I'll be taking some time away from the laptop over the holiday break - maybe some new bookmarks, but that's probably it. This may be our last quiet holiday for a long, long time. So I thought I'd just send a shout-out to everyone. Happy holidays and I'll be back in 2008!
20 December 2007
If I were a congressional staffer...
I had a nice chat this week with a colleague from my Capitol Hill days, and it made me think about what I'd be doing if I still worked for a Democratic Senator.
I've mentioned before that I worked on the Senator's economic policy team and one of the things I enjoyed preparing the most was a "weekly economic update" every Friday. It was just a quick, one-page list of facts and brief commentary on that week's data - weekly jobless claims, housing starts, consumer confidence numbers, and so on. Typically I would find data and explain how it was relevant to the Senator's positions on issues and proposals for the future.
The one thing I often liked to do with this weekly note was find a morsel of data that didn't necessarily fit into the economists' toolbox but really illustrated how working families were getting by in the current economy.
Recently the talk in some PR circles is about "recession" - and more specifically, what will happen to both the web2.0 startups that need VC and the larger PR/marketing firms that depend on available cash from large companies.
Communications firms will get through a recession by showing they "get it." We must demonstrate that we understand the issues companies and consumers face in hard economic times and we know how to leverage available tools to help clients address those issues. They could start by putting together something like one of my old weekly notes.
Of course, some PR folks need a little economics glossary to help them do this. For example, "Leading Economic Indicators" is not a collection of the best or most important indicators. It's a set of data the Conference Board collects to help predict economic activity in the next 6 to 9 months - but just about all of those data, like initial jobless claims and housing permits, are already public by the time the Conference Board reports it. There are also "coincident indicators," like GDP, which are data that move as the economy or business cycle moves. "Lagging indicators" are NOT indicators that can't seem to keep up with the leading ones. They're data such as the value of commercial loans or the changes in consumer prices that help confirm economic activity of the last few months.
All this stuff is important and I would share it regularly with the Senator. But when you're in politics, or communications, you need to find the information that humanizes the economy. Afer all, on paper the economy grew 4.9 percent in Q3 2007 - that's pretty fast - and will still probably grow a smidge in Q4. But that number doesn't seem to jibe with how people are living these days. So the bits of data I'd give the Senator tomorrow would probably include the following:
Home forclosures rose 68 percent in November from the previous November. We've all heard about the "sub-prime" lending mess that the "housing bubble blogs" (there are a lot of them) have been predicting for literally years now. We've also heard about the major multi-national banks writing down billions in debt because they issued unaffordable loans. But the foreclosure number is what will have the real impact on voters in November. Because the US savings rate is so low, people have been relying on their houses as a source of wealth and equity. When adjustable rate mortgages reset, wages remained relatively stagnant, and other costs (like healthcare) continued to rise, people lost their houses. That's a financial and emotional hit that most people won't ever forget.
20 million Americans will use credit cards to pay for home heating this winter. This is obviously a double-whammy. Energy costs are up - frankly, due to demand more than anything else - and people don't have the available cash to make up the difference. This cash flow issue (probably caused by higher mortgage and rent costs, higher health care costs, and stagnant wages) will effectively increase home heating costs by up to 20 percent when you consider interest carried over a few months, putting many Americans even further behind trying to pay for life's necessities.
More Americans will have catastrophic health expenses in 2008. Nearly 1 in 4 Americans under the age of 65 live in a family that will spend more than 10 percent of that family's pre-tax income on health expenses. More than 80 percent of these people have health insurance. This sounds like a health statistic, but it's unquestionably an "economic indicator" in my book. Poor health affects a family's ability to make money, and it reduces the amount it can pay for anything else. Parents - especially poor, single parents - will often pay for healthcare for their kids before they'll pay for healthcare for themselves. This is ultimately a long-term loser, since mom gets sicker, longer, and can't work for an extended amount of time.
Companies have to understand that this is the reality for many if not most of the people they're trying to reach. Since the current conventional wisdom is the Democrats will increase their power in Congress, companies also have to understand that this is the political context in which they'll have to communicate to "opinion elites." Smart, experienced communications professionals - with the perspective of working with Democrats - can help.
I've mentioned before that I worked on the Senator's economic policy team and one of the things I enjoyed preparing the most was a "weekly economic update" every Friday. It was just a quick, one-page list of facts and brief commentary on that week's data - weekly jobless claims, housing starts, consumer confidence numbers, and so on. Typically I would find data and explain how it was relevant to the Senator's positions on issues and proposals for the future.
The one thing I often liked to do with this weekly note was find a morsel of data that didn't necessarily fit into the economists' toolbox but really illustrated how working families were getting by in the current economy.
Recently the talk in some PR circles is about "recession" - and more specifically, what will happen to both the web2.0 startups that need VC and the larger PR/marketing firms that depend on available cash from large companies.
Communications firms will get through a recession by showing they "get it." We must demonstrate that we understand the issues companies and consumers face in hard economic times and we know how to leverage available tools to help clients address those issues. They could start by putting together something like one of my old weekly notes.
Of course, some PR folks need a little economics glossary to help them do this. For example, "Leading Economic Indicators" is not a collection of the best or most important indicators. It's a set of data the Conference Board collects to help predict economic activity in the next 6 to 9 months - but just about all of those data, like initial jobless claims and housing permits, are already public by the time the Conference Board reports it. There are also "coincident indicators," like GDP, which are data that move as the economy or business cycle moves. "Lagging indicators" are NOT indicators that can't seem to keep up with the leading ones. They're data such as the value of commercial loans or the changes in consumer prices that help confirm economic activity of the last few months.
All this stuff is important and I would share it regularly with the Senator. But when you're in politics, or communications, you need to find the information that humanizes the economy. Afer all, on paper the economy grew 4.9 percent in Q3 2007 - that's pretty fast - and will still probably grow a smidge in Q4. But that number doesn't seem to jibe with how people are living these days. So the bits of data I'd give the Senator tomorrow would probably include the following:
Home forclosures rose 68 percent in November from the previous November. We've all heard about the "sub-prime" lending mess that the "housing bubble blogs" (there are a lot of them) have been predicting for literally years now. We've also heard about the major multi-national banks writing down billions in debt because they issued unaffordable loans. But the foreclosure number is what will have the real impact on voters in November. Because the US savings rate is so low, people have been relying on their houses as a source of wealth and equity. When adjustable rate mortgages reset, wages remained relatively stagnant, and other costs (like healthcare) continued to rise, people lost their houses. That's a financial and emotional hit that most people won't ever forget.
20 million Americans will use credit cards to pay for home heating this winter. This is obviously a double-whammy. Energy costs are up - frankly, due to demand more than anything else - and people don't have the available cash to make up the difference. This cash flow issue (probably caused by higher mortgage and rent costs, higher health care costs, and stagnant wages) will effectively increase home heating costs by up to 20 percent when you consider interest carried over a few months, putting many Americans even further behind trying to pay for life's necessities.
More Americans will have catastrophic health expenses in 2008. Nearly 1 in 4 Americans under the age of 65 live in a family that will spend more than 10 percent of that family's pre-tax income on health expenses. More than 80 percent of these people have health insurance. This sounds like a health statistic, but it's unquestionably an "economic indicator" in my book. Poor health affects a family's ability to make money, and it reduces the amount it can pay for anything else. Parents - especially poor, single parents - will often pay for healthcare for their kids before they'll pay for healthcare for themselves. This is ultimately a long-term loser, since mom gets sicker, longer, and can't work for an extended amount of time.
Companies have to understand that this is the reality for many if not most of the people they're trying to reach. Since the current conventional wisdom is the Democrats will increase their power in Congress, companies also have to understand that this is the political context in which they'll have to communicate to "opinion elites." Smart, experienced communications professionals - with the perspective of working with Democrats - can help.
19 December 2007
No bloggers without money need apply
Normally I'd just add this to my del.icio.us links and be done with it, but this is just stupid and merits a "special comment" of my own:
Yes, the campaigns are sending a clear message to women bloggers, but it's not "you don't really matter." It's "get back to us when you start turning your blogs into billboards or ATM's for us." I'm pretty sure that Morra and Mary Katherine already know that right now every minute of a candidate's time is currently reserved for basically four things:
But the political campaigns do NOT view blogs as a conduit for talking with voters, despite their insistence to the contrary.
Republican campaigns look at blogs as a component of their centralized echo chamber - it really is still a lecture for many of them - while Democratic campaigns see the word "blog" and think the word "money." Frankly, there are a number of political bloggers on each side that are more than happy to play along with this, because they earn some semblance of influence when they do so.
The overwhelming majority of women bloggers (and men bloggers, for that matter) aren't interested in parroting the party line or becoming just another Act Blue portal. So the campaigns are choosing those bloggers who want to be helpful over those who want to ask questions.
Think about it - in the offline world, some campaigns expect event attendees to sign loyalty oaths and others plant questions. Campaigns expect and even prefer "real" questions from the media, and even then, most of those questions are predictable or even redundant.
Why would the campaigns want the online world to be any different? Questions from the unwashed masses on the Internet? Despite the progress of the YouTube Debates (actually, the CNN debates with a cute YouTube twist) and 10Questions (still met with a bit of resistance), campaigns aren't really interested with questions that don't neatly fit the talking points, and many dismiss the questioners as somehow not qualified to engage in THEIR discussion.
The candidates are going to learn eventually that most bloggers (and most people) want access to the candidates but don't want to feel like they're passing through a tollbooth. The blogosphere should be the greatest single assault on the "pay to play" system of American politics, but we're not there yet.
My fear is that bloggers will be turned off by the rebuff and not participate. My hope is they'll be turned off by the rebuff and get so angry they participate more. This election cycle will teach the beltway crowd a lot about the blogosphere. I'm hoping we'll learn how wrong the campaigns were. I'm hoping turnout breaks all kinds of records, and it's fueled by bloggers.
Sadly, I don't think the team at BlogHer is "confused" at all, especially political veterans like Morra and Mary Katherine.BlogHer's Election 2008 coverage was created in response to the terrific enthusiasm this community demonstrated while developing our non-partisan 2008 Voter Manifesto, twelve policy questions American women have about health care, Iraq, the economy and the environment.
Frankly, however, our political team is confused by the response of presidential candidates to BlogHer, and to some other organizations and blogs by women. For the past six months, BlogHer has invited seven leading presidential candidates -- Democratic and Republican, we're non-partisan -- to participate with BlogHer's influential, passionate community of now 7.6 million techno-savvy women, who write and read thousands of influential blogs. While our editors, Morra Aarons-Mele and Mary Katharine Ham have made in-roads with the campaigns and we do have another year until Election Day, at this point we've been told no, both in words and in actions, as have some other women's blogs and political groups.
Yes, the campaigns are sending a clear message to women bloggers, but it's not "you don't really matter." It's "get back to us when you start turning your blogs into billboards or ATM's for us." I'm pretty sure that Morra and Mary Katherine already know that right now every minute of a candidate's time is currently reserved for basically four things:
- raising money, either on the phone talking with rich people or showing up (late) at fundraisers;
- appearing (late) at made-for-tv events in an early primary state;
- meeting (late) with the local community groups you can't afford to blow off in NH, IA, and SC because the media fallout would be horrendous; and
- appearing (on time) on television news programs.
But the political campaigns do NOT view blogs as a conduit for talking with voters, despite their insistence to the contrary.
Republican campaigns look at blogs as a component of their centralized echo chamber - it really is still a lecture for many of them - while Democratic campaigns see the word "blog" and think the word "money." Frankly, there are a number of political bloggers on each side that are more than happy to play along with this, because they earn some semblance of influence when they do so.
The overwhelming majority of women bloggers (and men bloggers, for that matter) aren't interested in parroting the party line or becoming just another Act Blue portal. So the campaigns are choosing those bloggers who want to be helpful over those who want to ask questions.
Think about it - in the offline world, some campaigns expect event attendees to sign loyalty oaths and others plant questions. Campaigns expect and even prefer "real" questions from the media, and even then, most of those questions are predictable or even redundant.
Why would the campaigns want the online world to be any different? Questions from the unwashed masses on the Internet? Despite the progress of the YouTube Debates (actually, the CNN debates with a cute YouTube twist) and 10Questions (still met with a bit of resistance), campaigns aren't really interested with questions that don't neatly fit the talking points, and many dismiss the questioners as somehow not qualified to engage in THEIR discussion.
The candidates are going to learn eventually that most bloggers (and most people) want access to the candidates but don't want to feel like they're passing through a tollbooth. The blogosphere should be the greatest single assault on the "pay to play" system of American politics, but we're not there yet.
My fear is that bloggers will be turned off by the rebuff and not participate. My hope is they'll be turned off by the rebuff and get so angry they participate more. This election cycle will teach the beltway crowd a lot about the blogosphere. I'm hoping we'll learn how wrong the campaigns were. I'm hoping turnout breaks all kinds of records, and it's fueled by bloggers.
18 December 2007
The Six Million Dollar Man
I'm thinking maybe the Republicans might want to take notice of that whole Internet thing - for real - right about now.
Because Congressman Ron Paul officially matters. Even if he's still polling at less than 3 percent nationally.
He matters to the political set because he'll be tapping a finite resource of television and radio time with that record-breaking haul - preventing some of the "top tier" candidates from buying ads in Iowa and New Hampshire. If he leaves after February 5, watch for at least one of the candidates to start adopting some libertarian rhetoric (and courting Congressman Paul) in an attempt to raise some of the cash he's clearly shown he can acquire.
He matters to social media types because he's become the latest case study to review and to cite in our blogs, presentations, and client meetings. The Paul campaign is using creative means to tap into the community that they care about most and they've done a great job building extraordinarily deep support within that community -they haven't yet crossed into other communities, but he's a hero to this one.
Indeed, he matters most to libertarians because he's given them tangible milestones and accomplishments that other communities (and candidates) haven't achieved. He's strengthened the community and he's shown how they matter. Next cycle they'll be even more of a force to be reckoned with than they are now.
Because Congressman Ron Paul officially matters. Even if he's still polling at less than 3 percent nationally.
He matters to the political set because he'll be tapping a finite resource of television and radio time with that record-breaking haul - preventing some of the "top tier" candidates from buying ads in Iowa and New Hampshire. If he leaves after February 5, watch for at least one of the candidates to start adopting some libertarian rhetoric (and courting Congressman Paul) in an attempt to raise some of the cash he's clearly shown he can acquire.
He matters to social media types because he's become the latest case study to review and to cite in our blogs, presentations, and client meetings. The Paul campaign is using creative means to tap into the community that they care about most and they've done a great job building extraordinarily deep support within that community -they haven't yet crossed into other communities, but he's a hero to this one.
Indeed, he matters most to libertarians because he's given them tangible milestones and accomplishments that other communities (and candidates) haven't achieved. He's strengthened the community and he's shown how they matter. Next cycle they'll be even more of a force to be reckoned with than they are now.
17 December 2007
More social media smartness from Forrester
I saw a tweet from Jeremiah Owyang a couple weeks back (I'd link to it but they're still spackling drywall or something at twitter) promoting a new report from his shop (specifically Josh Bernoff, Charlene Li, Cynthia Pflaum, and Scott Wright) called the POST method - People, Objectives, Strategy and Technology. The intro really resonated with me:
The report then goes through an example of how a company (LL Bean) actually paid attention to who it wanted to reach and went about reaching that community using the tools that the community uses - not focusing on a particular technology first and trying to shoehorn a strategy that uses it.
"Social Technographics Profile" sounds a little jargony to me, but I found the report useful. It's similar to the approach I recommend for most clients. It reminded me a bit of the "snackers" meme Jeremiah pushed out there - I actually thought my response to it is pretty much aligned with what they're saying. It also reminded me of the very first post I ever wrote here.
Again, I'm not really a marketing guy, but the concepts still apply.
Executives are going about social strategy backwards: picking technologies like blogs or communities first instead of focusing on what they want to accomplish. This document introduces our four-step method for social strategy. First, examine the Social Technographics Profile of your customers. Second, choose your objective: listening to, talking with, energizing, supporting, or embracing your customersand their ideas. Third, build a strategy around changing your relationship with your customers. Finally, pick the appropriate technologies to implement. Companies that take these four steps in order and then put success metrics in place are the most likely to succeed.
The report then goes through an example of how a company (LL Bean) actually paid attention to who it wanted to reach and went about reaching that community using the tools that the community uses - not focusing on a particular technology first and trying to shoehorn a strategy that uses it.
"Social Technographics Profile" sounds a little jargony to me, but I found the report useful. It's similar to the approach I recommend for most clients. It reminded me a bit of the "snackers" meme Jeremiah pushed out there - I actually thought my response to it is pretty much aligned with what they're saying. It also reminded me of the very first post I ever wrote here.
Again, I'm not really a marketing guy, but the concepts still apply.
14 December 2007
Just one question
Shouldn't there be an asterisk next to the Yankees' last world series title since at least 40 percent of their pitching rotation was juiced?
13 December 2007
Bluegrass Blogs - what's the chatter?
All this talk about VVP made me realize I haven't really explained how we use text clouds to show what's being discussed in any community at any given time. This tool helps you identify exactly when breaking news becomes yesterday's news, and they help you understand what (and who) is truly important. When you pool leading bloggers together into coherent and relevant communities, you can see the common threads of online opinion leaders by pushing their feeds through the same cloud generator. Here's how it can be used in Kentucky.
Earlier this week the Commonwealth ushered in a new Governor. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, defeated Ernie Fletcher, the Commonwealth's first Republican Governor in over 40 years. Kentucky's political blogosphere - a far more robust and sophisticated place than some might think - has had a lot to say about it.
Prominent local blogger Joe Sonka did me a solid and identified a list of top political bloggers in Kentucky. His list of Democratic blogs include The Bridge, Bluegrass Report, BlueGrass Roots, Ditch Mitch KY, Page One Kentucky, and Kentucky Women: Power, Passion and Politics. Here's what they were saying on Inauguration Day:
Democrats are obviously excited about the new Governor, but the focus of sustained discussion is clearly on the party's chances to unseat the US Senate's Republican Leader and on Democratic Challenger Andrew Horne. (Now that Horne has announced, the buzz will get bigger for him.)
Republicans have essentially stopped talking about Governor Fletcher, but they're noting that State Auditor Crit Luallen has already bowed out of a race against the Senator. They're also still talking about US presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's visit to Louisville last week.
The Kentucky Senate seat will be one of the more closely-watched races in the United States in November, and the Kentucky political blogosphere will be one of the most important primary sources of information for voters and the media. People who want to stay ahead of the race will want to build relationships with these bloggers - the new "opinion elites" of Kentucky politics.
I'm thinking about updating the Kentucky clouds semi-regularly - and I'm open to ideas as to who else should be represented in them. I know Pol Watchers has a good list, and I'll probably start there. Any advice on who to include and opinions on what bloggers are saying is most welcome.
Earlier this week the Commonwealth ushered in a new Governor. Steve Beshear, a Democrat, defeated Ernie Fletcher, the Commonwealth's first Republican Governor in over 40 years. Kentucky's political blogosphere - a far more robust and sophisticated place than some might think - has had a lot to say about it.
Prominent local blogger Joe Sonka did me a solid and identified a list of top political bloggers in Kentucky. His list of Democratic blogs include The Bridge, Bluegrass Report, BlueGrass Roots, Ditch Mitch KY, Page One Kentucky, and Kentucky Women: Power, Passion and Politics. Here's what they were saying on Inauguration Day:
Democrats are obviously excited about the new Governor, but the focus of sustained discussion is clearly on the party's chances to unseat the US Senate's Republican Leader and on Democratic Challenger Andrew Horne. (Now that Horne has announced, the buzz will get bigger for him.)
Republicans have essentially stopped talking about Governor Fletcher, but they're noting that State Auditor Crit Luallen has already bowed out of a race against the Senator. They're also still talking about US presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani's visit to Louisville last week.
The Kentucky Senate seat will be one of the more closely-watched races in the United States in November, and the Kentucky political blogosphere will be one of the most important primary sources of information for voters and the media. People who want to stay ahead of the race will want to build relationships with these bloggers - the new "opinion elites" of Kentucky politics.
I'm thinking about updating the Kentucky clouds semi-regularly - and I'm open to ideas as to who else should be represented in them. I know Pol Watchers has a good list, and I'll probably start there. Any advice on who to include and opinions on what bloggers are saying is most welcome.
12 December 2007
Does your message fit the environment?
I know I've been plugging Virtual Vantage Points a lot lately. It's only scratching the surface of its potential. The tool isn't limited to "lets see what the liberals are saying and put it next to what the conservatives are saying." VVP can also look at what the same people are saying in different venues and show how and why that makes a difference. Here's how.
Jeremiah Owyang mentioned yesterday some conversations have shifted to Twitter and away from blogs. I don't know him personally, but I know Jeremiah is a big name in social media - along with people like Robert Scoble, Jason Calacanis, Brian Solis, and Shel Israel. Virtual Vantage Points might look at those five as a community of leaders in social media and run their blogs through a cloud generator to see what cues they're giving the rest of the industry. It might look something like this:
But what if VVP looked at their Twitter streams? Since conversations are moving there, shouldn't we be paying attention to that as well? Here's what you see:
I see a lot less work (though it's still here), and a lot more play. I see saucier language. I see who this group is talking to most at this moment. I see that this group is using Twitter for something distinctively different than say, Seth Godin, who uses Twitter almost exclusively to promote posts on his blog. Of course, this has something to do with the microblogging format, but you can convey a longer point by using more than one tweet.
So what does this mean? Maybe it means I'm more likely to engage Jeremiah Owyang in a discussion about Miles Davis than I am about Facebook. (And that's definitely fine with me.) Maybe it means if I want to engage him on something work related I can start the discussion on Twitter but then move the discussion elsewhere. Most of all, it appears that I'm gaining new insight into this group's priorities outside of the office, and I'm learning more about what's relevant to this crowd. And relevance is critical to building relationships.
And to think, I don't have anything to pitch these guys. What a shame. ;)
Jeremiah Owyang mentioned yesterday some conversations have shifted to Twitter and away from blogs. I don't know him personally, but I know Jeremiah is a big name in social media - along with people like Robert Scoble, Jason Calacanis, Brian Solis, and Shel Israel. Virtual Vantage Points might look at those five as a community of leaders in social media and run their blogs through a cloud generator to see what cues they're giving the rest of the industry. It might look something like this:
better Blog blogger bloggers blogging blogs brand building Business Chris Communications communities community companies company connect control conversation conversations corporate Council customer customers different email engage Facebook fact friends future global Google great important industry information Jaiku learn LinkingBlogs Marc market marketing Media message network networks news online Part participate participation people person place point post Pownce press process public publicrelations question reach relations relationships release releases right SAP search Service Services share show social socialmedia story Technology tools traditional Twitter video web why work world
But what if VVP looked at their Twitter streams? Since conversations are moving there, shouldn't we be paying attention to that as well? Here's what you see:
Art ask bill blicio blog blue book breakfast bub bullshit California Check Coltrane com Community conference consider Dave davewiner Davis definitely dinner Doc email enterprise events Facebook famous far free friends fun getting great group Guitar heart hey Holiday Hotel hours jazz Joe leweb life LinkedIn long look love Lunch Marc mean Miles mkrigsman move Music musicians night note Orchant Paris Pass passed people personal philgomes phone play player playing post product ready right Seattle seems seesmic Shashib shells shopping Social speaker Steve susanreynolds table talk TechMeme thank Turre Twitter Wants week Winer wonderful WOW writing yeah year yes
I see a lot less work (though it's still here), and a lot more play. I see saucier language. I see who this group is talking to most at this moment. I see that this group is using Twitter for something distinctively different than say, Seth Godin, who uses Twitter almost exclusively to promote posts on his blog. Of course, this has something to do with the microblogging format, but you can convey a longer point by using more than one tweet.
So what does this mean? Maybe it means I'm more likely to engage Jeremiah Owyang in a discussion about Miles Davis than I am about Facebook. (And that's definitely fine with me.) Maybe it means if I want to engage him on something work related I can start the discussion on Twitter but then move the discussion elsewhere. Most of all, it appears that I'm gaining new insight into this group's priorities outside of the office, and I'm learning more about what's relevant to this crowd. And relevance is critical to building relationships.
And to think, I don't have anything to pitch these guys. What a shame. ;)
11 December 2007
And Iran (so far away)
Can't believe I missed this one. I learn via Open Culture and NY Times that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has a blog.
Yes, that guy. At least the blog is currently allowing critical comments. Of course, when it comes to social media and Ahmadinejad, there's really nothing better than this.
Yes, that guy. At least the blog is currently allowing critical comments. Of course, when it comes to social media and Ahmadinejad, there's really nothing better than this.
Saving the World
Two items today that aren't about social media but I learned about them through social media:
I want my hydrogen car. Yeah, there's a ton of work that has to happen but this is really going to create so many economic opportunities in the long run it's worth it.
(hat tip: Treehugger, which gives some great commentary.)
And a nice list of blogs that cover hydrogen vehicles can be found here.
Also, the Boston Globe has an audio slideshow about Dream Chase Farms, a thoroughbred rescue home founded by the Globe's former movie critic. It's located in Georgetown, Kentucky - just north of here.
I want my hydrogen car. Yeah, there's a ton of work that has to happen but this is really going to create so many economic opportunities in the long run it's worth it.
(hat tip: Treehugger, which gives some great commentary.)
And a nice list of blogs that cover hydrogen vehicles can be found here.
Also, the Boston Globe has an audio slideshow about Dream Chase Farms, a thoroughbred rescue home founded by the Globe's former movie critic. It's located in Georgetown, Kentucky - just north of here.
10 December 2007
And you thought MY blog was nerdy
The Director of the Congressional Budget Office enters the blogosphere.
Nothing fancy, just a straight-up wordpress template and a lot of large words. The economics bloggers are just giddy.
Seriously though, anything that can demystify the congressional budget process and make the economic information that Congress receives more accessible to the public is definitely a good thing. The uber-wonk in me would love to see the GAO start a blog.
Nothing fancy, just a straight-up wordpress template and a lot of large words. The economics bloggers are just giddy.
Seriously though, anything that can demystify the congressional budget process and make the economic information that Congress receives more accessible to the public is definitely a good thing. The uber-wonk in me would love to see the GAO start a blog.
The Coming Apocalypse
Hulk Hogan hosts the American Gladiators.
Seriously, bring the writers back.
And I rarely watch television.
Seriously, bring the writers back.
And I rarely watch television.
07 December 2007
The Poetry and Righteous Anger
"True religion will not let us fall asleep in the comfort of our freedom. 'Love thy neighbor' is not a piece of advice, it's a command."
I saw a well-written and well-delivered speech yesterday on faith in America. Everyone else is writing about it so I won't bother. That speech reminded me of this one, which I searched for and found on YouTube last night. The video is a bit long (the speech begins about four minutes into the video) but the speech has an incredibly powerful ending.
I have to admit one of the coolest things I did working for Senator Kennedy was staff him when Bono came to visit. Bono was looking for advice on getting other Senators to support efforts to prevent disease in Africa. Bono was visibly tired that day but I was impressed with his sincerity, his humility, his gratitude, and his knowledge of the topic. He mentioned his faith that day as a motivating force in his life.
And I'm still moved by his words.
I saw a well-written and well-delivered speech yesterday on faith in America. Everyone else is writing about it so I won't bother. That speech reminded me of this one, which I searched for and found on YouTube last night. The video is a bit long (the speech begins about four minutes into the video) but the speech has an incredibly powerful ending.
I have to admit one of the coolest things I did working for Senator Kennedy was staff him when Bono came to visit. Bono was looking for advice on getting other Senators to support efforts to prevent disease in Africa. Bono was visibly tired that day but I was impressed with his sincerity, his humility, his gratitude, and his knowledge of the topic. He mentioned his faith that day as a motivating force in his life.
And I'm still moved by his words.
And to those in the church who still sit in judgement on the AIDS emergency, let me climb into the pulpit for just one moment. Because whatever thoughts we have about God who he is, or even if God exists, most will agree that God has a special place for the poor.I will always support the separation of church and state. I worry that some people still use religion as a wedge and see government as a tool to impose their religious will on others. But faith is still what motivates many of us to do the right thing. There's nothing wrong with having it.
The poor are where God lives. God is in the slums, in the cardboard boxes where the poor play house. God is where the opportunity is lost and lives are shattered. God is with the mother who has infected a child with a virus that will take both their lives. God is under the rubble in the cries we hear during wartime. God, my friends, is with the poor, and God is with us if we are with them.
06 December 2007
And now, a message from Boing Boing to flacks
Buzz off.
Apparently our profession has become so pathetically bad at this - Boing Boing has a page devoted to HOW YOU SEND THEM STUFF, you know - that it's just a matter of time before bloggers say "you can send me stuff just as long as you don't do that sort of thing for a living."
Seriously - there's used car salesmen, then just below them there's lawyers, and just below them there's politicians, and then below them there's IRS agents, and then, at the bottom, there's us.
Apparently our profession has become so pathetically bad at this - Boing Boing has a page devoted to HOW YOU SEND THEM STUFF, you know - that it's just a matter of time before bloggers say "you can send me stuff just as long as you don't do that sort of thing for a living."
Seriously - there's used car salesmen, then just below them there's lawyers, and just below them there's politicians, and then below them there's IRS agents, and then, at the bottom, there's us.
See what happens when you listen and respond?
The moms won a major victory today when YouTube reinstated the League of Maternal Justice's breastfeeding montage video. You'll recall that the video was created as a protest of Facebook's decision to ban a user because she posted pictures of herself breastfeeding her kids.
In response to YouTube's decision, LMJ put together a social media release and got some attention from the media in India. While the attention may have helped, in the end all it really took was for someone at YouTube to read an email from the moms, apply context to content, make a smart decision, and write back. That's what adults do.
So kudos to YouTube for doing the right thing.
Meanwhile, it took an overwhelming amount of pressure (i.e., the loss of advertising dollars) from all sources to convince Facebook to respect the basic privacy rights of its members. And they have yet to respond to the moms' basic question about Facebook's apparent inability to apply context to content. And there are still some very important questions that remain to be answered about Beacon, such as what Facebook is doing with the user information it still collects as part of the application.
Facebook has hopefully learned an important lesson - just because you're a "walled garden," you can't put a wall between your management and your users. But the communication regarding Beacon can't be the "last resort" or exception to the rule as it is now - it has to be a first step in a new commitment to communication, transparency, and maturity in decision-making.
Answer the moms, Facebook. Do the right thing.
In response to YouTube's decision, LMJ put together a social media release and got some attention from the media in India. While the attention may have helped, in the end all it really took was for someone at YouTube to read an email from the moms, apply context to content, make a smart decision, and write back. That's what adults do.
So kudos to YouTube for doing the right thing.
Meanwhile, it took an overwhelming amount of pressure (i.e., the loss of advertising dollars) from all sources to convince Facebook to respect the basic privacy rights of its members. And they have yet to respond to the moms' basic question about Facebook's apparent inability to apply context to content. And there are still some very important questions that remain to be answered about Beacon, such as what Facebook is doing with the user information it still collects as part of the application.
Facebook has hopefully learned an important lesson - just because you're a "walled garden," you can't put a wall between your management and your users. But the communication regarding Beacon can't be the "last resort" or exception to the rule as it is now - it has to be a first step in a new commitment to communication, transparency, and maturity in decision-making.
Answer the moms, Facebook. Do the right thing.
05 December 2007
The Political Ramifications of Stupidity
So let's say you're a Democrat running for major political office - Representative, Senator, President, that sort of thing. You need cash quickly and you want to appeal to large numbers of small-amount donors who care about particular issues. Social media has become a great option, and Facebook, with all the information readily available about its users, is probably one of the best.
Except it probably isn't anymore.
Many leaders in the social media world have been discussing Facebook's disastrous PR strategy (or complete lack of a strategy) with Facebook Beacon, the application that told all your Facebook friends what you've been buying online - without getting your permission. The consensus online is that Facebook has been incredibly stupid and insensitive to users - and what's worse, they haven't ever bothered to explain themselves in a meaningful way.
It seems obvious to me Facebook cares much more about its actual customers - the companies that buy ad space on its network - than it ever did about its users, who merrily type and click away (myself included) as the site collects more and more data about our browsing and shopping habits. That's just basic capitalism.
But now users are actually speaking out and resenting the fact that Facebook is acting like - well, like a company run by a 23-year-old kid. A brilliant kid, but still a kid. It's going to get much, much worse.
This isn't the first time Facebook has acted stupidly and then clammed up about it. The "pro-anorexia groups yes, breastfeeding pictures no" debacle is one example, but it's by no means the worst. When you have to be publicly chided by the New York Attorney General for not answering his calls about sexual predators on the Facebook network, let's just say you have a problem with communication.
So back to that Democratic candidate again. You're trying to engage voters. You know the users on Facebook tend to skew female and are more liberal than conservative. So you set up the Facebook group, build the cause from the "Causes" app, and post video and whatnot.
And then your communications director gets the call from the ambitious reporter. "Why is your candidate soliciting money on a network that promotes anorexia, opposes breastfeeding, won't help the New York AG stop sexual predators, and sells the financial information of its users without consent?"
Ugh. The classic "guilt by association" question - a staple for any reporter trying to make a story out of something that has nothing to do with you. They're most common on a slow news day or when someone on the Internet wants to drudge something up to smear you. After all, you're on the right side of these issues. But now you look like you aren't. And you can't afford to look weak on any of this stuff.
So you call Facebook and ask them how you should answer. And you need an answer fast because the reporter is on deadline and needs something by 4pm or so. But Facebook won't call back, because they're in the PR bunker waiting for it to blow over.
So now, as a candidate, you're really only left with one choice.
You have to kick the snot out of Facebook.
You have to do all the things that those left-of-center, tech-savvy, uncommitted voters would want you to do. You have to give the speech about protecting kids online, and make an example out of Facebook. (The speech would say something like "if Facebook's young CEO had kids, maybe this would have been handled better.") You have to show up at the La Leche League and the adolescent clinic. You have to announce your strong opposition to Facebook's nod-and-wink opt-out policies and you might even have to announce legislation that would make tools like Beacon illegal.
You're in a close election, and you're more than willing to throw some company that isn't even public yet under the bus if it helps you get elected. Frankly, there's very little risk here - you can always reach out to a few more blogs and Act Blue for cash if you just do a little work identifying their audiences and building a few relationships.
After all, it's not like Facebook will actively engage those liberal female users - or anyone else, for that matter - in any kind of meaningful discussion to explain their choices or defend their reputation.
UPDATE: Facebook's CEO writes a post on his blog apologizing for the Beacon mistakes. It's a start. What's needed is a systemic change in the way Facebook communicates with its users, and a more dynamic and personal approach from its CEO on the issues its users care about.
Except it probably isn't anymore.
Many leaders in the social media world have been discussing Facebook's disastrous PR strategy (or complete lack of a strategy) with Facebook Beacon, the application that told all your Facebook friends what you've been buying online - without getting your permission. The consensus online is that Facebook has been incredibly stupid and insensitive to users - and what's worse, they haven't ever bothered to explain themselves in a meaningful way.
It seems obvious to me Facebook cares much more about its actual customers - the companies that buy ad space on its network - than it ever did about its users, who merrily type and click away (myself included) as the site collects more and more data about our browsing and shopping habits. That's just basic capitalism.
But now users are actually speaking out and resenting the fact that Facebook is acting like - well, like a company run by a 23-year-old kid. A brilliant kid, but still a kid. It's going to get much, much worse.
This isn't the first time Facebook has acted stupidly and then clammed up about it. The "pro-anorexia groups yes, breastfeeding pictures no" debacle is one example, but it's by no means the worst. When you have to be publicly chided by the New York Attorney General for not answering his calls about sexual predators on the Facebook network, let's just say you have a problem with communication.
So back to that Democratic candidate again. You're trying to engage voters. You know the users on Facebook tend to skew female and are more liberal than conservative. So you set up the Facebook group, build the cause from the "Causes" app, and post video and whatnot.
And then your communications director gets the call from the ambitious reporter. "Why is your candidate soliciting money on a network that promotes anorexia, opposes breastfeeding, won't help the New York AG stop sexual predators, and sells the financial information of its users without consent?"
Ugh. The classic "guilt by association" question - a staple for any reporter trying to make a story out of something that has nothing to do with you. They're most common on a slow news day or when someone on the Internet wants to drudge something up to smear you. After all, you're on the right side of these issues. But now you look like you aren't. And you can't afford to look weak on any of this stuff.
So you call Facebook and ask them how you should answer. And you need an answer fast because the reporter is on deadline and needs something by 4pm or so. But Facebook won't call back, because they're in the PR bunker waiting for it to blow over.
So now, as a candidate, you're really only left with one choice.
You have to kick the snot out of Facebook.
You have to do all the things that those left-of-center, tech-savvy, uncommitted voters would want you to do. You have to give the speech about protecting kids online, and make an example out of Facebook. (The speech would say something like "if Facebook's young CEO had kids, maybe this would have been handled better.") You have to show up at the La Leche League and the adolescent clinic. You have to announce your strong opposition to Facebook's nod-and-wink opt-out policies and you might even have to announce legislation that would make tools like Beacon illegal.
You're in a close election, and you're more than willing to throw some company that isn't even public yet under the bus if it helps you get elected. Frankly, there's very little risk here - you can always reach out to a few more blogs and Act Blue for cash if you just do a little work identifying their audiences and building a few relationships.
After all, it's not like Facebook will actively engage those liberal female users - or anyone else, for that matter - in any kind of meaningful discussion to explain their choices or defend their reputation.
UPDATE: Facebook's CEO writes a post on his blog apologizing for the Beacon mistakes. It's a start. What's needed is a systemic change in the way Facebook communicates with its users, and a more dynamic and personal approach from its CEO on the issues its users care about.
04 December 2007
Accountability 2.0 (Another YouTube Debate Post-Mortem)
While we're not in a new era of transparency and accountability, We have seen a new digital wrinkle of participatory communication and democracy. And we've seen how quickly people are moving to game the system and gain advantage. We've got the public participation framework in place, but we're still working on that whole "accountability" thing.
The "Save the Debate" crowd are fightin' mad at CNN for sandbagging the YouTube debate with at least two questions from democrats - most notably one from an openly gay retired army general with ties to the Clinton campaign. Candidates thought this would be a "republican debate," free from gotcha-style questions. CNN spiked the punchbowl.
There's no way CNN was ignorant of the general's affilation or how this would color the debate. Putting candidates on the spot like that makes for good television, and it creates one of those "speak truth to power" moments the political establishment loathes. That's exactly what CNN wanted, and that's what they got.
However, CNN didn't select questions consistent with the public's priorities. Of the thousands of questions submitted, CNN chose a disproportionately large number of immigration/guns/bible questions that have been asked before in some form, plus their great big gotcha on gays in the military.
What did they leave out? Questions about America's top domestic priority - healthcare. Smart young Republicans like Rob Bluey and Mary Katherine Hamm made this observation. (btw, religion gets about 1% in the "top priorities" Gallup poll, and guns & gay issues don't even register.)
CNN's defense? If they didn't screen questions and left it to public "voting" on the 'net, the campaigns would try to stuff the digital ballot box to support the questions they want asked. You can't leave this process to the campaigns, who are relentless about message control to the point where they screen audiences, plant questions, or promote push polls. And they're right. But a presidential debate shouldn't be about a network's agenda. It should be about the public's priorities and how the candidates will address them.
The Save the Debate folks (all Republicans) are bashing CNN for having a "liberal bias." CNN is unquestionably biased, but it honestly has nothing to do with ideology. CNN has a NEGATIVE bias, as does absolutely every truly free media outlet on the planet. CNN is attracted to controversy, period. Controversy brings ratings. It sells papers. That's CNN's filter. That's why it asks "gotcha" questions. The media is still a critical component of our democracy and plays a vital role in holding people accountable (when they're at their best), but we can't count on them to play the role of independent arbitor of the issues. Nor should we.
10Questions will be the next step toward finding a platform for an unfiltered discussion between the government and the governed. It, too, will be flawed, but it will be progress - and those who choose not to participate will rightfully be criticized.
Most importantly, we're at a point of no return now, as the Washington Post's Jose Antonio Vargas told David All. People want more, not less, participation in the decisions our leaders make. You can't tell them that they won't be able to ask questions simply because it makes those in power uncomfortable.
Businesses would be well-served to prepare for the unfiltered digital discussion coming their way as well, and they can learn by watching the canidates struggle with the new format. Large global companies have unquestionably grown in power over the last decade. Some CEO's oversee companies with more wealth than the GDP of many countries. It's just a matter of time before someone figures out how to pull off the "YouTube annual shareholders meeting." And there will be no turning back.
The "Save the Debate" crowd are fightin' mad at CNN for sandbagging the YouTube debate with at least two questions from democrats - most notably one from an openly gay retired army general with ties to the Clinton campaign. Candidates thought this would be a "republican debate," free from gotcha-style questions. CNN spiked the punchbowl.
There's no way CNN was ignorant of the general's affilation or how this would color the debate. Putting candidates on the spot like that makes for good television, and it creates one of those "speak truth to power" moments the political establishment loathes. That's exactly what CNN wanted, and that's what they got.
However, CNN didn't select questions consistent with the public's priorities. Of the thousands of questions submitted, CNN chose a disproportionately large number of immigration/guns/bible questions that have been asked before in some form, plus their great big gotcha on gays in the military.
What did they leave out? Questions about America's top domestic priority - healthcare. Smart young Republicans like Rob Bluey and Mary Katherine Hamm made this observation. (btw, religion gets about 1% in the "top priorities" Gallup poll, and guns & gay issues don't even register.)
CNN's defense? If they didn't screen questions and left it to public "voting" on the 'net, the campaigns would try to stuff the digital ballot box to support the questions they want asked. You can't leave this process to the campaigns, who are relentless about message control to the point where they screen audiences, plant questions, or promote push polls. And they're right. But a presidential debate shouldn't be about a network's agenda. It should be about the public's priorities and how the candidates will address them.
The Save the Debate folks (all Republicans) are bashing CNN for having a "liberal bias." CNN is unquestionably biased, but it honestly has nothing to do with ideology. CNN has a NEGATIVE bias, as does absolutely every truly free media outlet on the planet. CNN is attracted to controversy, period. Controversy brings ratings. It sells papers. That's CNN's filter. That's why it asks "gotcha" questions. The media is still a critical component of our democracy and plays a vital role in holding people accountable (when they're at their best), but we can't count on them to play the role of independent arbitor of the issues. Nor should we.
10Questions will be the next step toward finding a platform for an unfiltered discussion between the government and the governed. It, too, will be flawed, but it will be progress - and those who choose not to participate will rightfully be criticized.
Most importantly, we're at a point of no return now, as the Washington Post's Jose Antonio Vargas told David All. People want more, not less, participation in the decisions our leaders make. You can't tell them that they won't be able to ask questions simply because it makes those in power uncomfortable.
Businesses would be well-served to prepare for the unfiltered digital discussion coming their way as well, and they can learn by watching the canidates struggle with the new format. Large global companies have unquestionably grown in power over the last decade. Some CEO's oversee companies with more wealth than the GDP of many countries. It's just a matter of time before someone figures out how to pull off the "YouTube annual shareholders meeting." And there will be no turning back.
03 December 2007
The Best Gift Of All Won't Come This Christmas
But it will sometime in mid-June, I think. Our first, and we're both ecstatic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)