, but he puts quite a bit of thought and reasoning into his views and makes several points that I do agree with, despite his ultimate conclusion.

Saturday, June 23, 2007

Never Underestimate Yourself ... Or Anyone Else

Chris Brogan shared the video below of Paul Potts, winner of Britain's Got Talent (sort of their version of American Idol, complete with Simon Cowell as a judge).  Chris asks: "who are you underestimating?"

That's a great question and this video demonstrates that people are capable of surprising other people -- and even themselves.  It's worth a few minutes of your time to watch this video of a cell phone salesman who decides to roll the dice for his dream.  If you are or have ever thought about becoming an entrepreneur, Paul Potts should be someone you should think about.

The before and after shots of the judges' faces are especially priceless.

Friday, June 22, 2007

Online Social Networking Meets Old Time Neighborhood Networking

image An interesting one man band in Burlington, VT is setting up an online social network focused on real world social networks of yore: neighborhoods.  Apparently some 20 percent of all of the residents of Burlington have joined the Front Porch Forum.  To me, that's a staggering statistic and once again demonstrates that online communications tools serve as an add-on, not a replacement, for real world communication and relationships. 

Robert Scoble conducted an interview with the founder of this company, Michael Wood-Lewis, and explored how the company came to be and where it is headed.  The fact that this sort of adoption has taken place with no formal marketing and just a single employee (and apparently some web development contracting) is remarkable.

I have embedded Scoble's video here:

The Buzz Surrounding Michael Moore's Latest Film

It must be CustomScoop day here on this blog.  Our team there put out an interesting blog post last night that is an abbreviated version of the typical analysis we provide clients.  In this case, they decided to look at the buzz surrounding Michael Moore's "Sicko" film. 

Included was a chart showing volume of blog posts:

image

As well as a breakdown of the sentiment of the posts:

image

The full post is well worth a read for the observations they make.

Entering the Video Arena: A Demo of CustomScoop

Regular readers know that I have an increasing fascination with the future of media in general and online video in particular.  So I have decided to dip my toe in the water and begin some video blogging, where appropriate.  Of course, I turned to one of my own companies, CustomScoop, to be the guinea pig in this effort.  Surprisingly, my first attempt out of the gate wasn't bad, so I'm sharing it here.  I'd still like to improve on things a bit, but for a first effort at shooting an interview/demo video, I'm pretty pleased.

 
I also need to work on the video editing side a bit to do better titles, captions, etc. but, hey, I'm still a newbie!

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

PR Pros Enthusiastic About Social Media

image PRSA's Technology Section and its New York Chapter put on a great event in NYC yesterday at the T3 Conference.  I spoke on a panel moderated by Don Bates accompanied by David Parmet of Marketing Begins at Home and Tony Sapienza of Topaz PartnersTony gave on overview of the tools in social media relevant to PR pros, including wikis, podcasts, blogs, social networks, and more.  David discussed SNCR's best practices for corporate blogging.  And I talked about 7 sins in 7 minutes.

What struck me most was the sea change that has occurred since last year's event by the same sponsors.  A significant percentage of people in the audience are now writing blogs and virtually all read them regularly.  That's a far cry from the last one where "what's a blog?" was a common question.

It was a great opportunity to meet new people and also catch up with some old faces.  For instance, I finally met Constantin Basturea in person and saw Steve Rubel for the first time in many months.  Speaking of those two, they were on a lively panel discussing the future of PR moderated by Richard Laermer.

(Photo of me here taken by David Parmet with his Nikon D80.  Check out more of his photos from the event on Flickr.)

Monday, June 18, 2007

Assuming Fatigue Not in Evidence Weakens NY Times Story on Internet Retailing

image The Sunday New York Times splashed a page 1, above the fold story on painting a picture of gloom and doom in online retailing ("Some Buyers Grow Web-Weary, And Online Sales Lose Steam").  A chart even accompanies the sensational headline.  The first sentence is particularly inflammatory: "Has online retailing entered the Dot Calm era?"

Paul Kedrosky does a nice job of rebutting the underlying argument of the story by pointing out that growth rates must necessarily slow, lest brick and mortar sales cease altogether.  No industry can sustain astronomical growth rates forever.

In fact, the authors of this piece admit this fact:

The slowdown is a result of several forces. Sales on the Internet are expected to reach $116 billion this year, or 5 percent of all retail sales, making it harder to maintain the same high growth rates. At the same time, consumers seem to be experiencing Internet fatigue and are changing their buying habits.

Paul hit on that first point, but I want to drill in to the bit about "Internet fatigue" and "changing their buying habits."  But first, here's what he writes:

it's no surprise sales is slowing. The law of large numbers still holds -- always has, alway will. But the raw revenue numbers are still gigantic, with online commerce adding more incremental revenue this year than was the entire e-commerce market in 1998-1999.

Does it have anything to do, however, with people balking at buying online? You have got to be kidding.

Precisely.  Where's the support for this claim?  Surely somewhere in the article there must have been some survey results that suggest people are "tired" of using the Internet to make purchases, right?  Not a chance.  So perhaps there are some anecdotes about people who used to like shopping online but don't anymore, right?  Not a chance.

In a courtroom, it would be called "assuming facts not in evidence."  Here, we're just talking bad journalism.  There are several quotes in the story from people who don't like to shop online, but no evidence that this is a change in behavior for those individuals.  Therefore they aren't "fatigued" or "changing their habits." 

The closest this story comes to trying to prove this sensational claim is in the following paragraph:

The reaction to the trend is apparent at Dell, which many had regarded as having mastered the science of selling computers online, but is now putting its PCs in Wal-Mart stores. Expedia has almost tripled the number of travel ticketing kiosks it puts in hotel lobbies and other places that attract tourists.

Yet neither of these examples demonstrates either fatigue or changing habits.  Rather it shows online retailers seeking new markets not following shifting customers. 

It's unfortunate that the New York Times decided to take a tabloid approach to this issue.  One expects more from the paper, especially for a page one play.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: I read this story in the City Edition of the paper yesterday, as I am in New York for business.  In seeking out the image of page one of the Sunday NYT to include in this post, I noted that it was not included on page one of the national edition.  In addition, the online edition today lacks the inflammatory start of the headline ("Some Buyers Grow Web-Weary") and opts for the more sedate second half ("Online Sales Lose Steam").  I wonder if the paper's own editors shared my concerns, at least to a degree?

Thursday, June 14, 2007

A Better Way to Curate

image I gave in.  I switched to Google Reader.  The good news for you, the reader, is that I can now use the shared items feature to let you know what I find interesting, but may not have the time to blog about.

Visit this page to see what feed items I'm finding interesting or subscribe to the RSS feed.

If you are still undecided, here's the last 10 things I added to the list:

Calacanis Puts His Money Where His Mouth Is

image Jason Calacanis has argued in the past that users should be paid for content.  He did just this at Netscape in what was viewed more as an effort to hurt Digg than to actually reward content creators, but that was OPM (other people's money).  Now comes word that he's going to do this with at his own company, so his own money (at least partially). 

Mahalo will pay users who create good search result pages:

Today I'm thrilled to announce the Mahalo Greenhouse, a place where the public can build search results that-if accepted by our Guides-will be included in the Mahalo search index.

Oh yeah, if we accept your search result we will pay you $10 to $15 per search result (the range is based on how many search results you've completed: more here).

Shrewdly, Jason is also offering to make contributions to the Wikimedia Foundation for users who don't want the cash themselves.  He writes: "We've earmarked up to $250,000 in donations to the Wikipedia this year."  Since many -- myself included -- view Wikipedia as at least partially in competition with Mahalo, this is an interesting way to crimp the complaints of the competition a bit.  It is a significant amount for Wikimedia which raised $1.5 million last year from all sources.

Good stuff.  And more proof that content doesn't want to be free!

The Blog Expectations Game

What do you expect from a blog?  Fred Wilson points out what I have been thinking myself the past few days: Marc Andreesen is doing a great job with his new blog -- but he's setting the bar very high for himself.  Nearly every day he has a relevant, provocative, and informative post.  And they aren't short, quick observations, but well-thought out missives.

Similarly, Steve Rubel used to post multiple times a day, often short quick notes with a link to other content.  In some ways, he acted as what Chris Brogan and others have called a "curator" (a role played most prominently by Robert Scoble on his link blog/shared Google Reader links).  But Steve now says he's going to try to focus on longer, more thoughtful posts more in the Marc Andreesen style.  In Steve's words: "less quantity more quality in the way of op-eds rather than shorter linky posts."

All of this raises the question of what people expect from a blog.  My philosophy is that as long as you maintain some consistency and don't change it up all the time, your audience will respect that.  Marc has done a nice job of coming out of the gate strong and that has, I'm sure, built him up a very solid audience.  Unless he feels he can keep the pace up, though, I would think he would be wise to space his posts out a little more. 

On the other hand, I can make a good case for the argument that bloggers should post what they have to say when they have something to say.  It is the philosophy I tend to follow -- if I can say something quickly and link away, I will.  If I have something longer and more thoughtful, I'll share that.  In my own way that's the consistency I offer: variety.  If it isn't your cup of tea, move on -- there's lots of voices out there.  If it is, why not subscribe by RSS or email?  (top right of this page, unless you are already a subscriber!)

Thursday, June 07, 2007

If There Was Any Doubt the Patent System is Broken...

image You simply must read this laugh out loud funny list of crazy patents that have actually been awarded by the USPTO.  I picked up on it from a post by Seth Levine where he reports on (potentially) good news about pending changes in the way patents are handled.  We can only hope.

My favorites from the crazy patent list:

  • One patent included this claim: "9. The method of providing user interface displays in an image forming apparatus which is really a bogus claim included amongst real claims, and which should be removed before filing; wherein the claim is included to determine if the inventor actually read the claims and the inventor should instruct the attorneys to remove the claim." (Remember these are all patents, actually approved by USPTO.)
  • "This patent shows you how to patch a hole in a wall by cutting out a piece the same size as a pre-formed plug, and then inserting the plug and plastering over it. Isn't that pretty much the way drywall is always patched???"
  • "Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force." 
  • Then there's the one patenting the use of a laser pointer to exercise a cat.  Dumb as that seems, it's made even worse by the fact that USPTO issued this patent 5 times to different "inventors."
  • I also like "Method for Swinging on a Swing."  Here's the commentary on the Crazy Patents list about it: "So these fools think that in all the years of swinging no one has ever before thought to pull on the opposite chains and swing form side to side? Well, I guess they got the PTO to issue the patent, so I'm not sure who the fool really is... But, even so, what do these guys expect to do with this anyway? Are they going to go around and collect royalties from kids on the playground?"
  • Then there's the tricycle lawn mower.  One can only hope that USPTO sent a copy of that one over to the Consumer Product Safety Commission as soon as they issued it.

Go check out the rest of the list for yourself.  In some cases you have to fault USPTO and in others you wonder what the inventors were thinking.

Technorati tags: , ,

Drive and Curiosity Define a Good Employee

Marc Andreesen is on fire with his new blog.  Today, he has a great post on hiring good people.  I want to highlight two things he talks about because in my experience they are mandatory requirements for a good employee -- new hire or existing.  Of course there's more to it than just these two criteria, but these are absolutely essential and at the core of the person.

Drive

Marc writes that employees who are driven are:

people who will walk right through brick walls, on their own power, without having to be asked, to achieve whatever goal is in front of them. People with drive push and push and push and push and push until they succeed ...

I look for something you've done, either in a job or (often better yet) outside of a job.  The business you started and ran in high school.  The nonprofit you started and ran in college.  If you're a programmer: the open source project to which you've made major contributions.

Something.

If you can't find anything -- if a candidate has just followed the rules their whole lives, showed up for the right classes and the right tests and the right career opportunities without achieving something distinct and notable, relative to their starting point -- then they probably aren't driven.

And you're not going to change them.  Motivating people who are fundamentally unmotivated is not easy.  But motivating people who are self-motivated is wind at your back.

I agree in particular with looking at the things that people have done that they aren't required to do.  Starting a business or non-profit.  Working with others on a non-work project.  These are things that are very positive indicators of drive. 

I'm a very driven person myself and hate having to try to motivate the unmotivated.  I want to push people to go further, not simply to move.

Curiosity

This one is simple.  In Marc's words: "do you love what you do?"

Anyone who loves what they do is inherently intensely curious about their field, their profession, their craft.  They read about it, study it, talk to other people about it... immerse themselves in it, continuously.  And work like hell to stay current in it.

Not because they have to.  But because they love to.  Anyone who isn't curious doesn't love what they do.

I want employees who know the industry trends and keep up with them because they enjoy it.  I want to see people who find out how to push the envelope because it is exciting.  I want team members who are passionate about the company and its goals and understand the industry trends that impact it. 

And if you are a programmer or marketer or whatever, is isn't simply about the skills in your particular specialty that you should be curious about.  If you work for Flickr or Zoomr, you should be curious about photography.  If you work for YouTube or Revver, you should be curious about video.  If you work for TypePad or FeedBurner, you should be curious about blogs.  If you work for Topix or CustomScoop, you should be curious about news aggregation.  If you work at PodTech or PodShow, you should be curious about new media creation.

Other Traits

There's obviously more to it, and I encourage you to read Marc's post if you're an employer or an employee.  There's lots of great advice in there, including some tips on process that I plan to implement going forward.  Looking back at some of my bad or poor hires in the past, if I had focused like a laser beam on the qualities I was looking for and used a better process, I probably could have avoided some (but not all) of my mistakes.  And Marc does point out that even the best processes generate bad hires and you should just face up to it and deal with it directly when you do.

Time Inc. CEO on Value of Readers, Professional Journalism

imageRafat Ali has a very candid and revealing interview with Ann Moore, the CEO of Time, Inc.  The whole interview is worth a read, but I want to draw specific attention to two portions.  The first one deals with the different value of online and offline readers:

The average reader of Sports Illustrated delivers about $118 to the bottom line in Time Inc. The average very engaged user of SI.com can generate about $5 in advertising contribution. I need many more online viewers to equal one magazine reader. That is why you have to go for big volume and that is why you got to have partnerships.

Now I find this interesting, and I don't doubt there's some truth in it, but I question whether we're comparing apples and oranges to some degree.  One of the problems is how she defines "average reader" and "average very engaged user."  We don't know whether for the print edition it includes subscribers or subscribers plus pass-alongs.  And for the online what is a "very engaged user"?  I assume it isn't every unique visitor, but is it every repeat visitor?  3 visits per month?  Is it a registered user or email subscriber? 

imageTime and SI are big enough properties that I assume they have studied this every which way to Sunday, but it is important to carefully study your online audience and figure out if you could actually generate the same revenue on a smaller user base.  If you find that certain users/readers are more lucrative, to the extent you can focus on them, you may be able to get around the need to generate eyeballs in massive quantities just to survive.

The second point she made that I think is worth noting is on the subject of professional journalism versus user generated content:

I think one of my priorities is to make sure we build enough fences around the journalistic part of our company, that we protect it and nurture it. Real fact-based news is very important for the country, for our company, for our democracy, for your business. You are not going to want the world to just run on user-generated content. We need to protect real journalism, and it is very much in our DNA.

A company like Time can't survive on user generated content alone.  And despite the real value I see in what users create, I still see enormous value in professional content.  As much as we all may like to read blogs and watch YouTube videos, there's still plenty of room for magazines, newspapers, TV, radio, movies, etc.  It's all a matter of balance, not an either-or choice like some would like to make it.

Disruptive Dialogue #13 - Changing Rules of Media Plus Page Views and Advertising

download Disruptive Dialogue podcastThe latest episode of the Disruptive Dialogue podcast is now available.  This one was recorded in Bow, NH and is 21:14.  You can download this podcast as an MP3 or subscribe to the RSS feed to make sure you never miss an episode.

Topics:

Notes:

To Comment:

  • Leave your comments here
  • Call the Disruptive Dialogue comment line: (617) 273-CHIP / (2447)
  • Email me your comments in MP3 format (no more than 2 minutes and 5 MB, please)

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

The Future of Conferences and Professional Associations

This probably deserves two posts, but I think the matters are related, so I'm lumping them together.  I found myself writing this after being asked by one of our team members at CustomScoop whether I thought a professional development conference was worth more than $2000 to attend.  Half of that was the conference fee and the other half travel-related expenses.  It, of course, did not include the value of that person's time since that would need to be factored in as well to make an accurate value judgment.

image But two posts I read in the last couple of days entered into the mix as well.  The first was from my new friend John Wall (how long is a friend new, by the way?  in social media circles it seems like the timeline for everything is shortened!).  He wrote:

My membership to the Boston chapter of the Business Marketing Association is coming up for renewal. As I look back over the year, the only thing I got out of my membership is the certificate that’s under a pile of stuff somewhere in the pile of stuff that builds up with the trade mags in a random corner. Of course that still puts them one step ahead of my membership to the New England Direct Marketing Association (NEDMA), I don’t recall getting a certificate from them.

Another point of reference came from a Microsoft employee named Kintan Brahmbhatt.  He asked, "Why do you go to a conference?" and offered up a good post on the subject.  I find fewer and fewer people seem to attend conferences for the content, but more for the networking.  Kintan says something similar: "the common and the highest order bit for me to attend any conference has always been and will always be 'to meet new people', with similar or different interests."

With the rise of "unconferences" like the wildly successful Podcamp (over 1000 attendees in New York recently) and parties like the TechCrunch/August Capital one coming up or the mixers that Rafat Ali puts on for PaidContent, how necessary are conferences and associations? 

Conferences

image I still pay substantial dollars to go to some conferences.  I pay over $2000 a pop to attend each of the two annual DEMO events put on by Chris Shipley.  It's a mix of the technology demos and the people that brings me there.  It is a real time to recharge my batteries by seeing great innovation and talking with fellow entrepreneurs and investors that I don't see often (as well as meeting new ones).  But I'm still undecided on whether to spring a similar amount for Michael Arrington and Jason Calacanis' TechCrunch 20.  I'm inclined to for many of the same reasons as DEMO, but how often can I shell out that sort of cash and feel justified in doing so?  Why not just read TechCrunch and Scoble to get my scoops and Twitter for networking?

image Similarly, I will generally pay to attend major communications industry events like the PRSA or IABC annual conferences.  They're not quite as expensive as DEMO or TechCrunch 20, but they're still not cheap.  And with so much live blogging and official video now available, is the networking really worth it?  If so, how often?

What I'd really like to see is someone to take the best of these expensive, established conferences and blend in some of the elements of an unconference to make it a more affordable event to attend with more potent content.  I think it can be done.  Unconferences scare more mainstream attendees because most people fear the unknown.  So have an agenda, but offer up a track with some flexibility for those who are open to the concept.  Choose venues that may not be quite as grand, but that perhaps offer more affordable conference fees.  Find a way to integrate vendors in a transparent way that allows benefits to be shared by attendee and sponsors alike.

Professional Associations

image This is one that's a much tougher nut to crack.  I belong to a number of associations, including PRSA and IABC.  I have been active with the PRSA New York board for a number of years now and have seen first-hand the challenges that associations face today.  It's much harder to entice younger people to shell out membership fees and employers are less inclined to foot the bill themselves.

When you're paying hundreds of dollars a year in membership dues, you expect something in return.  But what is the biggest value that most of these groups offer?  Newsletters and events.  The newsletters are free, though they offer far less value today in an age of blogs and other instant (and free) communication.  Often the events are good (PRSA chapters put on some great events, and not just the ones that I participate in!).  But the discounts provided to members are often fairly paltry (it seems like $10 to $25 less is fairly typical of the ones I see that aren't $1000 events).  It takes a lot of those discounts in a year to make up for the dues investment.

The bottom line is professional associations must do more to innovate and adapt to the changing environment we all operate in.  Newsletters and magazines that once served as a lifeline to professionals no longer fill the same need as they did in the pre-Internet era when niche news, information, and commentary was harder to find.  Local events that once offered a glimpse into the mind of an expert now need more to distinguish themselves.  The content isn't what drives me to go listen to Katie Paine.  I can get that from her newsletter, blog, and live blogging accounts of her conference appearances (and there's probably video, too, that I'm overlooking).  It's the conversation and networking.  So tailor events to maximize those benefits.

Conclusion

The landscape is changing for conferences and professional associations.  The old ways of doing things are dead.  The venerable COMDEX conference lost its place at the top of the computer industry heap because it no longer served a burning need in the community.  Others will face the same fate if they fail to innovate and adapt

Video for Foodies

Two items showed up in my reader that may interest not only foodies, but those interested (as I am more and more) in the online video space.  They're almost diametrically opposed, though, which makes it more fun to watch and see how it plays out.  One is offered by a major brand focused on brand-name chefs.  The other is from an unknown company focusing on food, not personalities.

image First, the more food-focused offering.  A Canadian startup called Rouxbe is producing approximately 4 instructional videos each week, according to Josh Catone over at Read/Write Web. 

The videos are presented as multi-part, indexed flash movies in an attractive video player (see this free video for pan-seared cod as an example). Videos are shot mostly from an overhead angle and narrated, step-by-step. Using the player, users can jump to any specific step in the video, pause, rewind, skip, or replay.

Cristina Ledesma of 901am writes about the other offering, this one from Food & Wine magazine.  imageIt sounds interesting as well, though it packs star power behind both its magazine title and the video talent.

Foodandwine.com is currently airing video segments of [Bobby] Flay, [Emeril] Lagasse, Mario Batali, Jacques Pépin and other star chefs preparing their signature dishes at the 2006 Food & Wine Magazine Classic in Aspen. This month, the epicurean website began adding more original content, starting with a series of videos with Chef Joey Campanaro from New York’s The Little Owl demonstrating a full romantic menu, and Chef Shea Gallante of Cru demonstrating a summer menu. In addition, coverage of the 2007 Food & Wine Classic and interviews with other prominent chefs will also be available as foodandwine.com expands its Web 2.0 offering, which includes podcasts, blogs and a Wiki-enabled portion of the site.

Two very different approaches to a similar vertical video space.  One aimed more at the home cook, the other at the foodie who may or may not wield pots and pans himself. It will be interesting to see how it pans out (I really didn't originally intend the pun there, but I had to leave it once I noticed it).

Quick Primer on Measuring Social Media

image Katie Paine's Measurement Standard offers up a quick guide to how to measure common goals in the social media space.  Apart from being very simple to understand, it drives home the point that she and I both do regularly: you need to measure against your goals, not using some arbitrary scoring system that has no external meaning.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

Drobo Takes Off - Yet Another Example of Buzz at Work

image I had never heard any talk of a hard drive storage solution called Drobo until today.  And suddenly it seems to be everywhere.  Sal Cangeloso offers a good rundown of the story. 

I'm in the market for something like this right now since I can't help myself as far as doing podcasts goes.  Plus I'm experimenting with some video and still photography stuff at the moment, mostly to learn, but who knows where it may lead?  All of this takes a ton of disk space.  So the story appealed to me.

But it also shows yet again how quickly stories can take off in the blogosphere and how much we all can act as an echo chamber for each other from time to time.

Recapping Reboot

image Didn't make it to Reboot?  Neither did I.  But Sarah Wurrey, editor of PR Blog Jots and frequent contributor to the CustomScoop blog, just posted a nice summary of the discussion that went on in the blogosphere about the conference.  It's not as much fun as being in Copenhagen and enjoying some of the local spirit and spirits, but it's a good wrap-up anyway.  Check it out and feel free to add links to anything she might have overlooked!

Monday, June 04, 2007

10 Ways the Rules of the Media Business are Being Rewritten

Traditional ("old") media finds itself experiencing an earthquake of change as online ("new") media changes the rules of the game.  Some publishers and broadcasters find themselves struggling to adapt, while others thrive on the ability to innovate.  The competition becomes more intense by the day and the fears among old school journalists and media executives rise in direct proportion.

Let me be clear: I am not one who believes that new media will kill old media.  Newspapers, broadcast television, and terrestrial radio are here to stay.  Those who innovate and adapt will thrive; those who fail will perish.  The solid gold oldies and the young turks must all play on the same playing field today, and understanding how the rules are being rewritten will be key to future success for both camps. 

1.  Publishers are Broadcasters and Broadcasters are Publishers.

Media convergence has arrived.  Newspapers are producing audio and video.  TV and radio are producing print copy.  Media outlets no longer find themselves constrained to one specific medium.  Technology permits all media outlets to compete on each other's turf.

2.  Column Inches and Broadcast Minutes are No Longer Limited.

It used to be that print reporters would see stories dropped because there weren't enough available column inches to print the article.  TV and radio journalists would get squeezed out because an hour only has 60 minutes no matter how you slice it.  Today, the web enables all media to publish and produce unlimited content.  This is a blessing and curse because it means a lot more high quality material makes it into the public arena, but it is harder to kill low-quality stuff without telling the journalist that directly.

3.  The Audience Can be a Partner in Content Creation.

When breaking news hits, the audience now contributes.  Media outlets openly solicit still and video footage from cell phones or other portable devices for disasters and tragedies.  Remember the student whose cell phone video footage made it on CNN in a seemingly endless loop after the Virginia Tech shooting?  Local stations do the same thing for pictures of floods and other natural disasters. Even the print media has gotten into this game.

4.  The Media Now Competes with Its Own Audience.

The rise of blogs, podcasts, and online video now mean that media outlets are competing with their own audiences.  Anybody can create a podcast that competes with NPR, a blog that competes with the Washington Post, or a video site that competes with CNN.  Everyone can be a broadcaster and publisher, at low cost and with minimal effort.

5.  Old Advertising/Revenue Models Will Be Replaced.

You can't put a 30 second pre-roll ad on every 2 minute news story.  Nobody sticks around to watch post-roll.  Podcasts aren't radio, so the same ad structure doesn't work.  Full-page display advertising?  Not on a newspaper web site!  And classified advertising hasn't simply migrated to the web, the whole nature of it has changed.  Where's the line between classifieds and eBay auctions?  Between Craigslist and a yard sale?  Similarly, despite ESPN's efforts, ISP's aren't typically going to pay to carry content.  And subscription revenue models will need to be revamped to recognize the shifting landscape.

6.  Archives are Valuable.

In the old days, the only people who cared about newspaper morgues and tape libraries were researchers, librarians, and other hard-core information professionals.  Today search engines can help open these archives up to a public, hungry for information.  Looking at old articles no longer require microfiche or a subscription to a legacy research service.  Digging up old video doesn't need to involve a call to a service that fetches a dusty videotape and copies it.  Archives can be a source for ongoing traffic -- and thus revenue -- to media outlets.

7.  Niches Have Increasing Value.

The old media paradigm precluded effective niche publications.  A truly focused niche would likely have too few potential subscribers to justify a magazine.  Certainly a radio or TV show would be unlikely to be devoted to these niches.  But highly-targeted niches have real value for audiences, content creators, and marketers and can be exploited effectively in the new media world.  Consumers increasingly want to see just the slice of information they're interested in, and generic national, international, business, and entertainment news increasingly becomes a boring commodity.

8.  Unedited Content is Becoming More Common.

Stories are going online in print, audio, or video with less and less editing.  As news cycles disappear and are replaced by the world of instant information, credible journalists are posting to blogs and producing audio and video so quickly that editing would be impractical.  Content producers must therefore trust their content creators to make sound editorial judgment by themselves on the fly. 

9.  News Cycles are Dead.  Information is Instantaneous.

In the Edward R. Murrow/Walter Cronkite/David Brinkley era, news cycles lasted 24 hours until the next nightly newscast came on the air.  Twenty-four hour cable news networks began to shrink the news cycle and Web 1.0 brought it down to mere hours.  Today, the news cycle is dead.  Information transmits instantaneously and responses often come before the news is completely made.  In politics, a presidential debate doesn't even conclude anymore before detailed responses, rebuttals, attacks, and supplemental information has been made public.  The "official" pundits have yet to offer their views on TV before the new media space has rendered judgment of their own.

10.  Choices, Choices, and More Choices.

For those who thought that cable television ushered in an age of too many choices for consumers, welcome to the Media 2.0 world.  There are now more information choices than there are products in a Wal-Mart Supercenter.  (A Supercenter has about 116,000 different products on sale.)  Even someone interested in a niche as focused as bacon can find 1,050 blogs tagged for that subject, according to Technorati's directory.  (I'm sure that list has a lot of fat in it, but there's lots of meat as well -- OK, I couldn't help myself.)

*****

Readers of this blog and listeners to my podcast know that the future of media continues to fascinate me.  The opportunities to innovate and excel in this arena could not be richer.  The possibilities are plentiful and the value in success is high for those who innovate and execute well.  Ultimately, consumers and innovators will both win.

Friday, June 01, 2007

MLB Whiffs as It Strikes Out at Slingbox

image Anyone who knows me understands that I'm a Slingbox addict.  I got the device shortly after they were first released.  I adopted their mobile phone viewer within hours of its availability.  I talk about it constantly.  I evangelize it in bars and restaurants where I can be found watching TV on my cell phone, the phone gracefully propped up on a used wine cork (when available) to establish a better viewing angle.  I incorporate the Slingbox into presentations I do to demonstrate the power of technology to make peoples' lives better (or at least more enjoyable).

Why am I so passionate about the Slingbox?  Because of the Boston Red Sox.  I'm more addicted to the Red Sox than the Slingbox and that little silver box helps me feed that addiction.  I travel for business almost every week of the year.  I had in the neighborhood of 100 flights last year and spend something like 150 days a year or more a year sleeping somewhere other than my own bed (and since that reads awkwardly, if my wife is reading, I want to be clear that I mean ALONE when I'm not with her). 

The restaurants I frequent typically do not have the Red Sox game on.  Usually, they can't even get it easily if they wanted to.  So the Slingbox is my connection to Red Sox nation.  It allows me to watch what I would be watching if I were at home.  I already pay the local cable company for a slew of cable boxes, so it isn't as if I'm trying to skate by for free.  I just want to be able to watch Don and Jerry call the game.

That's why I'm so disappointed that Major League Baseball has decided to lash out at Sling Media, the producer of the Slingbox. (Full Disclosure: one of my brothers recently joined the Sling Media team, but readers of this blog know that my passion for the product predates that.)  Here's Major League Baseball's argument, according to CNET:

MLB.com seems to take issue with allowing Slingbox owners' TV channels to be transmitted over the Internet. "Moving content from one form of transmission to another certainly invites that kind of analysis," said Bob Bowman, CEO of MLB.com, referring to Mellis' statement. For instance, if a TV signal was converted into a radio signal, it might raise the eyebrows of those broadcasters involved. The Slingbox, he added, "is not a place-shifting device, (it) is a delivery-shifting device."

The argument is absurd.  The Supreme Court has established that consumers can record TV shows.  Once recorded, these shows could then be carried on a video tape or hard drive to an alternate location to view it.  That's effectively what the Slingbox does, just in real-time.  Indeed, the Slingbox goes to great lengths to as nearly as possible replicate the experience of watching the original broadcast, right down to a graphical representation of a remote control to change channels.

In many respects, MLB is ahead of the curve in their understanding and appreciation of new media.  They and their teams have some of the best professional sports web sites and they're offering great new media services like MLB-TV that enables consumers to watch all out of town games online for a low monthly subscription fee.  It appears this is what they're trying to protect, but the Slingbox simply isn't competition for that service.  It primarily helps travelers like me to watch games they would otherwise get to see.  It isn't a way for a Red Sox fan in New York or California to watch games -- they would still need to turn to MLB or one of the out of town sports packages sold by cable and satellite companies to get those games.

Please, MLB, let's drop the silliness of going after the Slingbox and stay focused on continued new media innovation and promotion of the sport -- two things you do well.  Fighting this pointless battle simply depletes resources that MLB and Sling Media could use for better purposes.

Is Facebook the Answer to Social Networking Overload -- Or Is It Part of the Problem?

Nick O'Neill does a nice job today of asking (and answering) the question: "Is There Any Point In Launching Your Own Social App?

logo_facebook-rgb-7inchI've been wondering the same thing myself.  With the sudden explosion of Facebook among my friends and colleagues, it feels like there might be a central meeting place already.  As Nick points out, Facebook offers great functionality to enable it to serve as a one-stop shop for people.  Many companies are racing to roll out apps that will work on that platform to take advantage of the dramatic growth the service is experiencing.  In fact, just this morning I heard from a senior exec at a major web player who told me:

Up until a week ago I had absolutely no interest in using facebook. As a marketer, I certainly get the market impact, but I couldn't ever care much about the concept. But with the platform release, we've all been rushing around trying to get apps released onto the platform ... Its just crazy.

At the same time, however, new "walled garden" social networks are cropping up.  Many in my circle have joined either MyRagan or the Melcrum Communicators Network or both. 

It is getting to be too much, as Mary Hodder pointed out recently when she discussed "social information overload."  Shel Holtz addressed the question several months ago:

I’m skeptical that a bajillion social networks will make for good social networking. It’s not that people won’t join networks like ”The Classical Guitar Network” (although it does have only one member so far); it’s that people will belong to so many that their participation will be cursory rather than fully engaged. Nope; sorry. I just don’t see it.

Here's Nick's conclusion:

Is there any point in launching your own social application? In the long run, probably not. All sites will eventually become content providers that allow users to decide for themselves how they are going consume information. RSS feeds and OPML are only the beginning of such technologies. While this is going to take time to manifest, in the foreseeable future you are going to have access to all the information you want right at your fingertips, all from one page. While search will still be necessary to find new sources of content, users will be able to avoid navigation the web on a daily basis to consume all the information that they want. While its not going to happen immediately, Facebook has just taken a huge step in that direction.

Now mine: Facebook seems to offer some real benefits and could be the standard social networking platform going forward.  The ability to easily layer apps on top of the service provides a real benefit.  There are still issues that need to be sorted out (someone recently suggested a secondary relationship on the service, like "fans" to allow limited interaction between users), innovation that needs to occur, and of course, time must pass to see if the growth trend continues and if all these new users become regular diners and not simply nibblers at the Facebook table.

But if I were seeking to build a social network today, I'd think long and hard before I built my own closed system.  Facebook may or may not be the ultimate answer, but for social networking to be truly effective there needs to be fewer, not more, platforms.

Why Twitter is Considering Venture Capital

Evan Williams of Twitter offers up a good post on why he's considering VC funding, despite the perception some have had that he would eschew such money in his startups after Odeo.  It's informative not only of his own situation, but it also is a valuable resource for anyone considering raising funds to run a startup.

He lists the possible routes he could follow:

1) Figure out how to get profitable
2) Keep funding Twitter myself
3) Get an alternative source of funding
4) Get bought
5) Raise VC

And he notes that good funders bring more to the table than cash:

VCs, if chosen well and a good fit—and a fair deal is constructed—can be a useful source of funds + smart people around the table helping you make better decisions.