« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »
October 30, 2005
Journalism 2.0: It's Not the Meat, It's the Motion
A while back I linked to Nicholas Carr, who had some interesting things to say about the rise of Web 2.0. For a guy who appreciates diversity of opinion, Jeff Jarvis seemed quick to dismiss Carr as an elitist curmudgeon after "linkjuice." Plenty of other smart folks have hammered him as well. Carr may be wrong about some things but he's not wrong about the near-religious cult inspired by the Internet and all the delicious, gleaming possibilities that seem to hover just beyond our grasp. Jarvis dismisses that point, perhaps because he hasn't spent as many years as I have interviewing tech execs peddling products that are Going To Change The World For The Better Forever and that, ideally, we're supposed to drop to our knees and worship on the spot.
But no matter--bloggers will blog, vloggers will vlogg and professional media companies will continue to morph if they must. So fuck the amateur vs. professional debate. Fuck the Web 2.0 debate. I want to see a debate about public service and the practice of journalism. What does it mean? What should it mean? Is do-gooder journalism even possible?
Here's the media revolution so far: Individuals, such as myself, get to play pundit from the comfort of our homes, while companies have tumbled to the wisdom of hiring bloggers to promote their brands. That the blogosphere is safe for both gasbag cranks and corporate communications isn't my idea of massive progress. Yes, I'm being cranky. There's tons of great stuff as well. But where's the public service journalism? The press has a duty to keep the public informed in large matters and small. Community listings are a public service, to be sure. But where are the muckrakers? There are a few, very few, practitioners and you gotta wonder if ambitious public service journalism has a future in the United States in any medium. Lord knows it hasn't made much of a splash in the recent past. That's no surprise. There's always been a conflict between profit-driven journalism and public service, and there always will be. As well as disagreement about what constitutes public service.
Here's what I mean by public service: life-saving or life-enhancing journalism on behalf of the public good. Journalism that triggers meaningful change (hectoring Dan Rather or Trent Lott, however satisfying, doesn't qualify). Journalism has never been an especially effective means for improving life for citizens (particularly the less-powerful ones), and it seems even less effective now than it once was.
My first journalism job was as a fact-checker for Mother Jones, which was a bastion of investigative journalism. I was young enough to believe that simply working there constituted a kind of public service. I was wrong. Writing about injustice is not the same as righting injustice. Even if conventional media organizations cared about making the world better, odds are they couldn't. Tell me I'm wrong about this. Show me how journalism--not all of it, just some of it--is actually attacking corruption, eradicating pollution or maybe just making life a little easier for the elderly neighbors next door. Seriously. I'm begging you.
A smart and happy crew of true believers is busy building a better Web. Will we build a better journalism? Dan Gillmor and others are working on it and good luck to them. I hope so-called citizen journalism doesn't stop at online bulletin boards. And that journalism 2.0, once it jells, will be a genuine cause for celebration rather than business as usual in a slightly flashier suit.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 07:41 PM | Comments (1)
October 28, 2005
Closet Tips and Rental Handbags
Now even the guys are supposed to be obsessed about storage. Exhibit A: The October issue of GQ includes a one-page article called "5 Point Plan for October: Get Your Closet in Order." But that's not the big news. The big news is that there is not one but two businesses that rent handbags, according to the Christian Science Monitor. Guess it's kind of like leasing a Lexus. Why own if you can rent and trade in an outmoded model for something snazzier? Especially when designer bags cost nearly as much as autos these days.
"Bag Borrow or Steal is the more established of the two. For $19.95 a month, customers can rifle through the Trendsetter "closet," stocked with less expensive brands like JLo and Liz Claiborne. Access to the mid-level Princess closet costs $49.95 a month. And for $99.95, the Diva membership offers the latest in Marc Jacobs, Emilio Pucci, and Louis Vuitton - bags that can retail for up to $1,000. ... Prices at From Bags to Riches range from $19.95 to $89.95 per month. High-end inventory includes Balenciaga, Dolce & Gabanna, and Fendi."
From Bag Borrow or Steal staff writer Teresa Méndez rented "a small mint-green Marc Jacobs (similar bags retail around $700).To my admittedly untrained eye, it looked like the real thing. The silver hardware was substantial, the leather gently worn and buttery - presumably from previous borrowers." So far so good. But then: "The Dooney & Bourke I chose from From Bags to Riches looked to be grass green in the photo (approximately $250 retail). But the bag that landed on my doorstep was much darker. It resembled and vaguely smelled like something my grandmother might carry, and appeared unlined - unlike most of handbags in the Dooney & Bourke line."
I'm not a bag hag but my kidlet has developed a keen interest in designer bags, I'm sorry to say, thanks to teen movies like Mean Girls, in which the queen bees carry Prada bags. A shoe fetish makes sense to me but handbags? Handbags?
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 06:19 PM | Comments (1)
October 25, 2005
The Kinky Appeal of Avian Flu
The Avian Flu is coming. Are you scared yet? You should be. Various newspapers and helpful outlets like The History Channel are doing their best to scare the bejeesus out of us. But why would we allow ourselves to be scared? Physician Abigail Zuger shares her experience in a terrific essay in today's New York Times. Some of her patients prefer to worry about unlikely health threats rather than actual health threats. (Don't miss the emphysema sufferer who prefers worrying about avian flu to quitting cigarettes.) Once again, denial trumps reality. And why not? Reality is a bitch.
"Of four patients I saw in a single hour last week, three announced how scared they were of the avian flu. I reassured them, but there was quite a bit I did not say, and here it is.
"I did not say: If you want to be scared, then how about that drug habit of yours you think I don't know about? How about the fact that you are 100 pounds overweight and eat nothing but junk? How about the fact that in a few short months Medicaid is going to stop paying for your very expensive medications and no one knows how just high that Medicare Part D deductible and co-payment are going to be? I did not say: If you want something to be scared of, how about the drug-resistant Klebsiella that is all over this very hospital, an ordinary run-of-the-mill bacterial strain that has become so resistant to so many antibiotics that we've had to resurrect a few we stopped using 30 years ago because they were so toxic.
"That Klebsiella is one scary germ. It's in hospitals all over the country, and by now it's probably killed a thousandfold more people than the avian flu.
"But you don't hear much about our Klebsiella. Like our bad habits and our dismally insoluble health insurance tangles, our antibiotic-resistant bacteria are with us, right here, right now."
Speaking of dismally insoluble health insurance tangles, it's nice to see Wal-Mart's charm offensive include more affordable health insurance for its employees. Although that won't solve all their problems. If they get seriously ill the first year, they're screwed thanks to a $25K cap on benefits. And if Barbara McNees has her way, the naughty ones won't get coverage because they won't deserve it. McNees is president and CEO of the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce and as a representative of small businesses, she's understandably concerned about the employer cost of health insurance.
"We must deal with the 600-pound gorilla sitting in the national living room -- health care spending that is approaching one-sixth of U.S. gross domestic product. This will require nothing less than wrenching changes in health care delivery, health care financing (e.g., no payments for preventable patient injuries such as hospital-acquired infections) and individual accountability for behavioral choices."
Individual accountability for behavioral choices: Does that mean smokers would no longer be entitled to health insurance? That only wealthy people would be able to afford character defects, at least when it came to medical treatment? Isn't getting lung cancer, say, accountability enough? Do we have to thumb our noses at people who may have made some poor choices and deny them insurance coverage as well? That is one scary concept. Scarier, even, than avian flu. McNees may spring from upstanding, Puritan stock that never exhibited human weakness or fraility in any way. Most Americans can't make that claim. We're flawed; so are the people we love. But not as flawed as McNees' idea or a health system that leaves millions without coverage.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 04:02 PM | Comments (1)
Elizabeth Hickok Recreates San Francisco in Jello
Artist Elizabeth Hickok has created a miniature Alamo Square using Jello, of all things. It's brilliant, it's cool, words are inadequate. Don't miss her Telegraph Hill video, which features a wobbly purple Transamerica Pyramid, among other landmarks. Yes, Boing Boing covered it first but I actually heard about it from photographer Chris Holmes. Thanks, Chris!
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 01:47 PM | Comments (0)
October 24, 2005
Autumn Glory
It was zero (that would be 32 degrees for you Farenheit fans) when I woke up this morning just before 7 a.m. It was still dark because dawn didn't yawn into being until 7:45 a.m. So I dragged my Philips Bright Light gizmo out of storage and plugged it in for the season's first light session, then I pulled on my long johns and got dressed. Soon I'll be heading off to work, walking from the island of Kungsholmen, where I live, over Västerbron (West bridge) to Södermalm and my small office near Hornstull. (Supposedly there's a grocery store for singles in my work neighborhood. When I lived in the Marina district of San Francisco in the 1990s the local Safeway was supposedly a hot pick-up joint but the hype far outstripped reality.)
The photo above was taken near the end of the bridge, close to Södermalm. That view, and the one below, is part of what makes living here wonderous. Winter's icy grasp is inching closer. Soon the autumn finery will be gone from the trees. Beginning next week, with the passing of daylight savings time, Stockholm will be covered in darkness for far too long.
But not forever. In the meantime, I'll keep walking to work and enjoying the view. Now you can, too.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 10:21 AM | Comments (1)
October 20, 2005
I Do Not Hate Microsoft: WSJ Edition
In response to John Dvorak's claim that tech journalists are besotted with Apple because they use Macs rather than PCs, WSJ Personal Technology columnist Walt Mossberg has this response:
"I can't speak for other writers and reviewers, but I use both platforms daily. And which machine I use has nothing to do with my reviews. I have praised Apple products in reviews written on Windows PCs, and praised Microsoft stuff in reviews written on Macs. The argument is just ludicrous.
"The truth is that Apple is the most innovative computer company, and the only one that largely aims at consumers and very small businesses. All the others are mainly focused on big corporate customers, as is Microsoft. There's nothing wrong with that, but I am focused on consumers, and the consumer space is also where change -- and thus news -- happens fastest.
"I have no problem with Microsoft's p.r. people -- they are smart and professional and I work well with them. But Apple has been on a roll for five years or more, with great products. As I have said publicly, if the products go south, I'll turn on them in a New York minute."
Walt left his response in the comments section of yesterday's posting (thanks!), and I hope other journalists drop by to respond.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 04:13 PM | Comments (0)
Scary Technology: Nanobiotechnology Edition
Over at Salon (subscription or day pass or whatever ad thing they have going these days required), Dr. Alan H Goldstein writes about current efforts to create "a soldier of the future who will be protected by an impregnable exoskeleton." I'd be more worried if I hadn't read The Men Who Stare at Goats and gotten a glimpse of how completely weird and unsuccessful some U.S. military projects can be.
"The overt goal of nanobiotechnology is to completely break down the borders between living and nonliving materials. This goal has the most profound implications for every aspect of human endeavor, but in warfare the consequences of integrating our most powerful technologies are almost beyond comprehension. The fusion of nanotechnology and biotechnology will erase any distinction between chemical, biological, and conventional weapons, altering the face of war (and life) forever.
"The key thing to remember is that every military application also has a non-military one: tomorrow's sword will be next week's plowshare (and vice versa). In the nano age, if you aren't very afraid and very excited at the same time, you aren't paying attention." Hmm, sounds like standard-issue tech porn to me.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 04:12 PM | Comments (2)
October 18, 2005
Do Mac-Lovin' Hacks Hate Microsoft or Love Apple Too Much?
PC Magazine columnist John Dvorak claims that tech journalists love Apple because they're so starry-eyed over the Macs they use. The upshot, he claims, is reporting that's biased against Microsoft.
"As big and as important as Microsoft is, the coverage of the company is quite mediocre. This is particularly true in the mainstream press. The reason for this is that today's newspaper and magazine tech writers know little about computers and are all Mac users. It's a fact. ... The newsroom editors are generally so out of touch that they can't see this bias. Besides, they use Macs too. There are entire newsrooms, such as the one at Forbes, that consist entirely of Macintoshes. Apparently nobody but me finds this weird.
"Even Jack Shafer, who recently wrote about Apple's skewed coverage in Slate fails to point out the connection between the skewed coverage and the existence of this peculiar conflict of interest based on the national writers' use of Macs. I often confront these guys with this assertion, and they, to a man (I've never confronted a female reporter about this), all say that they use a Mac 'because it is better.' Right. And that attitude doesn't affect coverage now, does it?"
It's an interesting question. If you're covering Microsoft and you use a Mac exclusively, I can see how that might be a problem. But John's not talking about wet-behind-the-ears newbies. Read the whole column and it's obvious he's including tech veterans like Steven Levy, John Markoff, Walt Mossberg, Katie Hafner and a bunch of other folks who've been around the block a few times. He doesn't name them but they certainly appear to be among his targets (and I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong).
Jack Slater doesn't name anyone either but all this pro-Apple propaganda is coming from somewhere. If you agree with Dvorak and Slater, send me examples. Let's see if there's anything to this use-a-Mac, slobber-over-Jobs theory of journalism. My bias is that I know Levy, Markoff and Hafner and, because they are friends, can't be trusted to write objectively about the issue. But I can write fairly and accurately about it. But can Dvorak or Slater? What kind of computers do they use? If they use PCs, doesn't that bias them against Apple?
I think reporters slobber over Apple because (as Shafer points out), Apple is much better at spinning compelling narratives than Microsoft and much better at dealing with the press overall. (Nobody working for Apple ever called me to complain because I failed to include an Apple product in a round-up of dubious products that I trashed in print. Believe it or not, someone from Microsoft did.) The fact that various publications praise Apple products that, soon after, fail on the marketplace doesn't necessarily mean that reporters are biased. They could simply be wrong. Reporters, like other folks, are wrong at times. Especially when it involves crystal balls. For a while there was practically a death watch over the company because it was doing so poorly. In those days the press got slammed for bias against Apple.
John may be right but his argument seems a little silly to me. Do you have to drive a Ford to report fairly on Ford Motor Co. or wear Levi-brand jeans to cover Levi-Strauss? What about the gender and race issues? Male reporters can be trusted to cover abortion but give 'em a Mac and they lose all sense of proportion? Maybe, but I'm not convinced. What about you? Details, I want details.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 10:18 PM | Comments (2)
Writing for Dollars: Police Blotter Edition
A pair of British financial journalists is accused of using a daily stock column to inflate the value of their personal portfolios, according to the London Times, which is covering the court case. The men deny the charges against them.
James Hipwell and Anil Bhoyrul, who wrote the Daily Mirror’s City Slickers section, displayed a 'cynical disregard' for their readers and the law by fabricating stories to enhance the value of their holdings, it was claimed. Using a "buy, tip and sale" approach, they would first spend thousands of pounds on shares, highlight the stock as "tip of the day" 24 hours later, and sell it at a profit as soon as the price rose, London’s Southwark Crown Court was told.
The prosecutor claims that "some of the stories behind the tips 'were in fact untrue, inaccurate or otherwise factually misleading', including a story about the alleged development of an Aids vaccine." And while we know there's no justice in the world, I'm pleased to share this additional tidbit: "...the journalists did not always make a profit. In fact the Aids vaccine tip actually saw the share price drop." Which is a small punishment to be sure, but nothing like the pain of spending eternity in hell, which is what these guys should get if they are guilty as charged.
In other corruption news, the Skandia redecorating scandal lives on, South Korea wins the Ms. Congeniality Award and friend and fellow scribe Glenn Fleishman, who is anything but corrupt, recently declined to comment publicly on a tech deal because of a conflict of interest. Nice to see somebody's showing a little restraint. Hey Glenn, got any stock tips?
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 08:46 PM | Comments (0)
Wedding Rings May Cause Impotence
Stop the presses: Wedding rings reduce male power and may cause impotence, according to Pravda. And if Pravda says it, you know it must be true.
A wedding ring, which many men constantly wear on the fourth finger, may initiate a variety of sexual disorders and eventually end up with partial or even complete impotence. A recent research work conducted by Belarussian scientists revealed that widespread beliefs of losing strong virility after many years of wearing the wedding ring on the ring finger are based on certain scientific reasons.
Scientifically speaking, those men are morons. "Known bio-therapist, healer Sergei Gagarin," explains part of the problem thusly:
Any educated person probably may remember the so-called right hand screw rule from the course of physics: when the electric conductor moves into a closed circuit, the self-induction EMF (electromotive force) with a certain vector occurs in it. Similarly, the nerves in human fingers can be compared to the conductor, while the wedding ring acts like a closed circuit.
There's more but basically, "those who do not wear wedding rings 24/7 may have a lot fewer problems in their sex lives," he says. Especially, I imagine, if their sex lives involve women other than their wives.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 07:46 PM | Comments (0)
October 13, 2005
Web 2.0: The Triumph of Amateur Hour?
I have never, ever understood the cult of professionalism adhered to by some journalists (bloggers have no journalism degrees, bloggers bad amateurs, bloggers threaten professionals, so must be crushed). Nor have I been on the bandwagon to eviserate those bastard pros that some "citizen journalists" have been riding for years. This either/or bullshit drives me nuts. It doesn't have to be a contest. But it is, and Nicholas Carr articulates in lucid, deadly prose both the problem with Wikipedia worship (he cites examples) and why, despite its flaws, the Cult of the Amateur will probably triumph.
The promoters of Web 2.0 venerate the amateur and distrust the professional. We see it in their unalloyed praise of Wikipedia. ... Perhaps nowhere, though, is their love of amateurism so apparent as in their promotion of blogging as an alternative to what they call "the mainstream media." Here's O'Reilly: "While mainstream media may see individual blogs as competitors, what is really unnerving is that the competition is with the blogosphere as a whole. This is not just a competition between sites, but a competition between business models. The world of Web 2.0 is also the world of what Dan Gillmor calls 'we, the media,' a world in which 'the former audience,' not a few people in a back room, decides what's important."
But wait, there's more:
I'm all for blogs and blogging. (I'm writing this, ain't I?) But I'm not blind to the limitations and the flaws of the blogosphere - its superficiality, its emphasis on opinion over reporting, its echolalia, its tendency to reinforce rather than challenge ideological extremism and segregation. Now, all the same criticisms can (and should) be hurled at segments of the mainstream media. And yet, at its best, the mainstream media is able to do things that are different from - and, yes, more important than - what bloggers can do. ... The Internet is changing the economics of creative work - or, to put it more broadly, the economics of culture - and it's doing it in a way that may well restrict rather than expand our choices. Wikipedia might be a pale shadow of the Britannica, but because it's created by amateurs rather than professionals, it's free. And free trumps quality all the time.
Thanks to Dave Kearns for the link. More on the amateur-pro grudge match later.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 12:54 PM | Comments (1)
October 12, 2005
Biz Author Faces Critic
Earlier this week Vision Thing's Ethan Johnson posted a podcast with Laurence Haughton, who authored It's Not What You Say...It's What You Do. It's rare that critics face the authors they've slammed online or elsewhere. But Laurence, who must be a Cluetrain fan, didn't take the dressing down lying down. He invited Ethan (and me, because I linked to the review, which was hilarious if deadly) to have a conversation about his book. Ethan accepted the invitation literally.
The podcast meanders a bit initially, then the author gradually takes over center stage for a long and detailed explanation of, and plug for, his book. He isn't defensive about the original review. Ethan doesn't attack like an ego-driven media pitbull but asks questions like the business manager he is. The result, for me at least, is a fairly engaging back and forth. Nobody capitulates, both guys are respectful and the conversation is a useful introduction to the topic. As well as whip-smart book marketing.
Why isn't professional broadcasting like this more often? Hmm, could be there's a future for this podcasting stuff after all. Wink wink. Nudge nudge.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 01:24 PM | Comments (0)
October 11, 2005
Did H&M Bribe Reporters?
Eventually Sweden will be just as crass, commercial and consumerist as my beloved U.S.A. In the meantime, there are still a few pockets of resistance and a few quaint cultural differences. Swedish contestants in the multiple rounds of qualifiers for the Eurovision Song contest, for example, tend to wear the same expensive, sparkily outfit at every single event. Apparently they're not required, as American contestants would be by peer pressure if nothing else, to bankrupt themselves with a new costume for each appearance. That's so sane, so Swedish--you gotta love it!
One cherished national ideal is that Swedes are honest. And mostly they are. But not always, so newspapers report on the apparent exceptions (think bribery and corruption) with enthusiasm and zeal. That's as it should be. The hubbub over a recent press junket is intriguing. On October 6, Karin Olsson reported in Resume (a trade pub that covers Swedish media, marketing and PR) that homegrown clothing retailer H&M was being investigated for bribery because it paid for leading fashion journalists to view its fashion show in New York last April. H&M picked up the costs of this "luxury trip," as Resume calls it, which included a two-night stay in a supposedly swanky hotel, the flight and one dinner, which were worth about $2000 (15 000 SEK) per person. (A junket is utterly against the rules at many U.S. publications, including the Washington Post and the New York Times. Others appreciate the help and don't bat an eyelash.)
According to Olsson (here's an English summary from a different pub), disapproving colleagues blew the whistle by contacting the head of some official corruption office. About 200 journalists from several countries flew in for the event. H&M declined to tell Resume how many of that total (including 15 Swedes) had their trips sponsored. Here's my English version of the Resume-H&M exchange:
H&M "We think it's completely wrong to talk about bribery. We made no demands. It's not in the interests of H&M to expose journalists to anything that can be considered pressure," says press spokesperson Annacarin Björne.
Resume But didn't you pay for the publications so they would write about the clothes?
H&M This is about giving all journalists an opportunity to travel given that so many publications have small budgets.
Resume Do you mean you only invited editorial staffs that were poor?
H&M It's up to every editorial staff to decide whether to take the trip. But we don't want to discuss this further given that there will be a preliminary investigation.
Olsson helpfully contacted the police officer investigating the case to see if a staffer at H&M or any of the jet-setting fashion scribes had reported a suspected crime. You know the answer: Nope. As Björne told Resume, junkets like this are "normal in this industry." And not only fashion. Press junkets are common in the travel and entertainment industries. Online scribes are also wooed now that Blogville is a regular stop on the buzz-building circuit. Tech journalists are often invited on free trips and radio pundits get free trips as well. (Earlier this year the Department of Defense chased airtime by underwriting a trip to Iraq, an especially savvy move now that opinionated blather is regularly mistaken for actual news reporting.) It's not just media types on this gravy train. Policiticians are intimately familiar with the pursuasive power of junkets, they've been taking them for years. Bureaucrats and judges, too.
Hmm, maybe Olsson and Resume were right to get their knickers in a knot. Is the entire U.S. power structure getting handouts, or does it just seem that way?
One of the Swedish fashion editors (she either went on the trip or sent someone else) said the freebie wasn't an issue because her publication wasn't going to write any more about H&M now than it did before the trip. She was saying that there is no actual conflict of interest if the publication's coverage isn't affected. Was H&M wrong to host the junket? Were journalists wrong to accept? Or is the problem not that reporters took a free trip but that readers won't know about it?
People have attempted to buy the attention of reporters about as long as there have been reporters. But rarely do they attempt to buy actual column inches. Publicity hounds are usually so besotted with the fabulousness of themselves, their company or their product that they're convinced that press coverage is inevitable. If they can get a reporter to sit down, shut up and listen to their pitch (or watch their demo or view their fashion show), they think a cover story is bound to follow. Often this conceit, while charming, is dead wrong.
(I'm never surprised when someone wants to buy my attention, only that they believe it's a cheap purchase. At Macworld we used to sling all the freebie T-shirts into a box. When the box was full, we'd take it downtown and give the shirts to homeless people, people who really needed them. In fact, we didn't want toys or meals or t-shirts, we wanted interesting, reliable info. That is, stories of interest to our readers. This is not news to any PR pro but it is a remarkably tough concept for some execs to grasp.)
Now I'm no paragon of virtue, and I'm not convinced there's an easy answer to every ethical question, inside journalism or out of it. Is it enough to disclosure real and potential conflicts of interest to your editor? Your readers? The planet? Should journalists disclose their conflicts more publicly than judges or senators and, if so, why? (Last time I checked, hacks weren't empowered to haul people into jail or enact legislation. Don't tell me we have a greater public trust than folks with true power.) And why do ideas about press disclosure seem to apply to writers and reporters but not to the editors who assign, shape, edit (often drastically) and approve the final published or broadcast story? It's a mystery to me.
What's your take? Anybody try to "bribe" you recently?
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 09:49 AM | Comments (2)
October 08, 2005
Calacanis, AOL and 25 Million Smackers
Blogville's a twitter over Jason Calacanis' recent sale of Weblogs Inc. to AOL for an estimated $25 million. In an unrelated but still lucrative deal, Dave Winer sold Weblogs.com to Verisign for $2.3 million. (Scroll down.) Congrats, Dave.
Here in Stockholm, it's a quiet autumn Saturday with birdsong in the air, crunchy leaves underfoot and virtually no pulse-revving blog or RSS announcements in the offing. As a public service I'll tear myself away from the lovely surroundings to provide a few snippets of punditry related to this greatly hyped purchase.
From rival Nick Denton:
"The acquisition of WIN by AOL is exhilirating news, in many respects, most of which I shouldn't list here. For what it's worth, Gawker isn't for sale. The whole point about blogs is that they're not part of big media. Consolidation defeats the purpose. It's way too early. Like a decade too early."
From potty mouth Mike Butcher:
"Big media is going to get into blogs, there's no doubt. Look at Murdoch and MySpace. The mistake they will make is forcing their staff to start linking to internal brands, pissing in the pool and potentially turning readers off." I hate when that happens, don't you? "AOL executives normally produce more than $25m just going to the toilet. The bubble isn't over. However, I think it won't go much farther. If you actually look at some of the blogs on Weblogs Inc, they are just ghost towns - filled with 'Here's the best of the WEN network' posts. AOL must know this, surely?"
Calacanis himself on what's next:
"AOL loves the fact that I’m 'out there' blogging and debating the issues in our industry." Sure it does--to a point. "However, let me be clear and say I’m not becoming the Robert Scoble of AOL (at least not at this point). I’m not going to be talking about things outside of Weblogs, Inc. all that much because, frankly, I’m not involved in them! I can’t tell you what’s going on with Netscape, Moviephone, AIM, etc. I can forward you to an AOL PR executive who will be glad to speak with you...."
Thanks but no thanks, Jason. I think we can find one on our own.
From Dana Blankenhorn on Corante:
"AOL is said to be giving Calacanis autonomy, plus a five year contract, the question occurs how much autonomy will he get, and what kind of budget? After Blogger was bought by Google similar promises were made, but Blogger has yet to fulfill its technical or financial potential, and Six Apart (which remains independent) still hosts more blogs than any other platform. ... If this business is so good why is it worth so little?"
Because it's not that good, at least not yet. But we may get there. As Forbes explains:
"The next Steven Spielberg could be your neighbor down the street. The next Madonna could be in the cube across the aisle." And I could be the next Mike Tyson and pop the writer in a hurry if this story doesn't get to the point soon. "...Media conglomerates are now betting they can get compelling content on the cheap, either by enlisting the ranks of nonprofessionals or by asking customers themselves to make their own media."
Why not? The reality-TV craze has put professional actors out of work. As an industry executive told the Washington Post last year, "Reality works because it is relatively cheap to make.... Prime-time reality is a nice little business -- if it is nonunion." The pay for top media execs is pretty sweet (scroll down), while the rates for freelance writers, at least, have declined 50 percent since the 1960s. That's pretty damn cheap. But maybe not cheap enough for the corporate crowd. We'll see.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 03:31 PM | Comments (0)
October 07, 2005
Marketing Beverly Hills: Where's the Upside?
Is there gold in them there hills? Seems city officials are trying to cash in on the supposed appeal of the "iconic" brown Beverly Hills signs that mark city limits. According to the LA Times (registration required), it's not the slam dunk some assumed it would be.
"Marketing experts said they are not surprised that things haven't taken off as quickly as some Beverly Hills boosters hoped. 'There's a lot of clutter in the market,' said Deborah Cours, a Cal State Northridge marketing professor who has studied the value of Los Angeles-area place names. 'Is Beverly Hills as exciting as Rodeo Drive or Armani? Most boutiques have put a lot of money in their own brand names. They don't want to market someone else.'
"Cours suggested that tourists — particularly those from abroad — might be Beverly Hills' ideal target. 'In the international market Beverly Hills has a reputation of being trendy.' "
Those wacky foreigners, they'll fall for almost anything.
"Assessing the marketing value of a government entity can be tricky, Cours said. She noted that she once took part in a study of 'Los Angeles County' as a brand and found its main appeal was its connection to 'Baywatch,' a TV show about county lifeguards."
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 03:56 PM | Comments (3)
Phone Lust
Don't tell me you're surprised. Yup, the Pocket Film Festival, for mobile-phone auteurs, will be held in Paris this weekend. Such a bummer to miss it, although the site gives a little taste of what's in store. This mobile obession is new to me. The Internet is my life, but phones? Naw. I have an elderly Nokia 3310 that lets me place and accept calls but not much more. Until last week, that wasn't a problem. Let my husband chat on his Treo, I didn't give a fig.
But then my ten-year-old lobbied hard for the priviledge of getting a cell phone (she claims to be one of only three kids in her class without one. The shame! The horror!). After we decided it might be useful for the parents and not just the kid, we established an exacting and prolonged test of worthiness for this pricy gizmo. (I thought she should have to wait until her 40s to get a cell phone, just as I did.) But my kid did not falter and met every requirement with unnerving energy. Seems I forgot to add slaying a dragon to the list. That'll teach me.
So this week we bought her a Samsung. And after weeks of fondling alluring little phones in the name of familial research, my desire to acquire is at a fever pitch. Aside from being annoyed by the overpromise-underdeliver style of marketing initially practiced by Tre here in Sweden, I hadn't been paying much attention. Now that I know there are Swiss-Army phones with calorie counters, thermometers and soon, I imagine, corkscrews, how much longer can I hold out?
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 12:43 PM | Comments (0)
October 06, 2005
The Power of Possessions
Paula was my best friend in junior high and high school. We both had difficult lives but hers was especially hard. I always admired how cheerful, good-natured and generous she was despite that. And how funny. I'll never forget how easily she could make me laugh. Both of us loved books but neither of us had any money. Paula planned to have a huge library one day and dazzled me one night with a box of books under her bed. She actually owned 13 or 14 books. I was jealous.
We both loved the goopy cinnamon rolls sold in the cafeteria but they cost a fortune, 50 cents. So we took turns buying one roll and sharing it, but not straight down the middle. The sticky center was the very best part, so one day Paula got the center and one day I did. The cinnamon-roll agreement was probably my most successful partnership ever.
The two of us took different paths after high school. I stayed in California and Paula moved to Colorado. I have seen her rarely since then but I think of my friend often. I know she's a great mom, an accomplished martial arts practioner and an all-around talented woman. And she's still generous. When I saw her last, about seven years ago, she gave me a huge Colorado t-shirt that I still wear to bed.
I mention this because I used that t-shirt to help me survive the first conference I created, in 2000. The night before the event I was a mess and not at all sure I could pull it off. I'd never been much of a public speaker and yet I planned to moderate many of the panels before a sold-out crowd of 200 people. So I went off to the hotel I was staying at for the night before armed with a bracelet from my mom, earrings from my grandmother and that t-shirt from Paula. My mother and grandmother were both dead, and Paula and I had stopped being close friends years before. But that didn't matter. I needed their support to get through the most challenging professional day I had ever had. Sleeping in Paula's t-shirt and, the next day, wearing the jewelry made me feel surrounded by their love. (It was a kick-ass conference, by the way.)
I've been a lousy friend to Paula as an adult, entirely missing in action. But she has been a good friend to me. I will never forget our teenage adventures, sorrows and joys. Thanks for the tee, kiddo. (And for the really nice bell you gave to Disa, it's hanging in my kitchen.) I'm sorry I've been a deadbeat. Happy birthday! Hope you and the kids are well and happy.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 11:46 PM | Comments (0)
New Gal in Blogville
Author Michele Cozzens, whom I raked over the coals about predatory PR, turns out to be a good-hearted victim of circumstances. (Um, sorry about shotting first and asking questions later.) In any case, Michele has started a new blog that details the challenges of running a mom-and-pop business. Welcome to Blogville, girlie. I think you'll like it here.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 05:15 PM | Comments (1)
October 05, 2005
Chopsticks, Please: Great Greeting Cards
Nearly twenty years ago my friend Judith Pollock sent me a birthday card in the shape of a head. The head of a flirty blonde gal, to be exact, who can flutter 3D eyelashes (if you give her a little help, anyway). I've been thinking about that card (which I still have) and the meaning behind it today because a friend of mine, Hae Yuon Kim, has a new company called Chopsticks, Please.
Hae, a Korean-American, is a talented artist and graphic designer who wasn't happy with the cards at the local mall. She couldn't find contemporary greeting cards with an Asian twist, so she created her own. That's great news for Asian-Americans and all the people who love them.
That includes people with little pumpkins and sassy girlfriends, people who adopt, friends of people who adopt, people born in the Year of the Rat, New Age practioners and notecard fans. My advice? Shop early, shop often, and stock up (there's a $14 minimum).
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 02:22 PM | Comments (0)
October 04, 2005
Author Bites Back
Last week's tribute to Ethan Johnson's blog, the Vision Thing, included excerpts from a wickedly funny critique of "It’s Not What You Say…It’s What You Do," a business book by Laurence Haughton. I'm happy to report that Haughton dropped by to leave a couple of comments on that posting. But comments get buried and I wanted to salute the author's willingness to listen to the criticism and come back swinging. (If my book ever sells, I'll be in bed with the covers pulled up, refusing to read any reviews at all. Just so y'all know.)
Enough background, here's the message from Laurence Haughton: "I may have not been clear enough for Ethan. The group was a select group of front line managers asked to find the root cause of surgical delays. Their insight was to explore all the issues that experience has taught them 'could' lead to a surgical delay and then select the top 3 or 4 for further study. This was instead of the typical response of just trying to cure whatever first came to mind as many executives do. Their goal was to look deeper for the real causes before they leaped to a fix. That's not so stupid is it?...
"Don't imagine a conversation. That's what blogs are about. Let's have a conversation."
Love to. Of course, I haven't even read the book but that didn't stop me from swiping a review, did it? (You know the old saying, those who can, do; those who can't become pundits.) Thanks for your response, Laurence. Stop by any time. Response anyone? Mr. Vision?
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 01:15 PM | Comments (2)
2005 Nobel Prize in Physics
This year three scientists working in optics are sharing the Nobel Prize in Physics. I'm watching the announcement on Swedish TV and I love, love, love that first they announce the winners in Swedish, then English, then do a longer presentation in Swedish, then English. So the winners are:
Roy Glober of Harvard wins half the prize. John Hall of the University of Colorado in Boulder (hey folks, give him a real page, will ya?) and Theodor Hänsh of Ludwig Maximilian University in Munich share the rest of the prize. And since I'm a liberal arts grad with no background in physics whatsoever I will not even try to translate the presentation, especially since the Nobel Prize Foundation will have plenty of info about the winners soon. (I do hear muttering about huge rooms of equipment no longer needed, blah blah blah tech marches on.) Tomorrow they announce the winners in chemistry. These folks have mastered the art of press coverage by keeping the winners secret and then slowly releasing the news over time. If anyone wants me to cover the big dinner, I've got dancing shoes in the closet. Consider me available.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 12:17 PM | Comments (0)
October 03, 2005
Psychic's Powers Short-Circuit
Um, shouldn't she have forseen this? "A psychic author whose speaking engagement at the Ripon Memorial Library was canceled last month has been rescheduled for Nov. 10 -- minus the portion of her program that a library flier said would 'communicate with the dead.' Psychic Irma Slage said Friday that she agreed Thursday to alter her program, dropping the 10-minute period at the end where she takes three 'psychic questions from the audience.' "
Way to market your book, girlie.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 05:28 PM | Comments (0)
Virtual Sex vs. Hickeys and Hugs
"Nowadays, erotic behaviour in cyberspace is customary. Online dating is a million dollar industry. Within the everyday politics of erotic-romantic relationships, however, males and females still blush in each other's presence, caress tenderly and trade hickeys. Mainstream social science researches cyber-behaviour voluminously, but totally ignores commonplace fleshy phenomena. Our study probes this discrepancy. What does it mean that virtual sex is winning the current war between desire and technology? Why is the 'flesh' becoming increasingly marginalized?" asks the authors of "Flirting on the internet and the hickey: a hermeneutic" in Cyberpsychology & Behavior. (Those wachy Norweigians--who knew they were hickey-obsessed?)
Is there are war between desire and technology? I'm not so sure. But I do know this: hugging your gal is good for her blood pressure, and it's not something you can do in cyberspace.
Posted by Deborah Branscum at 01:53 PM | Comments (0)