Author Archives: Suw Charman-Anderson

05.19.05
by

Blogging: A Real Conversation

New Media Knowledge are hosting Blogging: A Real Conversation – an event in London, on the afternoon of 28 June 05:

The trust people put in blogs, their simplicity and interactive character, and their ability to be aggregated via RSS have combined to grant blogs a unique status in the communications spectrum.

This event will examine the increasing importance and influence of blogs – as sources of trusted opinion and as a barometer of the shifting balance of power in media publishing.

Is nano-publishing a new communications paradigm?

The growth and popularity of blogs embodies the shifting balance of power in the media continuum. But with the onset of what Demos recently dubbed “the pro-Am revolution”, are amateurs really the new experts? Or is it less a case of insufficient fact-checking by bloggers passing for journalists and more an emergent preference by consumers for personalised content, peer-review and transparent motivation?

Are blogs the new voices of authority?

Blogs were supposed to be unmediated, immediate communication, and content that could be delivered on the hoof (via moblogging and WiFi). But can this be a marketing model? The informal nature of blogs – and their simplicity for the user – has been key to their appeal to date. So will this democratising type of social software transfer so easily into the marketeers toolset as a more authentic way to foster relationships and loyalty?

I’ll be on a panel along with Mike Beeston, Fjord; Sabrina Dent, Mink Media; Johnnie Moore, Marketing consultant & facilitator; Adriana Cronin-Lukas, The Big Blog Company. This is actually going to be the first time I’ll have been on a panel discussion with people I actually know, and I’m looking forward to it.

On the other hand, I will only just have got back from America and will be horrendously jet-lagged, although it has already been proven that my mouth can continue working long after my brain has fallen asleep. I’ll let you decide if that’s a good or bad thing: Beercasting in Vancouver (MP3, a bit clippy at times, fast forward to about halfway through.)

05.18.05
by

Pitching to bloggers

Michael O’Connor Clarke has a great post about how flacks should treat bloggers when thinking about pitching a story to us, inspired by a somewhat clueless pitch left in the comments of a previous blog post. As Michael explains, trying to pitch to a blogger by leaving a standard press release in their comments is not the most effective way to do it, because we are frequently more interested in fisking the pitch than the story itself.

The effect is analogous to what happens when you stand in front of a dog and point to the stick you want him/her to retrieve.

The dog will look at your finger.

Michael was a lot kinder in his post than I would have been. Leaving a pitch in the comments to a post that is not even vaguely related to the story you are pitching shows a complete lack of understanding of blogs and bloggers but, more than that, it shows just how lazy the flack is. You know what we call unwanted marketing intrusions? Spam. You know what this comment is? Spam. And you know how most of us view spammers?

I’ll let you answer that last one yourself.

Undoubtedly, Kristine from Backbone Media, “an Internet marketing company” without a clue, thought that she was doing Michael and his readers a nice fat favour by posting directions to their own site, but you know what? I’m not impressed. There are many effective ways to reach bloggers, but comment spam isn’t one of them, and any internet marketing company which fails to grasp the conversational nature of blogs obviously doesn’t understand an increasingly large chunk of the internet and, I would say, is probably just as full of shit as the next snakeoil SEO salesman.

If you want to get your story out to bloggers, try putting a bit of effort in and actually having a conversation. I rarely get pitched to, but recently I had a nice email from one Patrick Hurley telling me about his company’s new product, AirSet. He had patently read my blog, was friendly, didn’t waffle on, and generally made a good impression on me. When I get round to testing AirSet, I will go to the site already feeling good about it, and Patrick may well get more than he bargained for (in a nice way) as I have something up my sleeve he doesn’t know about but which is relevant to his business.

Why does all this make a difference? Why am I so snarky about Backbone Media and so nice about AirSet? (You’ll already have noted that I have linked to AirSet, but not to Backbone Media.) Well, it’s because one treats blogs as just another outlet for their story, something they can use to promote their own agenda without giving the blogger any thought, care or choice in the matter (yes, the comment can be deleted, but that’s after the fact). The other treats the blogger as a fellow human being, opens up a conversation, gives them the choice of whether to explore or ignore their product with absolutely no intimation of obligation.

Which approach would you prefer?

05.15.05
by

Is blogging still a fringe activity?

According to Kevin Marks, there are now 10 million blogs being indexed by Technorati. If each blog is run by a different blogger (invalid assumption, but still), then that’s the equivalent to 1 in 6 Brits running a blog.

According to Jeremy Wright, there are now “10 times as many people blogging as own iPods [and] 50 times as many people reading blogs as purchasers at all online music stores combined”.

A lot of people still don’t know what blogging is, and many of those who do know don’t understand the implications or the wide variety of uses to which blogs can be put, so people feel that blogging is a fringe activity. Even those of us who should know better sometimes feel that blogging has still some way to go to mainstream acceptance, that we haven’t reached the tipping point.

But I think we have. Are iPods fringe? Is buying music online fringe? If these were fringe activities, then Apple wouldn’t be crowing over the iPod’s success, and those iPods wouldn’t be full of all the music they are full of.

Ten million is a lot of blogs. That makes blogging a mainstream activity. The only trouble is, it doesn’t look mainstream unless you’re slap bang in the middle of it, and even then the disconnection and contradiction between the simultaneously solitary and social nature of blogging obscures understanding of our position within both the blogosphere and the world at large. In reality, blogging is mainstream, but it still feels fringe.

05.11.05
by

NowPublic Citizen Photojournalism Awards

NowPublic, the website that allows you to post photos online to illustrate news stories, has announced its new Citizen Photojournalism Awards. With a prize of $100 on offer for the five weeks from 13th May to 10th June, and a Grand Prize of $500 to be awarded on 17th June, this competition is open to anyone who takes a newsworthy photo and posts it up to the NowPublic site. It doesn’t matter where you live, or what you snap, so long as it’s news!

05.10.05
by

Business Blogging at Supernova 2005

This year’s Supernova conference – San Francisco, 20 to 22 June – looks like it’s going to be a blast. Kevin, Jeanne and the team have put together a great line up including Esther Dyson, Dan Gillmor, and David Weinberger. Finally, I get to be at the same conference as David! I feel like I’ve been cyberstalking him through conference back channels for the last year without really ever having anything intelligent to say, so I’m looking forward to finally meeting him. Although I still won’t have anything intelligent to say.

I’m going to be moderating the Business Blogging Workshop, with Robert Scoble (Microsoft), Charlene Li (Forrester) and Michael Sippey from Six Apart. That’s on Monday 20 June, 2.30 – 4.00 pm, if you’re interested in coming along.

I am hoping to be in SF for the week before the conference, so if you want to meet up for a pint, or edamame, somewhere, let me know.

05.05.05
by

Creative Commons make their decision

Larry Lessig has announced that Creative Commons have decided, after much deliberation, to end their relationship with BzzAgents.

[…] for all the extremely powerful reasons these discussions have mustered, we were wrong to use this tool [BzzAgents] to spread our message. This is not, again, because BzzAgent is evil. It is not because it shouldn’t be used to spread any message. It is not because understanding achieved through networks of humans is worse than the understanding produced through a survey. It is instead because this way of spreading our message weakens the power of our message.

Many people in the post to Larry’s first post commented on how they admired the Spread FireFox campaign, and CC have decided to take that baton up and create something similar for CC. To this end, they have launched a wiki to foster discussion, so there’s no excuse for not taking part.

I am glad that CC have come to this decision, not because of any need for my opinions to be validated or because I’ve been ‘proven right’, but because I truly believe that this is the right decision for CC. A strong, unmediated grass-roots movement is what CC needs – using BzzAgents would have muddied waters that must stay clear.

It also allows people to get involved under their own terms, not under someone else’s. If all someone wants to do is contribute to the wiki, then that is their prerogative. Equally, someone can hop in at the end of deliberations and just use the materials and information provided, without ever having to take part in their creation. It doesn’t matter whether all you do is have a CC button on your coat or whether you devote all your free time to the project. What matters is that now, you can participate in a way that’s good for you.

I left a comment on Larry’s blog in response to his post which contains a few more points, so I shall reproduce it here too.

Excellent news, Larry! I am delighted to see you and your colleagues at CC grasp the nettle and make this decision.

We all make mistakes, but the challenge is always to learn from them and to turn errors into wisdom. The silver lining in this furore for CC is that you have now embarked on a course of action which I believe will prove to be more effective, stronger, and will have more of a long-term benefit for all involved than the relationship with BzzAgents could ever have given you. I have no doubt that there is the enthusiasm out there to make a SpreadCC-style campaign work (although I am sure it will not be without its own hiccups).

Insofar as BzzAgents are concerned, I hope that Dave has learnt that careful consideration before responding to criticism is the way forward. I also hope that, despite how much of himself he puts into his business, he learns that *he is not his business* and criticism of one is not criticism of the other. That’s a hard lesson to learn, and as an entrepreneur, I know just how hard. I also hope that he will be able to see through the anger of some of the comments and be capable of pulling the truths to the fore, as I think there were some valuable points made which could help him improve his modus operandi.

As for me, I certainly have learnt something: I knew that Creative Commons was a cause I supported, but I hadn’t realised just how important it was to me until I thought that it was being threatened. I’ve been planning to volunteer for CC or the EFF for ages now, but haven’t because there never seems to be enough time. With the new wiki, I will be able to contribute a little bit on a regular ongoing basis (a form of support that I think is more important than giving up a chunk of time once in a blue moon).

So, here’s to the future of CC!

UPDATE: Dave Balter blogs about the decision too. I find his post to be very positive and encouraging, and it seems that he’s looked for the truth in the comments that have been made about BzzAgents’ modus operandi, and is working to adjust it so that it is more acceptable to more people. Whilst I agree that you can’t please all of the people all of the time, I do feel that BzzAgents could please more people more of the time, and I’m glad to see Dave working towards this. I am sure he will end up with a stronger company at the end of this process.

05.02.05
by

Dave Balter apologises

Both on the BzzAgents blog and in my comments, as well as privately by email, Dave Balter has apologised for calling me and Corante liars. As he has publicly apologised I will publicly accept his apology. Some may not be pleased with me for doing so, but I am prepared to believe that calling me a liar was a mistake made in the heat of the moment. I have nothing personal against Dave, and turning this into a slanging match is not my desire or intent, because it obscures what’s really important and that’s the raft of problems that I and others have with BzzAgent’s modus operandi and this proposed relationship with Creative Commons.

Dave has also written an open letter to Lawrence Lessig about the matter, and you will find many interesting and well written comments on both his response and the issues in general over on Larry’s blog. I still have a number of serious problems with BzzAgents – in fact, I have more now than I did on Saturday morning – but as most of them have been so well addressed there, I see no benefit in rehashing them here. Instead, I will advise you to go and read the whole thread from top to bottom, if you haven’t already.

In the version of his apology that appears on his blog, Dave does ask for suggestions for how to improve his business, and my advice to him would be the same as that which I would give to an aspiring writer: murder your darlings. As F Scott Fitzgerald realised, the aspects of your work which are most dear to you are frequently the bits that need cutting out, for the good of the whole. These are also the bits that you fight hardest to keep because these are your darlings, your flashes of genius, your best work. Trouble is, your ‘flashes of genius’ are actually more likely to be a steaming heap of crud, but you just can’t see it.

Dave reacted very much like inexperienced writers do when they receive their first critical review. Their first reaction is denial: this criticism can’t be true. Their second is anger: you must be an idiot not to see how great my work is. If they are lucky, their third reaction is acceptance and growth: I see where I went wrong and I will work on improving it.

From the comments on Larry’s blog, which numbered 78 the last time I looked, it seems clear that the majority of people think Dave’s business model is flawed and that his BzzAgents’ modus operandi is at the very least bordering on unethical and immoral. Dave encourages us to ‘dig deeper’ to find out what’s going on ‘under the hood’, but misses two important points:

1) If people’s initial perceptions of BzzAgents are so negative, then you have a serious problem with communicating what you are really doing.

2) If people’s informed opinion of BzzAgents is so negative, then you have a serious problem with the way you are running your business.

Maybe, Dave, you need to murder your darlings. This business is your ‘baby’ and as such you cherish it. But maybe your basic premise is wrong. Maybe you need to stop the activities that are being perceived as shilling, reassess the way that your promotional campaigns are constructed, and stop encouraging people to manipulate the conversations they are having in order that they might create an opportunity to toss up some verbal spam.

Don’t just write off negative comments as being valueless because they are from people who ‘don’t understand’ – that’s the oldest trick in the sulky teenager’s book. Try instead to understand how your business looks from the outside, find out what it is that people object to, and how best to address those problems. Then take visible steps to correct what’s wrong, accepting and fairly assessing feedback along the way.