Recently in Rants Category
This is exactly the kind of thing that I like to point out any time someone says that Web 2.0 technologies aren't good for anything more than fun. Tom Hadfield, who at 17 sold soccer.net to ESPN for a cool $40 Million, is designing a site that will do more "...than putting up soccer scores."
Tom has been instrumental in founding www.MalariaEngage.org, a site designed to spread awareness of malaria in Africa and raise money to fight and prevent its spread. I'm not going to get into the details of MalariaEngage. Reuters, where I found the article, does a way better job than I would anyway.
The article reminds me of three major things -
- Social Networking Sites are About More Than Just Fun
Facebook and MySpace are primarily, nowadays at least, regarded as "fun." They're a new way to keep in touch, but not always respected as being as innovative in how we keep in touch as they really are. There are also sites liked LinkedIn that allow you to form professional bonds. Hadfield's new project is a very logical step in that progression. We've seen a similar usage shift in other technologies. Look at text messaging - In its earliest incarnation it was very much a "fun" feature that was usually used by kids. Then it expanded to notify people of sports scores and stock quotes. Now the FCC has announced its plan for a nationwide SMS (text message) alert system to let citizens know about things like terrorist threats. It's the same evolution - from fun to professional to public service/safety. Tom Hadfield is helping to do the same for social networking. Big, big ups to Tom, and I hope that MalariaEngage.org is a huge success.
- Stress the Positive
Sometimes, the "positive" may seem to be "business as usual." Like MySpace helping two people get back in touch after years and years. To an employee at MySpace it might seem like it's no big deal, but to skeptics...it's something that could turn their head and make them think "Hey, MySpace actually helped these people do more than share photos of a frat party." So, if social networking sites like MalariaEngage promote their successes and how they're helping it will help remind people that for every Megan Meirs that there are literally millions of people using social networks uneventfully and that there are even social networking sites that help people. As for the latter, why does MariaEngage care about MySpace? Well, if they would...
- Form an Industry Organization
As was stated by Dr. Patrick Moore in our interview with him last month, members of any industry organization are competitors. The reason for the formation of the organization is so that these competitors can band together against common foes (like potentially restrictive legislation) so that they can focus on competing with each other to eventually drive down prices and improve the quality of their products. With a Social Networking/Media organization in place a lobbying firm could handle things in Washington ans watch out for the entire organization so that the individual members can focus on business rather than worrying about how to handle a bill that might shut them down. Heck, I can even take us out of the realm of the serious and into comic book territory. Sometimes the hero and the villain team up against something that would destroy the entire planet. That way, thanks to their team-up, they survive so that they can go about competing against each other.
I'm sorry to sound like a broken record, especially on the last point, but it's true. Do you think that the tobacco industry would wield the power that it does if R.J. Reynolds and Philip Morris lobbied Congress individually? I doubt it.
Ranting aside, I'm really excited to see social networking make the leap leap that text messaging has just started to make. Moving from nice to mainstream to public service is a surefire way to help ensure the longevity of a technology.
Here is the full article about MalariaEngage, at the Reuters.
As a native Washingtonian, I know the value of a good business card exchange. It's almost a ritual here, as well as at most conferences and networking events I attend.
I don't know if I'm behind the times, but after my "conference hell month" I've got about 400 business cards I still need to scan and some to reply to. I should buy a scanner.
However, some of them I'm putting at the bottom of the pile:
-
If you handed me a "moocard," one of those tiny little calling cards sold using your flickr photos, you've immediately gone to to the bottom of the pile. Why? They're not real cards. They're not useful to me. They don't tell me enough about you for me to remember you, and they all look pretty much alike.
-
If you hand me a double-sided, glossy business card with no white space, you lose points. Why? Part of the beauty of business cards, is that with a pen, I can write things on them, like how, when, or where I met you, if we have a mutual friend, or anything else that would make me pick your card out of the stack and possibly do something important. When you have shiny, dark colored cards, I can't write on them. You remove a valuable avenue for making your cards a tool, not just something to gawk at. It may look cool, but it's useless to me as a networking facilitator.
-
Cutesy cards with company-related graphics and logos are ok. Double-sided cards are ok. However, if you must go that far, please, please, please, please have at least one side with some space that I could write on. I cannot stress this enough. When I get home at the end of the day, or even when I make a card exchange (an art in and of itself) I write things down, like the date or event, so I can better mentally sort through who you are, especially at somewhere like SXSW where I came away with 250 cards in 4 days. If you want to be remembered, make it easy. Plus, someone might want to write a note to themselve that they really, really want to do business with you. Make sure there is a place for them to write.
-
It's ok to be creative, but remember that your card is a tool for helping people remember you, and leaves a lasting impression of how "serious" you are. A quick look at my stack reveals that the vast majority of people who would be considered "important" or that I made a point of getting back to first had uncluttered, easy to read cards with ample writing space, communicated the basic information (name, title contact info) and were generally devoid of clutter, gloss, or garish color schemes. If you had these things, they had better be enough to make me remember you.
-
If you're going to be creative, be really, really creative. Check out the SXSW Card Collective for examples of the good, the bad, the ugly, and the creative (in a good way).
FYI, Here's mine:

Robert Scoble's is awesome, and has enough white space to still be useful. Best of both worlds.



Back to tech/politics later. I hear there's an Energy bill around.
Five days ago I posted in reaction to an article at CNN.com about, among other things, using your mobile phone as a modem. I was upset that they didn't mention the potential for data overages or service interruptions. They didn't even advise consulting your carrier before trying it. I felt that the article, while well-meaning, was also a little misleading. Not intentionally, but misleading still.
Skip ahead to today, when I was reading a really neat article about Benjamin Heckendorn. He modifies video games, doing things like taking apart an Atari 2600 and refashioning it into a handheld unit. Although not linked to, Heckendorn's personal site is given in the article. As soon as I finished the article I decided to check out his site. This is a pretty standard procedure for me. If a website is mentioned in an article I'll usually check it out. As soon as I tried to navigate to the site my virus monitoring software went crazy. So crazy, in fact, that when I tried to close the warning window so I could kill the site the warning would repopulate in about...instantly. Luckily, a reboot was all I needed and there was no harm done, except for our IT guy (at the day job, of course) probably thinking I'm a colossal douchebag. What upset me so much is that it never should have happened. I would have to imagine that Reuters has some sort of anti-virus software running. I can't imagine that if the author had visited the site, at least on their work computer, that there wouldn't have been some sort of notification that a virus was detected. It seems pretty clear to me that the author didn't visit the site before including it in their article, and that's terrible. Even if, as the author, you couldn't care less about your readers being overwhelmed by a virus you should at least be visiting the sites you mention to see if they work. Had the author done this, they (or the IT folks at Reuters) would have identified the site as harboring a virus and never have included it in the article.
I could go on and on, but I'd just be saying the same thing over and over with a decrease in coherency and an increase in profanity.
My bottom line is that, barring some sort of disclaimer, when you mention or link to a website your readers are going to assume that it's safe to visit. There's a certain level of trust between an author and a reader and it is an astounding breach of that trust when an author's lack of follow-through endangers the reader.
Here is a link to the article, in which the virus-y site is mentioned. The article, as far as I can tell is safe to view - I've never had any problems with the Retuers site. it was only when I loaded the subject's personal page (mentioned on page 2 of the article) that I had problems.
IF YOU VISIT THE SUBJECT'S PERSONAL SITE, DO SO AT YOUR OWN RISK.
I WOULD ADVISE NOT VISITING IT AT ALL.
When the University of Michigan dedicated its new academic center for athletes in 2006, the building's namesake reinforced expectations for the university's athletes.
"I am very pleased to help provide a top-notch learning environment in a new facility where these student-athletes and others can study and receive academic support," said Stephen Ross, a New York real estate developer and Michigan graduate. "The 'leaders and best' not only refers to the athletes on the sports field, but also to the students in the classroom."
But three former employees of the athletic department's Academic Success Program, now housed in the Stephen M. Ross Academic Center, said that academics often take a back seat to sports.
To achieve that goal, Academic Success Program employees appear to have found an unofficial path through the university, one that isn't written on any Web site or manual, but is evident in statistics, transcripts, interviews with athletes, faculty and in a 2007 audit conducted by the university.
That path has included:
? Encouraging athletes to pursue a bachelor in general studies degree, on the grounds that other majors are too inflexible and will interfere with sports.
? Telling athletes which classes to take, which has resulted in clusters of athletes taking many of the same psychology, Ojibwe - a Native American language - classical civilization and education courses. Many of these choices are "non-traditional" or non-classroom courses, such as independent study, directed readings, practicums or mentoring.
? Recommending athletes take the minimum number of credits required to stay eligible for sports, a practice that runs contrary to the Academic Success Program's stated principles.
? Using athletes' passwords and log-ins to enroll in classes or make changes in schedules, a violation of university policy.
As part of a seven-month investigation into athletics and academics at Michigan, The News spoke with Academic Success Program co-director Shari Acho about these issues, as well as the program's mission, challenges and policies.
Acho said Academic Success Program staff do not direct students to majors or classes.
"No, not at all," said Acho, the program's co-director since 2002. "Each individual student will sit down and decide what their interests are and what works for them, and follow the right channels to do that."
Athletic director Bill Martin, who declined to be interviewed, told a university publication in spring 2005 that he wants academics to be the department's foremost focus.
In speaking with 87 current and former athletes, athletic staff, administrators and faculty on academics and athletics at Michigan, The News encountered cynicism about whether that goal can be met.
"Michigan, or any big-time program, they try to say that, and I think they do believe it," said Steve King, a former Michigan football player who later worked in the Academic Success Program. "But at the same time, too, as long as it doesn't interfere with the ultimate objective, which is to win football games, or to win in their sport."
Daniel Horton, who played basketball at Michigan from 2002 to 2006, was more blunt, laughing at the suggestion that academics came ahead of sports.
"There are consequences immediately if you don't show up for practice," Horton said. "The next day, you have to run or aren't going to play or something like that. There's no immediate consequences for not doing your homework or not studying that night.
"It's a farce for the NCAA to say that academics should come first. It's good in theory. ... But it's not really like that, not just at Michigan, anywhere."
Michael Arrington at TechCrunch has a fantastic rant up about the influx of VC to "blog networks" and the recent (well, 2 years recent) tendency of bloggers to be looking for the VC infusion smoothie or to get in on the big networks.
This comes at a time when people ask me "how do you plan on making money with this thing?" and "where are the ads?" They assume I want to get into an ad network or get someone to invest in my writing looking for a return, they assume that is the way I see a payoff for my efforts.
They're wrong. On the other hand, Michael has it right:
So what's the point of this rant? Well, all this money flowing into the blogosphere is disrupting the complicated and emotional, but also stable way things are done. Bloggers with money and employees and health care programs and boards of directors and shareholders have to play politics with a whole new group of people, splitting them away from what they do best - Fighting the Blog War. Their behavior can become erratic as they have to decide to tone down their writing to get a certain type of sponsor on board, which in turn lets them make payroll. Investors want to see growth, so more and more blogs are launched, but perhaps without the right talent to grow it into a long term business.
In short, I believe the money is being, for the most part, wasted.
If a VC hands you a check, their intention is not to hang around for 20 years while you build a nice lifestyle business for yourself. What they want to see is an exit, preferably a 10x or higher exit, within 3-4 years. But something tells me that few of these networks are going to be able to grow quite as easily as they think and reach those liquidity events. The talent is, increasingly, locked up. Even when new talent is discovered or trained, every niche has serious heavyweights already there with page views and advertising dollars to back them up for a long fight.
I'm just going to print out his post and carry a laminated copy with me to show people next time I get asked "the question" and keep the URL handy to forward and pass around.
His (quite timely) point is that there are things that are worth investing in over the long term, by putting in time to develop relationships, content, style, etc, and then there are the "bubble" investments, where some believe that throwing Other People's Money and advertising around is the solution.
Last week I sat in on a panel where Robert Scoble (correctly) pointed out that he doesn't run ads (except for his book) because the truth is, good content is king. Arrington takes this a step further and explains why he's been shying away from Other People's Money:
What I'd like to see, and even be a part of, is the blogger equivalent to the 1992 U.S. Mens Basketball Dream Team
. That team could take CNET apart in a year, hire the best of the survivors there, and then move on to bigger prey.
Just the thought of being a part of something like that has held us back from raising any outside capital at all. I believe we have the beginning of a team that can play a role in this new Dream Team.
He's so right I can't even begin to get at it. I've been trying to explain it to friends, to family, to people I meet at conferences, and this guy just nails it.
I'd be happy to be the last guy off the bench on that Dream Team, because the content would blow the current "A-List" paid networks out of the water.
Content is king. Bubbles burst.
Well said, Michael.
"The makers of the Constitution conferred the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by all civilized men--the right to be let alone."
Crunchgear has a fawning declaration of love for DFW, where I passed through on my way to and from San Francisco not long ago.
Did he not see the "electricity vending chair" that I posted about?
Airports are generally the responsibility of governments. They maintain highways, too. We talk about an "information economy" but why are there so few on-ramps to the "information superhighway" for travelers? This is something I hope someone in Congress could make a priority...an "earmark" I could live with. Why do we let T-Mobile extort $7 people every time they fly? Shouldn't we want to make our nationwide wi-fi network as ubiquitous as our mobile network? Heck, we have mobile phone "towers" in large buildings, what's wrong with applying the same build-out to public wi-fi? Why hasn't the FCC chimed in, here?
This is especially important since some non-GPS phones (like Apple's hugely popular iPhone) can get location data by finding known wi-fi hotspots and comparing them to a map. This could be a great way for Mobile Phone providers to comply with E911 requirements that the FCC has set for them. Problems with triangulating via towers? Add some increased location functionality through a wi-fi network.
On the other hand, Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA)'s Wireless Customer Bill of Rights that we discussed last week has a section that would keep states from preventing municipal wi-fi.
Maybe that will extend to airports. Meanwhile, I pay my taxes and my fees. Why can't I get some electricity in Dallas?
Also, there is actually a bill calling for a Nationwide Broadband Census which passed the House but is stalled in the Senate. Drew Clark has been a leader on this with his Broadband Census project. I can't wait to hear his talk tomorrow at Politics Online 2008 and should have a good report for you.



