Archives for June 2010

The next book on my self-assigned summer reading list is Bob Garfield’s The Chaos Scenario. I’ve read the first two chapters so far (plus the intro) and the stage is set for some pretty hard-to-swallow realities. Garfield has illustrated two points so far in undeniable, vivid color. First, people are not consuming content in traditional ways. No more TV watching, no more newspaper reading, no more radio listening. Second, we are living in what Garfield calls a “post advertising age” that will depend upon “listenomics” much more than a display ad or a 30-second spot.

There  are two reasons why these ideas cannot be debated. First, annoyingly, Garfield builds a really good case for both concepts. Second, we’re living it. Here, let me show you. Answer the following questions in the comments section below:

1) When was the last time you listened to the radio, either public or commercial?

2) When was the last time you watched a television show live, when it was actually on, without fast forwarding through commercials?

3) When was the last time you learned about a news story from the newspaper or television BEFORE learning about it on the web?

Garfield presents all of this information with the passionate position that this is the new world order. This is a revolution in progress.


Where the title comes in

I don’t argue with the fact that we’re in a revolution now. But again I must come back to the fact that it is in human nature to counter things that are revolutionary eventually. Maybe right now nobody wants to pay for content. Everyone can be a resource. Nothing needs to go through pesky quality control. But maybe people will change over time. Maybe they’ll say, “Man, I miss the days of the New York Times (before they were known for plagiarism) and Walter Cronkite. I wish we had content of a higher quality. Heck, I’d pay for it.

I was trying to think of a more recent counter-revolution, and what I came up with was the change in popular music from 1994-1997. Some of the hits of 1994 included “Black Hole Sun” by Soundgarden.

Or maybe Beck’s “Loser” was more your style back then. Maybe “Closer” by Nine Inch Nails. Ya know, Trent Reznor:

In 1997, Hanson was one of the most popular groups of the year. That’s right, these guys:

Mmmbop, that’s a change. A quick change. A major change. I’m just saying, things are changing rapidly now. Who knows where we’ll be three years from now. Maybe we’ll be back to bunny ears and rotary phones.

When I was younger, before I knew better, a shake of the hand was enough to get me to start talking like I was at a Confessional. “Hi, my name is Margie, and here is my life story as of now. How about you?”

Thankfully, it was pointed out to me at a fairly early age that this wasn’t the smartest approach to take. However, this conflicts with the evolution of the internet, which has become everyone’s Confessional Booth at one time or another. We say things online that we probably wouldn’t dream of saying in any other situation, and we do it because the internet allows us to be both personal and anonymous.

There are a couple of things in my life that I talk about online that are very personal, but I talk about them among my friends because it’s important to do so. You will not find those things in my professional blog, however. I will not be tweeting traffic or offering a “share this” button. I like to keep track of who might know what about me. Call me old-fashioned.

This is on my mind because over the last couple of weeks, I have seen a flurry of posts from professional blogs (as in, tied to a business) that have discussed deeply personal topics. I found a couple of these blogs because people I follow on Twitter recommended them. A couple more were tweeted by people I follow directly.

Be human, but put your clothes on

I kind of wanted to avert my eyes after reading the first sentence or two of some of these blogs. I felt uncomfortable reading such personal information from a person I only know as a face and a Twitter handle. And what if I get to know that person better? Then this knowledge will already be in my pocket. There won’t be a need for the “discovery phase” of friendship.

I understand the value of adding some personal details to a professional blog. Brogan & Smith talk about this in Trust Agents. A picture of your kids now and then, a mention of a birthday, these things make you seem real, more accessible. But that is very different from laying your most personal, intimate life details into the internet ether. It might be a fine line, but for me, it’s a line nonetheless.

Remember where you are

David Meerman Scott talks about “losing control” of your PR and advertising. Let people share, let people evangelize for you. But losing control of your personal details can create uncomfortable and perhaps even dangerous situations. Do you want someone you don’t know retweeting a post about a spat that you had with your spouse? Do you want someone you don’t know sharing a post on Facebook about how you think your boss is dumb?

I view this blog as sitting at a table in the middle of a really busy, crowded party. I’m over here doing my thing, and if you come and sit with me for awhile, that’s great. Then you’ll get up and go to a different table. Maybe you’ll recount our little conversation, maybe you won’t. Under *those* circumstances, would you use that little blurp in time to reveal your most intimate secrets?

That square box holds real people

Computers are kind of creepy in a way, if you really think about them. They are static little wonders that enable us to connect to tons of people. We have no idea who, but they’re in this little box. It’s important to keep track of your own humanity, but it’s also important to remember you’re dealing with other humans as well.

People often say that if you wouldn’t say something to or in front of your grandmother, you shouldn’t say it online. I go one step further. If you wouldn’t say something in front of anyone in “real life,” you shouldn’t say it online.

Just something to ponder.

Image by Hilde Vanstraelen. http://www.sxc.hu/profile/biewoef

I had a very interesting exchange last evening during a Twitter “Blogchat.” Basically a chat is just people getting together and talking (or tweeting) about the same thing (in this case Blogs). The comments are linked together because everyone uses a # before the name of the chat, and then you can follow the conversation by searching for that chat. Confusing if you’re not on Twitter, but anyway…we were talking about Blogging 🙂

A fellow named Patrick Johnson asked me how I define a “pro” blogger. That question led us into a conversation that was unfortunately limited by the 140 character cage Twitter puts you in (as well as the fast-paced timing of the conversation). So, I thought I would revisit the conversation here (at least in sum) and get your thoughts!

Quality or Quantity

Do you consider a Blogger a “pro” because they have tons of comments and followers and links back to their blog, or do you consider a Blogger a “pro” because of the quality of the posts that are made? One might argue that if you base things on quantity, Al Gore’s blog (http://blog.algore.com/) is professional. However, if I didn’t know who Al Gore was, I wouldn’t think the blog was all that professional. It doesn’t have a particularly professional look to it (my opinion) and his posts generally are short and to the point, which doesn’t seem to be the overriding style bloggers choose.

Is it possible to be a pro without clout?

Next question: can you be a successful or “professional” blogger if you aren’t bringing some clout to the blog already? My answer to this question is yes. Blogging is attractive in part because it promises you that you can build a network. But not everyone’s Blog achieves the status of say, Denise Wakeman’s or Chris Brogan’s. Are you more inclined to go to a Blog if it’s someone you’ve heard of? Probably. Is it possible to get someone new into that cycle? Also probably, but that person might give up before that happens.


What is a “pro” and why do we need to define it?

I met a Native American artist once when I was in grad school. He was a Native American artist in that his ethnicity was Native American and his profession was “artist.” However, he did not make traditional “Native American” art. He did what was in his head and heart. He said people kind of were confused by this, including his own family and friends. If you’re a Native American you should want to present traditional themes so that your success can raise up those ideas into the mainstream. Similarly, he had trouble breaking through because when he billed himself as a Native American artist, people didn’t see what they expected.

It’s this kind of scenario that convinces me that categorizing people is dangerous. How would one define a professional blogger? In the end, it’s probably a personal preference type of thing.

Does it matter if a person is a pro? I read blog posts if they’re interesting. There are blogs that wander (for me) from really interesting to kind of blah. I don’t think any less of that person…I just know that not every blog post is going to be a winner for everybody.

Then again, there are so many best practices for blogging that maybe it all does matter. Maybe I’m not taking the craft seriously enough.

What do you think?

Image by Faakhir Rizvi. http://www.sxc.hu/profile/fakhar