Sep 29 2007

Now is Mobile

Posted by: Ike Pigott in FutureTalk, Ike

The sun is shining, the breeze is brisk, and it’s a good day to be outdoors.

Say what you will about the mobile revolution — and come down anywhere you like about the state of the mobile web in the United States. (Yes, we’re behind. Nations with less invested in fixed wiring leapfrogged, and rightly so.) The real benefit of Mobile Computing with regards to Social Networking is not the shifting of space, but of time.

I write this not from my PC, but from a Blackberry on a mobile browser. It’s a beautiful fall day, and I’m able to bang out a sentence or two in between watching the kids on the playground. I can share my thoughts closer to the time I actually have them. Who knows how many really great ideas evaporated before they were adequately transcribed?

The Mobile Web gives users the freedom to be inspired where the inspirations should emerge - closer to where we live and recreate, instead of where we toil and work.

Raw thoughts can be just that — raw. But I can take it. I’m in a good mood. And I think I’ll move over there to the shade…

This entry was posted on Saturday, September 29th, 2007 at 3:08 pm and is filed under FutureTalk, Ike. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “Now is Mobile”

1. Troy Wason says:
   October 9th, 2007 at 2:01 am

   I believe that you have captured the essence of the mobile web. If social media is about two-way conversations, we may want to pause and think about our ongoing personal approach to life and the unrelenting quest for continuous learning and the ways and tools for expressing ourselves. I have often carried pen and paper to capture the moment of creativity and inspiration … the advent of mobile web is about expressing the internal in the external moment of the present. The recent purchase of an iPod Touch (no iPhones in Canada at the present) has revealed glimpses of what the future holds. I look forward to more of your insights as the future of mobile web becomes the present.

Sep 25 2007

Web To Point, Oh?

Posted by: Ike Pigott in FutureTalk, Ike

From this week’s mailbag:

Dear Ike -

I’ve heard a lot about this ‘Web 2.0′ stuff, and it has me worried. I just figured out how to do my e-mail and the internet, and I’m really not in a position to pay for an upgrade. What is ‘Web 2.0,’ and how much more will it cost me?

Agnes D., Las Cruces, NM

Dear Agnes -

Fear not! ‘Web 2.0′ is not a commodity to be purchased by end-users such as yourself. It’s a series of technologies and structures that companies pay for! You just get to enjoy it!

Dear Ike -

I work in the PR department of a Fortune 1214 company (can’t tell you which one, for reasons of confidentiality), and am the liaison to the corporate IT department. I read your letter to Agnes from New Mexico, and I’m worried that we’ll get stuck with needing to implement these newfangled Web 2.0 interfaces. Yet IT has the budget authority. Help!

Steven J., NYC

Dear Steven,

You’re in luck. You might be confusing ‘Web 2.0′ with ‘PR 2.0′. Web-2 refers to websites that are more interactive and responsive to the end user. They employ a lot of nifty programming tricks that do cool things like auto-fill fields with suggestions, push information before you request it, and allow for greater freedom for user customization. PR-2 is a fancy way for describing what I call the Consolidation of Channels.

In the past, companies would communicate with the public using one medium, and the clients/customers/serfs would communicate back through another. Examples:

1567 - King sends town criers to announce a new tax | Peasants respond with torches and pitchforks
1977 - Candidate sponsors a rally | Voter sends a letter of support.
1987 - Company places an ad on television | Angry customer faxes letter.
1997 - Company sends mailer to home address | Customer e-mails displeasure.
2007 - Ad placed on website | Fan creates mashup of ad, links back to original.

As you can see, communication between companies and people has always been two-way - but not always in the same channel. Now we’ve got the tools to talk to our customers in a more friendly, less intrusive format. And they have the ability to inexpensively talk back to us within that same instrument.

The good news for you is you don’t have to have Web 2.0 to employ PR 2.0, and you don’t need IT’s blessing. The bad news is you need buy-in from the guys in the C-Suite.

Ike - thanks for nothing. How in the heck am I supposed to get buy-in from the suits?

Fake Steven J. - NYC

Fascinating question, Fake Steve. I’ll take that up in next week’s column.

And if you have a question…

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 25th, 2007 at 7:38 am and is filed under FutureTalk, Ike. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “Web To Point, Oh?”

1. Susan says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 9:27 am

   Absolutely fabulous!!!! May I link to this to help with the internal education of Web 2.0 via my internal business blog?

2. Custom Scoop's PR Blog Jots says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 1:10 pm

   PR FunJots (a PR Blog Jots Special Edition)…

   I nevertheless offer a reader mailbag from Ike Pigott over at Now is Gone. Ike addresses Web 2.0 questions from consumers, IT department workers, and even Fake-Fake Steve Jobs! He points out the difference between Web 2.0 and PR 2.0, with references to…

3. Ike Pigott says:
   September 25th, 2007 at 6:44 pm

   Susan - steal away. The blog is free - the book will cost you…

4. Communication Overtones says:
   September 26th, 2007 at 4:42 pm

   Clueless in Cyberspace, 2.0…

   In his landmark post, Web Two Point, Oh? he explains the difference between Web 2.0 and PR 2.0, which is a term, as Todd Defren knows, that I hate with a passion.

   Here is a small excerpt:…

Sep 18 2007

Men Without Hats

Posted by: Ike Pigott in Ike, Trends

“We can blog if we want to,
we can leave your friends behind…”

Markets are Conversations. We’ve heard it so often, we take it for granted. And it may well yet stand the test of time as a metaphor that defines our future. But there is another powerful idea in the offing: You are your brand.

In essence, the second is just a logical postulate of the first. If a “market” is really a “conversation,” then there must be real people (with real faces and real voices) taking part. I’m okay with that so far.

“’cause your friends don’t blog and if they don’t blog
Well they’re no friends of mine”

To be a part of the conversation, you have to have a voice. “Blogs” used to be the atom of online conversation, and commenting was the proof. In fact, to this day I still have many coworkers and others that I respect who continue to be hung up on the definition of a “blog” including commenting. “If it doesn’t have comments, it’s just a website.” Never mind that many of the pioneers of modern online communications don’t allow comments. (Seth?)

“I say, we can write what we want to
A place where they will never find
And we can act like we come from out of this world
Leave the real one far behind”

If the Conversation is now the essential element, then those who are duplicitous in their conversations are going to freeze themselves out of the Marketplace. How can you trust someone who says one thing here and another thing there? Unlike the world of the fractured song-lyric above, there is “no place where they will never find.” Hello, John Mackey?

“Say, we can act if want to
If we don’t nobody will
And you can act real rude and totally removed
And I can act like an imbecile”

Yes, you can act like an imbecile or even worse. But remember, you are participating in a Conversation, and as such, you have a face. Or at the very least, a facade. With the interlinking and intermingling of social networks, it is even permissible to be a little more sarcastic on one than on another, as we expect each to bring out a different aspect of our personalities. At the end of the day, though - you still need to be accountable for what you say. The script is flipped, and you don’t just own what you write. What you write can own you.

“We can write if we want to
We’ve got all your posts and mine
As long as we abuse it, never gonna lose it
Everything’ll work out right”

…and that’s where the song fades out. It won’t work out right.

Some within the Blogoverse now see Jonah Bloom - the Executive Director of Ad Age - in competition with himself. Jonah wrote a blog posting under the Ad Age banner quite critical of Joseph Jaffe, whose already catching enough grief watching his crayon melt. This isn’t so much a problem for Bloom as it is for Ad Age. All of the tenets of Social Media and New Marketing lead back to the individual owning up to his/her words - yet there remains the expectation that “the corporation” has a “corporate identity” and a “corporate voice”, and the law even recognizes “the corporation” as a legal entity, just like an individual.

I know of what I speak first-hand. I used to blog in a more critical way about how other people, agencies, and businesses handled their crisis communications statements. Now that my name is more closely aligned with my present employer, I chose to pick a different direction so as to avoid confusion. I wasn’t asked to do so - not once. But I did it, because I understand human nature.

Human nature sees people with faces, and doesn’t get fooled so much by what’s on top of our heads. In the world we’re just now entering, there’s so much more riding on our personal reputation because it is all so eminently searchable. If the Market is truly a Conversation, then we’re still doing business one-to-one.

And even if there is no direct eye-contact, rest assured that we’re not paying as much attention to “which hat” you were wearing when you started dropping e-bombs on someone else. In the next frontier of marketing - we are all Men Without Hats.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 18th, 2007 at 8:49 am and is filed under Ike, Trends. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

7 Responses to “Men Without Hats”

1. Sarah Wurrey says:
   September 18th, 2007 at 10:04 am

   This discussion, along with the one sparked by the Jaffe post on Student PR, has definitely left me feeling more cautious about calling anyone out. I don’t believe I’ve ever been overly critical, but I probably have spoken out of turn about things above my head. Moving forward, I’m determined to continue speaking my mind, but will also definitely be as careful as possible; it’s easy to forget about our own personal brands before hitting the “submit” button!

   Great post, Ike, particularly love the Safety Dance!

2. Kami Huyse says:
   September 18th, 2007 at 10:24 am

   Play nice Ike. I think that you make a good point here. Thinking beyond linkbait and the here-and-now is essential. Unfortunately, in the blogging world there is a lot of “me too” criticism.

   And as an aside, the song you chose for this piece makes me feel old.

3. Ike Pigott says:
   September 18th, 2007 at 10:52 am

   Now, how exactly was I *not* nice?

   I’m not calling Bloom unethical - just maybe a little unaware of the fact that many don’t care which hat he wears when he writes a piece.

   I thought I was being fairly neutral in my perspective here. Maybe even too neutral.

   Or are you just mad that the song is stuck in your head, and you feel old

4. Susan says:
   September 18th, 2007 at 1:39 pm

   Fabulous post Ike! How I love that song and how I love the creativity of this blog - intertwining the two to make a point. That is not easy.

   What I really like about this post is how it continues the cry to be aware of more than the “here and now”. I’ve seen plenty of discussions on forums and in the media about how what is considered “fun” (pictures of yourself at a party - age 21) or a “landmark speech/post” (read, opinion), comes back to burn you later. All one has to do is look at the 2008 presidential race - anything and everything the candidates have done or said, while in a different place in their lives with different constituencies, is being spun back around to keep them on the defensive.

   While we have the right to disagree and express our own opinions, it’s quite eery how the Internet, which liberates us, also makes us our own prisoners.

5. geoliv says:
   September 18th, 2007 at 2:34 pm

   I’ve had to learn this lesson the hard way, and do try to edit my comments more int depth. And I do see Jonah’s post coloring the publication masthead.

   What it does point is something that Lee Hopkins mentioned in regards to Bloom’s article. The need for civility. Regardless of the politics in the situation, crayonistas past and present have done well not throw public mud at each other. I find the civility and gentlemanly behavior to admirable. Again, demonstrating social media leadership apart as well as together.

   It’s a great post, Ike!

6. Eric Eggertson says:
   September 21st, 2007 at 1:51 am

   Since acting like a jerk tends to attract attention and traffic, there are forces pushing people to be more confrontational than they might otherwise be. Competition for eyeballs and ad clicks makes online publishing ventures willing to push the boundaries of civility.

   I like your point about treating people well online. I’ve been part of a blogstorm before, and it can be pretty nasty for the person on the receiving end.

7. linsa p says:
   January 6th, 2008 at 9:58 pm

   i loved the men without song safety dance, it kept me very happy when it was abusive with my ex husband. hello men without hats. linda

Sep 11 2007

Geoff is Gone

Posted by: Ike Pigott in Ike, Trends

Wow, what can I say? I guess “Now is Gone” will have to be a posthumous best-seller.

Geoff Livingston was the tragic victim of a Web 2.0 incident last night. The police haven’t ruled it an accident or intentional, but sometime around 1:30 am he did the unthinkable. He plugged his Tumbler RSS feed into his Jaiku account - then took his Jaiku feed and aggregated it within his Tumblelog. Sadly, Hollywood has warned us about the dangers of such a Lifestream disaster for decades:

Dr. Egon Spengler: There’s something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don’t cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I’m fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, “bad”?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That’s bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

Who knew Social Media could be so deadly?

---

All joking aside - there is a bigger issue lurking out here. As we get more ability and empowerment to “play” with our data, we’re bound to run into some pretty dire consequences. The idea of “nimble data” is crucial to our digital freedom. It allows us to aggregate and mashup in new and creative ways. It also tempts us to try the latest and greatest gizmo, app, or website in an effort to become ever more the master of our digital identities.As time goes on, we’ll see an inevitable rise in the number of services and offerings we can submit to - and the operative word is “submit.” When you “submit” your data, you are literally ceding control over what happens next. Where are the standards for web-development in this regard? Is there a universal off-switch in the monkey-brain of every coder, that prevents Geoff Livingston from dumping his Lifestream into a Moëbius Loop of eternal RSS? Where is the undo button?

The more Web 2.0 playtoys there are, the greater likelihood we’ll have of a bad marriage - two APIs locked in a battle, and your data is the killing field. Don’t say that it can’t happen - that programmers are too polished or professional. First of all, too much of this stuff is Open Source. Don’t get me wrong, I love Open Source apps. I can live with the occasional bug or burp along the way, knowing the community will squash it or squelch it. What I fear is we’ve taken too many of these services for granted.

Seriously - does anyone bother to read the technical specs before signing up? We don’t even read the EULA anymore, and more than half the time don’t read the FAQ.A responsible web service developer would know to check for self-recursion, to prevent an idiot from plugging his Output feed into his aggregator’s Input. But we’re not dealing with ordinary idiots here. I know for a fact that Geoff Livingston uses a lot of services. Once you wash a feed through a Tumblr or a Feedburner or a Yahoo! Pipe, all traces of the origin are gone.

All it takes is a faulty pass with the timestamping, and you’ve got duplicate entries multiplying like rabbit-shaped coat-hangers in the fertility closet. The next internet worm won’t be passed through e-mail - it will be a Web 2.0 service that goes supernova, belching out self-replicating data packets to every other service scraping that feed.I’m not calling for you to shut off your accounts and book the next buggy to Ludditeville, but just be careful when brandishing your brand - or you might end up where Geoff did.

Sep 11 2007

Geoff is Gone

Posted by: Ike Pigott in Ike, Trends

Wow, what can I say? I guess “Now is Gone” will have to be a posthumous best-seller.

Geoff Livingston was the tragic victim of a Web 2.0 incident last night. The police haven’t ruled it an accident or intentional, but sometime around 1:30 am he did the unthinkable. He plugged his Tumbler RSS feed into his Jaiku account - then took his Jaiku feed and aggregated it within his Tumblelog. Sadly, Hollywood has warned us about the dangers of such a Lifestream disaster for decades:

Dr. Egon Spengler: There’s something very important I forgot to tell you.
Dr. Peter Venkman: What?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Don’t cross the streams.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Why?
Dr. Egon Spengler: It would be bad.
Dr. Peter Venkman: I’m fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, “bad”?
Dr. Egon Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Right. That’s bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks, Egon.

Who knew Social Media could be so deadly?

---

All joking aside - there is a bigger issue lurking out here. As we get more ability and empowerment to “play” with our data, we’re bound to run into some pretty dire consequences. The idea of “nimble data” is crucial to our digital freedom. It allows us to aggregate and mashup in new and creative ways. It also tempts us to try the latest and greatest gizmo, app, or website in an effort to become ever more the master of our digital identities.As time goes on, we’ll see an inevitable rise in the number of services and offerings we can submit to - and the operative word is “submit.” When you “submit” your data, you are literally ceding control over what happens next. Where are the standards for web-development in this regard? Is there a universal off-switch in the monkey-brain of every coder, that prevents Geoff Livingston from dumping his Lifestream into a Moëbius Loop of eternal RSS? Where is the undo button?

The more Web 2.0 playtoys there are, the greater likelihood we’ll have of a bad marriage - two APIs locked in a battle, and your data is the killing field. Don’t say that it can’t happen - that programmers are too polished or professional. First of all, too much of this stuff is Open Source. Don’t get me wrong, I love Open Source apps. I can live with the occasional bug or burp along the way, knowing the community will squash it or squelch it. What I fear is we’ve taken too many of these services for granted.

Seriously - does anyone bother to read the technical specs before signing up? We don’t even read the EULA anymore, and more than half the time don’t read the FAQ.A responsible web service developer would know to check for self-recursion, to prevent an idiot from plugging his Output feed into his aggregator’s Input. But we’re not dealing with ordinary idiots here. I know for a fact that Geoff Livingston uses a lot of services. Once you wash a feed through a Tumblr or a Feedburner or a Yahoo! Pipe, all traces of the origin are gone.

All it takes is a faulty pass with the timestamping, and you’ve got duplicate entries multiplying like rabbit-shaped coat-hangers in the fertility closet. The next internet worm won’t be passed through e-mail - it will be a Web 2.0 service that goes supernova, belching out self-replicating data packets to every other service scraping that feed.I’m not calling for you to shut off your accounts and book the next buggy to Ludditeville, but just be careful when brandishing your brand - or you might end up where Geoff did.

Sep 04 2007

Bonsai Chicken

Posted by: Ike Pigott in Ike, Trends

David Armano (of the incredible “Logic + Emotion” blog) offered up this Twitter entry on Labor Day:

“just uploaded a pic of my newly created tree stump on FB. I didn’t want to do it, but the storm got the best of it…”

My response?

“are you using the new Stumpy! Application for Facebook? Or will I be able to view it on DebrisMaster..?“

Sadly, Facebook has become its own parody.

---

The Defining Question

Welcome to the billion dollar question, and it’s the Social Media version of the Chicken and the Egg:

“Does the Application host the Network? Or does the Network host the Application?”

Let me explain, using Facebook as an example. Facebook doesn’t build “community,” it reconnects existing relationships. You can’t “join” the Upton High class of 1989, any more than you can dress up in a Yankee uniform and expect to split time with A-Rod. The advantage is you can quickly hit critical mass and draw the flock to membership. Conversely, the flock can fly the moment another shiny object flashes into view.

I’m not yet impressed by the growth in Facebook membership, because we’re about to lose the shine on the toy. All the new apps and the openness has been fun, but when it comes right down to it your Profile page is a virtual bonsai tree. It’s cute, it’s cool, and it squeezes a lot into a little space - but it takes forever to keep pruning, it’s expensive (on your time), and it is guaranteed to die when you stop feeding it. And that’s exactly what is happening. I quit feeding my page a while back. I’m tired of turning down invites to applications, and I don’t want to take sides in Zombies vs. Vampires. If I’m going to participate in multi-level marketing, I want actual financial compensation and not just a badge for my website.

At one point, I had a Wall, an Advanced Wall, and a Mega Wall - all so various friends of mine could write me virtual graffiti. All I needed was a fourth wall to keep all the invite crap at bay.

Facelift? or About Face?

A year from now, will these same people be playing with Facebook? Or will they abandon the platform with the same gusto that they now shed applications? Can a platform like Facebook with so many disposable elements avoid becoming disposable by association? In five years, what will differentiate it from Classmates.com?

I’ve been a part of a number of online communities. The successful ones are those that add value to the conversation and to the relationships, by virtue of allowing members a chance to do something different. The successful ones evolve and take on a character and syntax of their own. In that regard, they are a microcosm of successful businesses in a service economy. Don’t just sell me a product. Sell me a lifestyle. Sell me membership in an exclusive club. Let me be your customer evangelist.

Facebook’s challenge is in staying relevant to its core. I don’t buy the argument that today’s Sophomores will bail because their parents now have profiles and FB has lost its cool. Rather, all the extraneous “stuff” required to make it the Internet Swiss Army Knife also makes it exceedingly distracting. Kids used to spend an hour or so on Facebook connecting with classmates, sometimes for reasons associated with learning. Now they can spend that amount of time just keeping up with messages they could have gotten sooner elsewhere, turning down applications, or playing Tower Defense.

Trivial Pursuits

Facebook is currently a Network of people supporting a closed platform with an API that is way too open. Build a better ‘Facebook’ with a higher ratio of signal-to-noise, and the world will beat a path to your portal. Otherwise, this could happen to you:

(actual screen capture from Ike’s Facebook page)

Seriously.

Somewhere, in the middle of C.a. Marks‘ installation of “Free Gifts” and Allan Jenkins‘ acquisition of the Interactive Friends Graph, Lee Hopkins found the time to get married. Good on ya, mate!  (Come to think of it, “getting married” is at the intersection of interacting with friends and free gifts…)

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 4th, 2007 at 6:23 am and is filed under Ike, Trends. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

4 Responses to “Bonsai Chicken”

1. Occam’s RazR » Blog Archive » Now Appearing says:
   September 4th, 2007 at 9:20 am

   [...] ever-so-appropriately titled “Bonsai Chicken” is up at Now Is Gone - my take on the whole Facebook [...]

2. geoliv says:
   September 4th, 2007 at 10:05 am

   This post makes a very good point. That a community member must read other community members updates, including their use of applications that may have no value to the original member.

   Social media forms work best when content is created that is interesting to said members. When it is uninteresting, sooner or later it fails. In the end Facebook will need to filter out some of this, or we will become blind to it. In either case we become blind to these applications.

   This means the application creators will find themselves with a deaf ear from their targeted community. In turn, that means failure for businesses that can’t create a super valuable app. that just compels the daylights out of people. Facebook is not the easy answer for companies looking to engage in social media.

3. Allan Jenkins says:
   September 8th, 2007 at 10:13 am

   I must agree that the continuous updating on what widgets people have installed is one of Facebook’s least endearing traits.

   I like FB a lot, however, as most of the invitations I get (online seminars led by friends, new groups of common interest) are of interest. Of course, I have taken care to keep my “friends list” pretty compact — I’ve met most in person or, if only online, I feel “close” enough to them to reasonably believe we would be friends if we met in person (like you, Ike). I routinely turn down requests from people I barely know, but who happen to have me in their addy book.

   In doing so, I find FB to be more valuable than Twitter/Jaiku (where even my friends write trivial BS) and LinkedIn (where no one ever says anything). For now, FB is providing valuable content, if not conversation.

   Unfortunately, it’s leading me to read blogs less, and post on DRC less. The latter may be welcomed by many; but the first is not good for my keeping up with what’s important to me.

4. Now Is Gone » Facebook Marketing Primer says:
   September 10th, 2007 at 5:35 am

   [...] summary from Facebook Frenzy, Kyle Flaherty, and Ike Pigott’s post last week, the application marketplace — stimulated by Facebook’s open API — has [...]

Aug 28 2007

Ode to Stockdale

Posted by: Ike Pigott in Ike, Now Is Gone News

Perhaps the most famous quote in the modern era of presidential debates is:

“There you go again.”

- Ronald Reagan, to Walter Mondale

The most famous quote in the history of vice-presidential debates?

“Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy”

- Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, to Sen. Dan Quayle

Ah - but the most relevant quote in the history of VP yawn-fests is:

“Who am I? Why am I here?”

- Adm. James Stockdale

 

I find myself relating a lot to the Admiral about now, because my “contributing blogger” status at Now is Gone is a bit of a stumper. I didn’t write the book. I just answered a few of Geoff’s questions about a project. I’m also not one of those PR 2.0 stalwarts like Brian Solis. I mean, c’mon - his blog is even named PR 2.0! So… Who am I, and Why am I here?

Six months ago, I wasn’t a blip on Livingston’s radar, not enough of a bug to splatter his windshield as he zoomed by. I provided no buzz for the bin. Then he contacted me about using some of my communications work with the Red Cross as a case study in the implementation of new media platforms. That’s what he called it, anyway. I called it ‘problem solving on the cheap.’

Forgive me for over-reaching on the self-deprecation, but I really am a Nobody. But as we discovered over dinner (Geoff picks up a generous tab), I am a Nobody with some different ideas about the future of all these techno-societal innovations. I’m not schooled in PR - took my first job three-and-a-half years ago, and desperately set out to learn as much as I could about PR from the internet. I didn’t know that I was really learning more about ‘online PR’, or whatever it is we call these things these days. I also didn’t know that I was happily splashing around in a muddy, poorly-defined patch of land that sits at the crossroads of several traditional disciplines.

I’ve been told that my blog, Occam’s RazR, is not a PR blog. (No hard feelings.) I know it is not a Marketing blog, nor a MarCom, and definitely not an Advertising blog. I’m glad it is not - because I don’t think I could handle being rejected for the Ad Age Power 150 on so many simultaneous levels.

No - I am the owner of a Communications blog. I talk about pretty much whatever I want, coming from this mindset: stuffing complex truths in simple packages. Sometimes it is just a brief original statement - sometimes a reflection on the power of analogy - sometimes just a parody. But it is communications, and it is the piece of real estate where everyone is headed. The PR people, the Ad people, and the Marketing gurus are all going toward the same point. Not merging, mind you, because they all have different ways of measuring objectives and success. But the lines are blurring, because they are increasingly using the same tools. Ad people put their spots on YouTube hoping to spur sales, while the PR people do the same thing to pump goodwill or tell a story. Marketing people engage social networks to build brand awareness, while PR people do it to build brand relationships.

It’s fun to play in the mud - but I fear it won’t be fun for long if the different disciplines start getting territorial. Now is Gone - and the Lines are now Gone too. At least they are blurry, and they aren’t coming back. The sooner we identify ourselves as “communicators” first and by our objectives second, the better off we’ll be.

Who am I? I’m Ike Pigott, communicator.

Why am I here? Because I’m just as lost as you are. Now is Gone, and we’d better get on the stick because the first one to Tomorrow gets to make the rules.

Aug 08 2007

As You Were Reading

Posted by: Ike Pigott in Case Studies, Ike

As you were reading before being so rudely interrupted, partial feeds just end up annoying readers. So much so that they quickly become ex-readers.

Let’s look at a case in point. The book “Freakonomics” was a bestseller a couple of years ago, and the authors (Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner) are embarking on a sequel. They readily admit that the sequel was not a slam-dunk until they saw the reaction and readership of the Freakonomics blog. At its peak, the blog had tens of thousands of subscribers - and more importantly, an amazing community of commenters.

A Dramatic Shift

This chart marks the day - August 7th - that the Freakonomics Blog relocated to the New York Times. Its traffic didn’t die, it just got swallowed up into the overall Times site. Moving to the Times was a savvy move, providing a great new base of online readers. However, moving to the Times also meant switching to partial RSS feeds, and ditching many longtime readers.

(I wrote about the move in August, including links to much whining and moaning from Freakonomics fans. I also did a breakdown of another community-altering change that I maintain is a bigger threat.)

Old-School Thinking

The move makes all sorts of business sense for the New York Times. Grab a blog with tens of thousands of subscribers, and pull them in to your site. Only it doesn’t work that way anymore. The point of RSS is freeing the reader to dictate the time and place of consumption of information. Many follow dozens of feeds at once, and can do so with the feeds nicely aggregated and assembled in one place. Make that reader break his stride by switching to another program and entering an address, and you’ve just created an unwelcome disruption.

Simply put - many of the most vocal and most active members of that blog’s community left and didn’t come back. The content was interesting, but not enough to warrant a couple of extra clicks. Let me repeat that: the content was interesting, but not enough to warrant a couple of extra clicks. Such is the nature of online communication. We have the technology to allow for free and unfettered flow of our half of the dialog, and now we want to take a commercial break in the middle?

Compromise Denied

It’s not like the community bailed without a fight. Some would argue the larger sin came days later. Several members of the Freakonomics community suggested that if ads were required by the New York Times - that they be placed in the RSS feed itself. The Times could maintain an ad-free partial RSS feed, and an ad-supported full RSS. The latter was shot down, with no explanation from the wizards behind the curtain. The community wanted to find a way, and instead was turned away.

The New York Times still gets a significant share of traffic. As you can see from the Alexa rankings, the NYT red line didn’t change its trend at all once it absorbed the Freakonomics traffic.

However, if you’ve already got traffic like the New York Times, then partial feeds might be for you.

This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 8th, 2007 at 1:24 am and is filed under Case Studies, Ike. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “As You Were Reading”

1. Now Is Gone » New Blogger Tip #1: Full Feeds says:
   November 13th, 2007 at 1:59 am

   [...] Click here to read the rest of this post. [...]

2. Rob La Gesse says:
   November 13th, 2007 at 8:13 am

   I was one of those whiners that threatened to leave the Freakonomics blog (and I actually did - haven’t been back since the day after the switch). Its a shame - because I enjoyed the blog. But I hate partial feeds that much.

   Of the 600+ blogs in my Reader, none of them are partial feed blogs. There are just too many quality full-feed blogs to choose from - so I see no reason to inconvenience myself. And yes, an extra mouse click and page load is more trouble that I am going to go through to read a post.

3. Todd Defren says:
   November 13th, 2007 at 9:52 am

   Laughed my a$$ off with your partial feed stunt. Great post, sir.

   I clicked through… this time!