Exclamation blog: Stories, Ideas and loud noises
Comcast + Twitter = Creepy?
So, there’s been an overload of Twitter posts here lately, but this warrants another. My friend Nathan Halverson is a tech reporter at the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and Tweeted earlier about how he was doing a story on Comcast plopping ugly green boxes down in the middle of people’s lawns – unannounced. Anyway, I responded to him:
@paperwords Comcast is so horrible. Why is their DVR still stuck in 2003? It sucks!
An hour later, this floated into Twhirl:
comcastcares @CeeLew An update is coming soon for the Motorola boxes that will help
Yikes. Savvy move, Comcast, but is this a bit creepy? Maybe it’s because Twitter is such a closed community at this point, you expect to be talking into an echo chamber. Well, that’s not always the case.
At least I know my DVR is going to get better, because it really does suck. Bad.
Facebook Opens Up Chat For All. No Converts Here (Yet)
Approximately one year ago I thought I was done with Web chat.
I’d moved on to social networking sites like Facebook and LinkedIn, and had begun to associate instant messaging more with my social-drama-filled adolescence than new and (hopefully) professional adulthood. But then it slowly began to creep back in…
First I graduated from university and started using Google’s Gmail chat to keep up with the international adventures and job hunting travails of my classmates. I was then converted to iChat as another means of communication by my co-workers, and finally caved to Windows Live Messenger– the chat vehicle of choice for my PC-loyalist parents and siblings.
And now Facebook presents another option. Early this month, it was announced on the Facebook blog that an instant-messaging application would slowly be rolling out across networks. A couple of weeks later, the small and supposedly inconspicuous widget appeared at the bottom of the screen– although I have yet to activate it.
Sure, it’s simple, collapsible, unobtrusive and arguably valuable– serving to make communication even easier among Facebook addicts, but do I really have any need for it? Yes, I use Twitter, and one could argue I don’t have much use for that either, but Facebook chat seems at this point entirely superfluous.
As yet another distraction, I’m sure it will slowly gain in popularity over time much like other recent (and initially criticized) Facebook updates like the mini-feed and news-feed.
For now, however, I am content to stay away — we’ll see how long I hold out.
All I Really Needed to Know, I Learned on Twitter
Yesterday was a busy day for me. I was in and out of meetings and wasn’t in front of my computer too much. You know, the kind of day when you’re sitting there in a conference room guessing how many emails will be in your inbox when you get back? 50, 75, 100?
Meanwhile, there were two news developments that I was eager to follow: The Pennsylvania primary and Yahoo!’s earnings. Normally on busy work and news days, I rush to my desk, fire up a browser and scan my RSS feeds and a few sites I know can get me caught up.
But yesterday was different. When I got back to my desk, Twitter was open in my browser and before closing out, I did a quick refresh to scan the latest from the people I follow.
Right then, I had one of those Twitter “eureka!” moments. Rafe sums it up elegantly when he says, “The people who laugh at Twitter do not understand it. Pity them.”
You see, as if a genie granted me three wishes, a handful of “Tweets” gave me the gist of the news I was so desperate to follow all day. Special thanks goes out to CNet’s Dan Farber who was live tweeting the earnings call and providing succinct updates as they happened:
-Yahoo CFO: Traffic acquisition costs are up 4 percent because the company has to compete. about 19 hours ago from Snitter
-Yahoo’s headcount dropped from 14,300 at the end of last year to 13,800, including 600 new hires, offset by the company’s layoff. about 19 hours ago from Snitter
-Yahoo generated first quarter free cash flow of $647 million, up 75 percent ….it includes a $350 million one-time AT&T payment. about 19 hours ago from Snitter
-Yahoo CFO: “Advertisers’ budgets may fall, but the ROI of online ads compared to other media may cushion the impact on our industry. about 19 hours ago from Snitter
-Yang affirms that will choose whatever option maximizes shareholder value, including MS….more money! about 19 hours ago from Snitter
In 5 Tweets, I had all the information I needed. Sure, there was no analysis, but that could wait.
On to the election. I read a quick note from Fred Wilson who Tweeted, “i’ve just learned more about the PA primary on Tweetscan than CNN and MSNBC combined,” and posted a URL with the majority of news updates and comments on the election from around the Twittersphere. After a quick scan, Fred and I were on the same page. Too close to call. Anderson Cooper can wait.
As I left the office to head home and watch the final results come in, I couldn’t help but marvel at how easily I was able to catch up on the news of the day thanks to Dan and Fred.
Sure, the era of information overload has its drawbacks, but sometimes we forget how sweet it is when it all comes together just right. Thanks guys. And thank you, Twitter.
Blogger comes out, WaPo not amused
As anyone on the receiving end of one of my link filled IMs, e-mails or Tweets can tell you, I love sports blogs. There’s a small circle of about 10 of them (led by Deadspin, Fire Joe Morgan, Kissing Suzy Kolber and With Leather) that have superlative, hilarious writing and style and attitude that is basically a giant middle finger to the traditional sporting press.
And, as a former sports writer, I can say that gesture is very much needed.
The two worlds collided yesterday after Michael Tunison, aka Christmas Ape on Kissing Suzy Kolber, was fired from the Washington Post after outing himself on KSK. This is interesting in many different ways.
For the most part, the vanguard of the traditional sports press despise bloggers because they aren’t trained journalists who went to school for four years so they can be treated like scum by athletes. For the most part this vanguard is a bunch of self-aggrandizing pathetic writers who couldn’t recognize important prose if it hit them in the face. The Washington Post took offense, not to some of Tunison’s edgier posts on KSK, but to the fact that he said he was “totally f**king hammered” in the picture accompanying his post outing himself. Because, you know, no respectable journalist has ever gotten drunk when his or her favorite team went to the Super Bowl. The parrot may have been a bit much.
It’s pretty obvious that Tunison was canned because of the blog.
Anyway, the reaction has been pretty comical. The fairly sizable KSK and Deadspin communities reacted by taking over Dan Steinberg’s blog at the WaPo online.
The traditional media’s reaction to blogs is a constant source of hilarity. For the sports media to get upset over fans writing about sports is the epitome of stupidity – they are, after all, the people the media is (or should be) writing for. What difference does having a piece of paper make when you’re spouting off about sports? Just because I went to journalism school, does that make me more qualified to write about baseball than the guy with an accounting degree who spends his spare time crunching baseball stats? No. If he knows more than me and can write, well…
There are plenty of reporters who are embracing new media and are doing fantastic work, so it’s very unfair to lump traditional media in one big group, but a message to those who are afraid of blogs: Get over it. You’ll be working for one soon enough.
Cooking With Cindy McCain
Cindy McCain wants you to cook with her. As it turns out, though, “Cindy’s Family Recipes,” are apparently, not so homegrown.
The New York Times and The Huffington Post reported that several of the hopeful First Lady’s ‘family’ recipes were in fact lifted word for word from The Food Network Web site.
Campaign officials were quick to blame the interns for being lazy, Rachael Ray chimed in suggesting that her recipes were meant to be “accessible to anyone” and McCain decided that she preferred “lemon chicken and beef stew” after all.
What this bit of news left me wondering about is, what makes an ‘original’ in today’s blogging, twittering, texting and emailing world? Certainly, calling something a family recipe creates the presumption that it’s not in Giada Di Laurentiis’ ammo, but times have changed, no?
My mother used to write down all of her recipes in a leather-bound, yellow-paged notebook that has seen better days. I remember penning my own “apple cake” recipe. Today, I can take a snapshot of that recipe and throw it into my Evernote. Or, I can post the contents of the book into my own personal blog. The amount of information out there seems to be boundless and originality is harder to come by.
How many rosemary chicken breast or chicken noodle soup recipes are truly ‘unique’? Perhaps my mother had one written into her recipe book, which was passed down to her from my grandmother and previously created by her mother.
While I may consider it to be my family recipe, another girl in another town may consider it to be hers. The same was probably true 50 years ago, only today, we know about it thanks to Google, FoodBlogSearch.com, Facebook and the like.
Cindy McCain and plagiarism aside, in my opinion, the Internet has taken a very personal and time-honored tradition into a globally-shared social activity. With cooking social networks, baking blogs and online video demos, the Web has managed to transform a second shift job into a technology-savvy, working professional’s hobby that still manages to honor both its roots and the technology-driven possibilities for its evolution.
How I Learned To Love Twitter, Even A Little Late
I can safely say that no technology I have tested in recent memory has prompted the same blank stares from my family members and friends as Twitter.
“Twitter??? What is this?” was the response from my flatmate, herself an early Facebook user, when I sent her a friendly Twitter invitation.
“You seriously want me to use this?” immediately questioned my younger brother, the acknowledged technophile of our family, when he received his personal invitation to join the “micro-blogging” service.
And to all those skeptical, incredulous stares, I countered: Just give it a chance.
A micro-blogging service that allows users to send ‘tweets’ of up to 140 characters answering the question “what are you doing now”, Twitter is certainly a somewhat befuddling concept and one that takes a little bit of getting used to. Yet as Facebook (my personal social network of choice) becomes increasingly complicated with new privacy controls, groupings, and filters, I am finding the simple, minimalist unfussiness of Twitter and its 140 character limit ever more appealing.
Being an early evangelist of the Twitter is no easy task, however, and while the technology world seems to have for the most part accepted Twitter as the next mode of constant communication, it’s hard to tell whether the service will ever appeal to the masses in the same way as a MySpace, Facebook or even LinkedIn.
There is one thing, however, that Twitter really has going for it in comparison to the competition and that is it’s pure, unabashed simplicity. While blogging takes time, insight and motivation, Twitter allows you to instantly and instinctively react to your world without filtering or developing that thought beyond its immediate form.
Twitter fans tweet about events large and small, from last-minute dinner invitations to election news to their children’s bouts with the common cold, and it is these seemingly insignificant details that give real insight into their lives beyond the public profiles presented on blogs and social networks.
While it may seem odd, useless, or even just plain silly, I will argue that there is something unique about Twitter’s utter lack of frivolity.
Joining the twittosphere may require something of a leap of faith, but as social networking sites become increasingly convoluted, in my opinion it may just be one worth taking.
Resumes Are Sooooo Six Months Ago
A friend of mine recently became a “fan” of Union Square Ventures on Facebook, a New York based tech venture capital firm that has funded the likes of Twitter, Wesabe and Etsy, and home of venture capitalist and blogger, Fred Wilson. I followed the link to their Facebook fan page which then led me to the Union Square Ventures home site.
Much like the lovely redesigned LaunchSquad site, Union Square Ventures puts their blog content front and center — in fact, their blog is the homepage of the site. Something caught my eye: a “We’re Hiring” blog post that asked for potential candidates to put their name, email and link to their web presence, in a blog comment. That’s how you apply.
I found it interesting, and probably increasingly required for tech related jobs, that a web-presence is requested and is basically the only significant and descriptive information in the initial application. Basically, your blog, Facebook page or other online presence IS your resume. Don’t have one? Well you’re probably not right for the job. And if you do have one, it might be time to take those beer-pong-night pictures off the old Facebook photo album.
The more I thought about it, it started to make a lot of sense as a way to whittle down the applicant field. On a blog or social network page a potential employer can easily find some basic pertinent information about someone: Do they write well? Are they analytical? Do they think about things in an interesting way? Are they good networkers? Who have they worked for? I wouldn’t recommend this strategy for, say, a corporate law firm, but for a company that invests in social media and other web-based technologies, it makes perfect sense.
My only criticism of this method, which I think is a big one, is the fact that all applicants are essentially making a public statement, via blog comment, that they are applying for a job. What this means, is that the applicant pool will not include people currently at a job that need to be discreet about their job search — a common occurrence and probably where the best candidates would come from. Who does that leave? People who either don’t care if their job knows (probably not a ton of people and says something about the applicant) and people without jobs. Not sure if that’s necessarily the most fruitful crowd to pull from, but, it seems to have worked for the guys at Union Square Ventures before.
Yes YouTube Can?
Can John Legend and Scarlett Johansson have an effect on Barack Obama’s campaign? How about Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? The Pussycat Dolls?
A lot has been written about whether YouTube will influence the upcoming election; it’s nothing new. But has anyone come up with an answer? Many of these videos are judged on how many people have watched, but as anyone in advertising will tell you: eyeballs are one thing, influence is another.
For example, an Apple “1984″ ad spoof depicting Hillary Clinton as Big Brother got more than 7 million views on YouTube and a huge amount of press, mainly around who the creator was. As information came out about the individual who created the video, the fact that it was one random guy who felt like making a smear ad weakened the influence of the video.
Recently, Will.i.am of the Black Eyed Peas produced a video (embedded above) that included 37 celebrities in support of Obama and was based around a speech he gave in New Hampshire. In just one week since it was made public, it has received 3.5 million views on its home site, Dipdive.com, and more than 7 million views on YouTube — one week, 10 million views. Plenty of eyeballs, let’s move on.
What stood out about this video was that it felt like the first political video that really carried some weight. While talk of young voters influencing elections has been a hot topic the past few presidential races, the reality is that this is the first year we are seeing a serious increase in young voter turnout — the New Hampshire primary showed a 14% increase in voters 18-29 over the 2004 race. The Huffington Post agrees that this year, young voters will be a decisive group.
As a member of this voter demographic, it is pretty clear that while there is significant motivation to vote, for the most part we don’t necessarily dig deep into the issues or policies of each candidate… And let’s be honest, they don’t differ that much. On the democratic side, more of the talk is about who would be best to beat the opposition in the general election. Whose character would most likely get ripped to shreds? The fact is, many decisions are being made and answers are being found through non-traditional and non-qualifiable mediums, like YouTube.
So, back to the video. Based on Obama’s “Yes We Can” speech, the video uses one of the most influential groups of people on young people today — celebrities. These aren’t the ones getting pulled over for DUIs or in bitter custody disputes. These are sophisticated, well-respected (and very attractive) celebrities fully endorsing Barack Obama and evoking emotions and memorability that hasn’t been present in other political videos. It doesn’t reek of propaganda and the celebrities come off as passionate and physically invested in the Obama campaign.
I do not intend to endorse a candidate here, but want to point out how the simplicity of the “Yes We Can” video combined with the emotion and passion it evokes succeeds in not only attracting more than 10 million viewers in a week, but more importantly, helps influence a now powerful, and easily influenced, group of voters.
It’s a successful combination of eyeballs and influence. While Obama Girl will make you laugh, “Yes We Can” brings out a whole different set of emotions, Obama supporter or not.
FOHBOH: Chowhound and Yelp Meet The Kitchen’s Back Door
I’ve definitely seen my share of niche social networks. Every time I flip through the NY Times Sunday business section, it seems there’s a new article about social network for some group - Irish Firefighters have a little section of Firefighter Nation and Baby Boomers have probably a dozen choices (although I don’t know a single one that uses anything outside of Facebook or LinkedIn). So, when I learned about FOHBOH (”Front of house, back of house”), a social network for restauranteurs, last week, I was pretty impressed, because the network was behavior-driven, like LinkedIn or Facebook, rather than demographic-driven, like some of the new boomer social networks or social networks for children.
This past Saturday night, an old friend asked me, “There are so many new social networks out there; how do you gauge which ones are going to survive?” I think that the ones that are purpose-driven are the ones that are going to make it, long-term. For example, when I want to learn more about a prospective client, I usually turn to LinkedIn. When I want to figure out which PR or social media industry events I should attend, I check out Facebook or Upcoming. Those are purpose-driven visits. (So, advertisers trying to reach me in that way should rely on behavioral targeting.)
I’ve worked in restaurants through much of high school and college; when you’re 18 or 20 years old, making $15 an hour, in cash, is a pretty appetizing proposition. Through working at the Peninsula Creamery Fountain and Grill (still totally awesome) in Palo Alto and the now-defunct Ovens of Brittany in Madison, Wisconsin, I learned how to wait tables, bartend and do some food preparation. And I definitely met some really interesting characters. That’s a little bit of what I see on FOHBOH; it’s a place for restaurant owners, servers, sommeliers, vendors and wine reps to come together, and have really frank conversations. And the place is just vibrant; although it only has a little over 2000 members right now, typically 15 to 50 people are logged in at any one time, and the conversational level is pretty high - when one member solicits feedback on their blog, people respond.
Besides the obvious purpose-driven social networking and business-networking opportunities, FOHBOH reminds me of a very insider version of Zagat’s or Yelp. When you go into a MySpace Group and “eavesdrop” on the conversation, you frequently feel like you’re sitting in the quad of a high school or college campus; when you “eavesdrop” on FOHBOH, you feel you’re sitting at the bar in a restaurant that closed an hour ago, having a beer with the manager. And that’s the kind of totally candid feedback that I want, as a consumer, when I’m trying to get the lead on whether a restaurant is the real deal, or when I have a serious food question.
Jeremy at LaunchSquad turned me on to Anthony Bourdain’s Kitchen Confidential; that was the book for the kitchen’s back door. Now, I feel like I’ve discovered where those conversations happen in real time.
Geni: Family Trees Made Fairly Easy
Normally I turn down invites from new social networks; Bebo? No thanks. LinkedIn? I’m starting to use it less and less. Bandmix? Man, if I could get my ten bucks back, I would. What a stinker that one was.
So, when my wife’s Uncle DeeDee created a profile for me on the genealogy website Geni, I was a little sketched out. Geni is a social network of sorts; it’s a place where families can go and make up their family trees. Since the family tree was already made up (and I was neatly placed in the middle of 463 members), I figured I should do my part and update it. I was really surprised at how simple it was - it took under 10 minutes to update it, and, I’ve got to say, it was a cinch. And it looks pretty good.
Yes, you read that right. It’s not all that tough. In fact, I think it’s the closest my fifty-something mom and fifty-something uncle have come to social networking. My mom has spent at least three or four hours on the site, making trees, updating profiles, and inviting relatives. I noticed that a great-uncle of mine was missing, so I added him to the tree in about 15 seconds.
That’s the thing with Geni:it all starts with one person. My uncle DeeDee invited my wife, who, in turn, invited my mom and I. Two months and 463 relatives later, and this is starting to look pretty cool, and pretty coherent.
My mom has always had a yen for genealogy - one of her cousins wrote a incredibly thorough book about 22 years ago tracing our ancestry back to a small Russian village in the 1880s. I think it’s pretty cool that this site gives her the ability to put it all in a coherent format (and one that’s easy to email or print out for non computer-savvy folks).
Cool features include the Family Birthdays feature (it sort of looks like the Facebook birthdays feature) and the privacy feature, which, in some senses, mimics the privacy settings of more sophisticated social networks, in that it allows “layers” of privacy. For example, you can make it so the public, searching the Geni site, can see your name and location, but not your photo. It even has a “hide age” feature.
The key (obvious) disadvantage of Geni is that the deceased cannot update their own profiles, and even though Geni seems to be based around the family tree, once you drill down, it all comes down to the profile. There’s also a slightly disconcerting feature that allows any family member to update any feature of the deceased’s profile (i.e. favorite food, quotes, etc.). While it may be plausible to update a deceased ancestor’s occupation or upload a photo, it seems a bit strange to me that you could, say, denote that your Uncle Schmuel’s favorite food was gribines.
The single biggest concern about Geni is the business model. Although over 10 million profiles exist on the site, the company is not earning revenue at present. About a year ago, they alluded to charging for a premium service. Whatever happens, I hope the data stays put, because my mom will be really ticked off if somebody futzes with her family tree.
