Why A Blog?

Honestly, I don't know.

Obviously I never really got the hang of posting here regularly -- even when Hil and I were both contributing early last year.

At about the same time as we started this blog, I picked up Twitter. Then, right before Christmas, I started over on Tumblr. Both I have found to be better than blogging here, frankly, and more suited to my -- fast moving (?) -- movements around the Web.

I find it's much easier for me to throw thoughts up on Twitter, and to share interesting things via Tumblr. Thoughts that I would usually have expressed here, in what I used to think of as the forum most appropriate for long-form stuff, fit really well on Tumblr. And they flow much more easily, for me anyway.

I haven't written too many things in as much detail on Tumblr as I have previously on this blog. At the same time, however, I think I approach posts on here as I used to essays in college: with the mindframe that they must be fully-baked, well-researched (history major) and, one would hope, "good." In the absence of deadlines, however, these forces have combined to basically stop me from posting very much at all.

I also think that Twitter and Tumblr, with their community aspects, make posting and sharing both easier and more rewarding. Together, those two platforms allow me to express what I want, even though having a standalone blog is generally regarded as the thought leadership platform. I'm not sure that's the case, and, while I don't entirely agree with him, I keep thinking back to this quote from Twitter's Biz Stone:

I still blog, but I do think blogging will become obsolete as there are more ways of interacting on the Web, with low barriers to entry for people to engage and participate.

So, in long-overdue conclusion, if you want to keep up with me, Tumblr and Twitter are the best places to do it. And I hope you'll read/comment/say hi in any of those places.

Tweeting into Advertising Age

While I've spent the last few years working in PR, I've never gotten much ink myself. Until today! One of my ideas on how to monetize social networking/microblogging/awesome platform Twitter was featured in Advertising Age's Book of Tens.

Appropriately, I submitted the idea via direct message to AdAge's Twitter name.

One of my thoughts on how to monetize Twitter -- and the one AdAge Digital Editor Abbey Klaassen used -- is for the company to collect and interpret data on what users are saying on behalf of brands, political campaigns, whatever.

Smart brands and companies are doing it on their own using Twitter Search, so Twitter might as well take what's publicly available and offer more in-depth, customized and nicely packaged reports. There's also a fantastic opportunity to match up people's sentiments with their interests and all the other data they leave about themselves through their tweets, which for most users number at least in the dozens.

As Twitter goes further mainstream the conversations that occur within and around it will become increasingly important. Therefore, I think demand for a service that not only captures but sifts through and analyzes that data -- especially in the context of a new product launch, news story or political/social discussion -- will continue to grow. It's not a business model in and of itself, but it's one good revenue stream.

Shoe-Down in Iraq

The shoe-throwing incident. A zany incident to cap off the end of a wild year in politics.

What strikes me most, however, is Bush's first post-dodging remark -- "All I can report is it is a size 10." In which our lame, lame duck president does what he does best, and what got him elected: puts on a folsky face and makes some dissembling, relatively humorous remark before stumbling through some prepared remarks.

I hope it concerns W that someone tried to hit him in the face with a shoe, a grave insult in the Muslim world. I doubt it does. To me it's yet another sign of the tremendous damage he's done to America's reputation abroad.

UPDATE 12/16: This New York Times story, "In Iraqi’s Shoe-Hurling Protest, Arabs Find a Hero" sums it up.

Turning 21

Today my brother is turning 21. It actually doesn't make me feel old -- I'm encouraged that we can go to the bar together now.

While I had my 21st birthday at The Brickyard in Hartford, CT (I'd link but there's nothing to link to -- appropriately) shortly after getting back from a semester in Paris where it was legal for me to drink anyway, he's finishing this semester's classes at dear old Trincoll.edu.

A very happy birthday to the only scientist and body builder in my immediate family.

The Sounds of The New York Times

I'm not sure how long this has been going on, but in the above screen grab from the business section of The New York Times' Web site you can see that almost every single article has a brief audio clip from the author -- journalist or columnist -- summarizing part of their story. Even Ben Stein!

The Times has had these 30 second clips scattered around previously, and apparently they've decided to scale them up. The clips are useful in helping me "skim;" a lot of the articles from today's Sunday Business offer advice to President-elect Obama, so there is some overlap and I want to make sure to get to the Magazine. They also resemble the summary boxes that started appearing in The Wall Street Journal a few months ago.

I like that the clips make the reading experience more intimate by enabling me to hear the voice of the reporter. For some reason I think it offers insight into their thinking and personality, which is why I enjoy speaking with reporters daily as part of my job. Sometimes I'm surprised by their speaking voice when compared to their prose. It's a similar effect to hearing an athlete you like speak and having their voice be totally different than you expect, or hearing the way other people pronounce a book character's name, I suppose.

In any case: beyond enhancing/supplanting the reading experience, what's the point of these clips? Does the Times figure it's better if I listen to a 30 second clip than skip an article all together? Sure, it shows I am engaging with their content and spending some more time on the page, but I'm not sure that does much for advertisers. They definitely can't monetize the individual clip by putting an audio pre-roll on it or something. What it does provide is one more data point on which articles people skip, listen to the clip and/or read.

Perhaps more importantly, these clips definitely build brand for individual reporters, which is good not only for their ongoing credibility but also to keep people coming back to the Times. It's my guess that this is the thinking driving the proliferation of the clips.

As an interesting corollary to the journalist-as-brand, Henry Blodget at Silicon Alley Insider has argued that the 80/20 rule applies to Times reporters: "We'd like to make a little side bet with Bill [Keller, executive editor]: 20% of the newsroom produces 80% of the content that NYT readers read." Following this logic one could, er, streamline the newsroom quite significantly without, in theory, sacrificing too much quality for the majority of readers. I don't agree, given the "diversity of opinion" and "there's a ton of stuff to cover" aspects.

Then again, here's Henry's latest look at bleak financial state of the paper. He is, in my opinion, nearly single-handedly raising the alarm about NYT Co.'s fiscal position. Janet Robinson will have to address this for shareholders and, more importantly, for those who care about the Times as an independent (read: not owned by News Corp.) and vibrant part of society. Cost-cutting via staff retrenchment seems inevitable.

Your turn: do you find companion audio clips useful? Would you listen to them in lieu of reading an article? Let me know in the comments.