I have no complaints about Typepad: It is simply a matter of wanting a platform over which I have more control and flexibility.
Please join me at www.boydneil.com.
I am seeking your vote for a panel I am proposing for the SXSW conference and festival in Austin, Texas in March 2010. The panel theme is "A Different Documentary: Online Storytelling &Social Change."
If you think the panel should be part of the festival program, give it a thumbs up here.
]]>Roy Greenslade on Greenslade Blog wrote this week on newspapers and magazines charging for their online content. Greenslade's title alone raises the key question: "Paid content is all the rage with US publishers - but where's the proof that anyone will pay?"
I chuckled over the comment from Steven Brill, founder of Journalism Online, in the piece that JO "has helped shift the debate over charging for online news from 'if' to 'when and how'" because beleaguered publishers have moved past the "abstract debate" to agree that paid content is the way ahead." (JO's goal is to help them get there.)
Now there's a shock right? Publishers think the solution to declining print revenues is to charge people for accessing onlne content.
Megan McArdlein The Atlantic online framed the debate marvellously this way "The problem besetting newspapers is not that there are hordes of bloggers giving it away for free . . . Even if every newspaper and magazine in the country entered into a binding cartel agreement not to put more than a smidgen of free content on their websites, newspapers would still be losing money, and closing by the dozens. It's the economics, stupid . . . We're witnessing the death of a business model."
So how exactly is pushing people to pay for online content recognizing, as people like Shirky and McArdle (and dozens of others) have been rightly trying to point out, that the paid online content model which has been tried many times before will not revive the fortunes of "old" media.
]]>I was in the middle of writing about the sites and blogs I use to try to stay current when a colleague pointed out I had been scooped by Chris Jarvis at Fast Company in a post on the top ten sites which encourage conversation about social media and CSR
There are some overlaps between my list and his (Just Means and Taking It Global) but here are a couple more smart websites and blogs tagged in my RSS reader. I also follow a few Twitter 'friends' who direct me to useful CR and sustainability studies and reports.
Here are some of the most valuable . . . to me at least:
Please post a comment if you have others to recommend.
]]>What caught my eye from Amy Mengel's report was this comment:
"But, let’s all remember that bloggers, like Arrington, aren’t journalists. They don’t operate under a professional code of ethics. they don’t report to an editor or publisher who tells them what to write about or what they can or can’t reveal. Many of them are ethical, many of them are former journalists, many of them would have chosen not to publish the documents."
Separate from the facts or otherwise of the particular events (now heading to the courts apparently), the question in my mind is this: When does a blogger who writes for a group-edited blog become de facto a journalist and perhaps subject to the same standards of ethical conduct to which journalists are expected to adhere (to the extent that they do in reality anyway)?
Wikipedia describes Mr. Arrington -- a lawyer -- as a "founder/co-editor" of TechCrunch. Many think of TechCrunch as an online news source. So, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck . . . ?
]]>This past season was a disaster for the club, with managers changing three times during a 38-game season and poor performances on the field by highly paid "stars'. The result is an ignominious demotion to the Coca-Cola Championship from the Barclays Premier League (where such other well-known franchises as Manchester United, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool play).
The owner -- Mike Ashley, who has been problematic, if not a disaster, from the beginning according to most reports -- has been trying to sell the club since at least the last day of the Premiership season. It is now being coached by an interim manager.The players are furious and many of the first string players are asking for transfers. Even Ashley admits he has made a mess of things: “It has been catastrophic for everybody. I’ve lost my money and I’ve made terrible decisions. Now I want to sell it as soon as I can."
I have watched the public relations calamity unfold online on an almost daily basis through news reports from British newspapers and the NUFC's website (which tends to report absolutely zilch about what is going on). The extraordinary thing is that management appears to be saying naught. News reports are based almost exclusively on comments by players or "sources' close to the club.
From what I can tell, management has said nothing to reassure the city of Newcastle nor the club's extraordinarily devoted fans that the coming season in the lower division will be nothing short of a debacle. No reassurances are being given; no sympathy expressed; no plans outlined; no time frames given; no deadlines offered . . . in other words, completely counter to basic crisis communications principles.
Okay, maybe management doesn't see the situation as a crisis. Maybe management's solicitors or investment bankers have said it must say nothing. Maybe it is sending out news updates that no news outlet is picking up. Maybe it has a social network, YouTube channel, blog or Twitter presence which I just haven't been able to find. Or maybe management simply doesn't recognize the damage that is being done to its reputation.
The supporters will be there for the players on the pitch when the dust settles: but when Geordies are called on to support an NUFC management business initiative, when the city is asked for a concession or a tax, or when the club's history is written, who will be there to defend management's interest and its "license to operate" the Geordies' club?
]]>
A cartoon is worth a thousand posts.
]]>Some of the conclusions. . .
While she strains in the book to make parallels beten buding the Obama brand and doing the same thing for a company . . . i am beginningto think it is too much of a stretch. gaging commuinicties in politics is far different from engaging customers with a brand.
Poltical campaigns move people on a level more visceral than the relationship between a consumer and a product.
At a recent speech to Toronto' Tird Tuesday, Bob Pearson, made the comment that people want to share ideas, share knowledge and solve problems: they don't want to talk about you as a company. Politics is about sharing and acting on ideas (when it isn't about naked power
I am not a political scientist, but I have the sense that Democratic party politics is more fertile ground for this kind of grassroots organizing.
The book's an easy read (suffering unfortunatgely from really poor editing), there are
]]>But from time to time a writer posts something that is so to our advantage that it makes the charge worth bearing. So here goes.
Euan Semple, a fine writer and an intelligent, relaxed speaker (I heard him at an IPRA conference in London about three years ago) starts a short post with this almost axiomatic observation on the resistance of some in business (and to a frightful extent many communicators) to social computing:
"On an almost daily basis I am faced with someone asking me to tell them the return on investment of social computing in business or proclaiming that Twitter is all about people telling us what they had for breakfast. These interactions are always delivered in a particular tone -- at best pompous, at worst sneering and condescending."
Read the rest of the post here and be delighted that someone is pointing out what a waste of time - and how counterproductive - such conceit is.
]]>