The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy shared my quantum dots story with its Twitter followers today. I thought I should catch that tweet and put it on the blog before it faded away into Twitter oblivion. Like catching a firefly in a jar.
Whether or not I, as an ethical journalist, should relish this occurrence, is beside the point.
In other news, Rolling Stone just changed the world.
Showing posts with label Content. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Content. Show all posts
6.22.2010
5.02.2010
Crisp Commentary
I'm beginning to accept that the web-based argument between those that say journalists should leave science communication to scientists, and those, myself included, who think that's one of the worst ideas ever, is just one of those eternal conflicts like Democrats v. Republicans and Yankees v. Red Sox.
As a scientifically-minded journalist-in-training, I find this to be a relief. For the past few months, the debate has caused an annoying level of cognitive dissonance, which is finally subsiding.
Now, I'm not saying (some of) the relentless tweeting and blogging back and forth on this topic doesn't continue to add value to the scene. Why else would I be writing this post? Communication is the lifeblood of any relationship, and the dialogue between scientists and journalists is extremely important to truth-telling.
Often the crowd reaction to these science-communication-flavored web transmissions ends up being just as meaningful as the original post, and many times the comment thread is where the best content hides.
Take, for example, this post by Sophia Collins. It's well-constructed analysis the question that won't die: Should we replace science writers with scientists writing about their area of of research and expertise? It concludes that there are many ways to communicate scientific concepts, and the more diverse the communication ecosystem the better. There are niches that need filling from both scientist-writers AND science writers.
That's my view too, provided no one is misrepresenting, which is why I thought this comment from Ed Gerstner, a Senior Editor at Nature Physics, was poignant:
Thoughts?
As a scientifically-minded journalist-in-training, I find this to be a relief. For the past few months, the debate has caused an annoying level of cognitive dissonance, which is finally subsiding.
Now, I'm not saying (some of) the relentless tweeting and blogging back and forth on this topic doesn't continue to add value to the scene. Why else would I be writing this post? Communication is the lifeblood of any relationship, and the dialogue between scientists and journalists is extremely important to truth-telling.
Often the crowd reaction to these science-communication-flavored web transmissions ends up being just as meaningful as the original post, and many times the comment thread is where the best content hides.
Take, for example, this post by Sophia Collins. It's well-constructed analysis the question that won't die: Should we replace science writers with scientists writing about their area of of research and expertise? It concludes that there are many ways to communicate scientific concepts, and the more diverse the communication ecosystem the better. There are niches that need filling from both scientist-writers AND science writers.
That's my view too, provided no one is misrepresenting, which is why I thought this comment from Ed Gerstner, a Senior Editor at Nature Physics, was poignant:
The big problem I have with the idea of doing away with journalists is the inherent conflict of interest in scientists writing about own work. This is an immense problem with the increasing prevalence of churnalism on the web. Actually, it's not really churnalism, but pure PR. That is, an increasing number of science stories I see on the web are not stories (in the journalistic sense) but university press releases.
And if you want to see misrepresentation of the worst kind, you could barely find worse than that of scientists writing about their work for a popular audience.
Yes, science news is more difficult to get to grips with than, say, entertainment news. But I utterly disagree that it's that much more difficult than say, financial news. Or legal news.
Should we do away with financial journalists as well, so that bankers can put a clearer case for banking reform? Or legal journalists so that litigators can put a clearer case for, say, libel reform?
Thoughts?
4.25.2010
WTF is content?
If you are like me, you are really damn tired of using the word content, but are resigned because there is no synonym.
But do you really know what it is? Let the famed Jeff Jarvis fill you in: Online, content is almost everything and almost everything is content.
But do you really know what it is? Let the famed Jeff Jarvis fill you in: Online, content is almost everything and almost everything is content.
When we email a link to a friend, that act creates content. When we comment on content, we create content. When we mention a movie in Twitter — that’s just useless chatter, right? — our tweets add up to valuable content: a predictor of movie box office that’s 97.3% accurate. When we take a picture and load it up to Flickr — 4 billion times — that’s content. When we say something about those photos — tagging them or captioning them or saying where they were taken — that’s content. When we do these things on Facebook, which can see our social graph, that creates a meta layer that adds more value to our content. On Foursquare, our actions become content (the fact that this bar is more popular than that bar is information worth having). When we file a health complaint about a restaurant, that’s content. Our movements on highways, tracked through our cellphones, creates content: traffic reports. Our search queries are content (that awareness — that new ability to listen to the public’s questions — led Demand Media to a big business).
3.08.2010
Data Viz
As this really smart Economist piece points out, we suddenly live in a vast universe of data, but most of it is just piling up because we don't yet know how to "extract wisdom" from it.
Well, in my experience, wisdom often comes from visualization, which is why I think data visualization is an essential piece of the new media DNA. A big part of the future of journalism, says Jay Rosen, is explanation. Context! Data visualization is pure explanation, pure context, instant wisdom.
Here's a perfect example. One of the major narratives designed to undermine renewable energies is is that they only exist because of a huge amount of federal financial assistance. That is true, but it's leaving out a big piece of the story. If a reporter relies only on that narrative he or she is doing a disservice to the reader. A story about subsidies for renewables is not giving the reader enough context if it does not mention that fossil fuels get much MORE federal assistance. And this handy little pie chart can make us instantly wise to the fact!
(source: Environmental Law Institute)
What is the future of data visualization as web journalism content? What was that thing that Buzz Lightyear said?
No, really though, projections are always tough. But I think it's a safe bet that data viz is gonna sell. Swing over to Katie Peek's blog, and I'm sure she can fill you in better than I can.
Well, in my experience, wisdom often comes from visualization, which is why I think data visualization is an essential piece of the new media DNA. A big part of the future of journalism, says Jay Rosen, is explanation. Context! Data visualization is pure explanation, pure context, instant wisdom.
Here's a perfect example. One of the major narratives designed to undermine renewable energies is is that they only exist because of a huge amount of federal financial assistance. That is true, but it's leaving out a big piece of the story. If a reporter relies only on that narrative he or she is doing a disservice to the reader. A story about subsidies for renewables is not giving the reader enough context if it does not mention that fossil fuels get much MORE federal assistance. And this handy little pie chart can make us instantly wise to the fact!
(source: Environmental Law Institute)
What is the future of data visualization as web journalism content? What was that thing that Buzz Lightyear said?
No, really though, projections are always tough. But I think it's a safe bet that data viz is gonna sell. Swing over to Katie Peek's blog, and I'm sure she can fill you in better than I can.
3.07.2010
Ars Technica: Don't block our ads!
Ars Technica is a well-above-average science information website. Their content is varied, reliable, aesthetically pleasing, and obviously passionate -- creating the environment for the emergence and evolution, over the past 12 years, of a vibrant community of Ars Technica followers. The image that comes to my mind is a bacterial colony radiating from central point in a petri dish.
But the sad irony is that the type of communities that tend to form around sites like Ars Technica also tend to have a lot of individuals who use a browser tool to block ads. By blocking ads you are killing your favorite websites, says Ars editor-in-chief Ken Fisher in this recent post.
This graf goes a long way to clarify the challenges web publishers face in today's advertising market. In short: TV and internet ads are apples and asparagus.
Did you know that? Now you know...
But the sad irony is that the type of communities that tend to form around sites like Ars Technica also tend to have a lot of individuals who use a browser tool to block ads. By blocking ads you are killing your favorite websites, says Ars editor-in-chief Ken Fisher in this recent post.
This graf goes a long way to clarify the challenges web publishers face in today's advertising market. In short: TV and internet ads are apples and asparagus.
Invariably someone always pops into a discussion like this and brings up some analogy with television advertising, radio, or somesuch. It is not in any way the same; advertisers in those mediums are paying for potential to reach audiences, and not for results. They have complex models which tell them if X number are watching, Y will likely see the ad (and it even varies by ad position, show type, etc!). But they really have no true idea who sees what ad, and that's why it's a medium based on potential and not provable results. On the Internet everything is 100% trackable and is billed and sold as such. Comparing a website to TiVo is comparing apples to asparagus. And anyway, my point still stands: if you like this site you shouldn't block ads. Invariably someone else will pop in and tell me that it's not their fault that our business model sucks. My response is simple: you either care about the site's well-being, or you don't. As for our business model sucking, we've been here for 12 years, online-only. Not many sites can say that.
Did you know that? Now you know...
3.05.2010
Blah Blah Blah Bloom Box
Here's the first piece of content I'm going to talk about.
Throughout this piece, there is a casual implication that the fuel cell is a new invention, which couldn't be further from the truth.
The segment with Michael Kanellos of Greentechmedia.com was by far the most informative part, especially when he said fuel cells were "like the divas of industrial equipment" that engineers have been trying to make work since the 1830s. His skepticism of the dazzling new box was refreshing.
Still, I would guess the takeaway for the typical viewer is that Bloom Energy CEO K.R. Sridar is a genius -- a mad scientist whose knowledge is other-worldy, and inherently inaccessible to the feeble minds of nonscientists. And this is sad, because even though energy production is incredibly expensive, is actually a fairly simple concept, thanks to the wonderful Law of Conservation of Energy.
The real question, which the piece fails to answer (I'm not sure the producers even knew to ask it) is simple: How is Bloom's fuel cell different from existing models? One of the things that has kept fuel cell divas prohibitively expensive is that researchers have only been able to get them to work by using expensive catalysts (the material that drives the energy-producing chemical reaction inside the cell), usually platinum.
Did Sridar's group find a new, cheaper catalyst? Cause that would be a big deal. But all we are told is that he uses beach sand for something, paints the disks green and black (WHY?), and that, instead of platinum, Bloom uses a "cheap metal alloy." There are lots of "cheap metal alloys." And what is meant by cheap?
Another important idea that gets minimal explanation in this peice is that distributed energy is ideal. Placing energy sources in the vicinity of the facilities they power would be a significant improvement over transporting coal from a mine to a coal-fired power plant, burning it, and then transmitting the electricity it through power lines. All of that takes energy -- the very thing we are trying to save. If something like the Bloom Box proves it can work (for a long time!), and can compete with solar, wind, and fossil fuels at the energy marketplace, it could solve some real problems.
But I'm not convinced that will happen. In fact, the only thing this video convinced me is that 60 Minutes doesn't mind airing infomercials. And the urgency of the global energy dilemma doesn't leave us much time for those.
Throughout this piece, there is a casual implication that the fuel cell is a new invention, which couldn't be further from the truth.
The segment with Michael Kanellos of Greentechmedia.com was by far the most informative part, especially when he said fuel cells were "like the divas of industrial equipment" that engineers have been trying to make work since the 1830s. His skepticism of the dazzling new box was refreshing.
Still, I would guess the takeaway for the typical viewer is that Bloom Energy CEO K.R. Sridar is a genius -- a mad scientist whose knowledge is other-worldy, and inherently inaccessible to the feeble minds of nonscientists. And this is sad, because even though energy production is incredibly expensive, is actually a fairly simple concept, thanks to the wonderful Law of Conservation of Energy.
The real question, which the piece fails to answer (I'm not sure the producers even knew to ask it) is simple: How is Bloom's fuel cell different from existing models? One of the things that has kept fuel cell divas prohibitively expensive is that researchers have only been able to get them to work by using expensive catalysts (the material that drives the energy-producing chemical reaction inside the cell), usually platinum.
Did Sridar's group find a new, cheaper catalyst? Cause that would be a big deal. But all we are told is that he uses beach sand for something, paints the disks green and black (WHY?), and that, instead of platinum, Bloom uses a "cheap metal alloy." There are lots of "cheap metal alloys." And what is meant by cheap?
Another important idea that gets minimal explanation in this peice is that distributed energy is ideal. Placing energy sources in the vicinity of the facilities they power would be a significant improvement over transporting coal from a mine to a coal-fired power plant, burning it, and then transmitting the electricity it through power lines. All of that takes energy -- the very thing we are trying to save. If something like the Bloom Box proves it can work (for a long time!), and can compete with solar, wind, and fossil fuels at the energy marketplace, it could solve some real problems.
But I'm not convinced that will happen. In fact, the only thing this video convinced me is that 60 Minutes doesn't mind airing infomercials. And the urgency of the global energy dilemma doesn't leave us much time for those.
3.03.2010
Shift Happens
Carl Zimmer came by to talk to my SHERP class about blogging yesterday. Conversations "about blogging" usually frustrate me, but this one most certainly did not.
"Blogging is software," said the wise science nerdsmith.
This particular blog needs to get moving. I think the tag cloud has made it clear that it's going to be a conversation about content.
As we go along, make your opinions known, please.
"Blogging is software," said the wise science nerdsmith.
This particular blog needs to get moving. I think the tag cloud has made it clear that it's going to be a conversation about content.
As we go along, make your opinions known, please.
2.20.2010
Linkage, Self-promotion
The most valuable feature of online communication is the link. Think of the web as another outer space, and imagine your laptop screen is the porthole through which you view the planets, stars, asteroids, and comets flying by as you propel yourself through the space. Links are units of propellant. Nothing is more valuable than fuel.
Bloggers should use links to back up their novel facts and terms, and to give readers access to more context for the viewpoints they express in their posts. Obviously, links aren't sources in the sense that a human being who gives a reporter new information is a one. But they are still sources because they can provide additional layers of context, and make a blogger accountable.
Give me the links!
Links are social media currency. Hype a good link to 150 pairs of eyeballs and a few of the brains behind those eyeballs will decide to click. Maybe one of them will pass it on to their own network of eyeball pairs. Now the link has a life of it's own. Who knows how far it will travel, how may networks it will infiltrate. Maybe it will (gasp!) go viral.
All that being said, here's a link-rich post I wrote recently for Scienceline.
Bloggers should use links to back up their novel facts and terms, and to give readers access to more context for the viewpoints they express in their posts. Obviously, links aren't sources in the sense that a human being who gives a reporter new information is a one. But they are still sources because they can provide additional layers of context, and make a blogger accountable.
Give me the links!
Links are social media currency. Hype a good link to 150 pairs of eyeballs and a few of the brains behind those eyeballs will decide to click. Maybe one of them will pass it on to their own network of eyeball pairs. Now the link has a life of it's own. Who knows how far it will travel, how may networks it will infiltrate. Maybe it will (gasp!) go viral.
All that being said, here's a link-rich post I wrote recently for Scienceline.
2.18.2010
Q&A With Shea Gunther
I caught up with eco-blogger and entrepreneur Shea Gunther, who currently blogs for Mother Nature Network, and he was generous enough to share his insights on the state of the green blogging ecosystem. He was also gracious enough to give props to good reporting, which I personally found encouraging. Gunther is a proven online-business starter, and professional blogger -- he knows what's up with the green web. Check it.
Q: What drives you as a blogger?
Shea Gunther: I like sharing things that I find. Pretty much for as long as I've consumed media I've been the guy sending off an email to someone saying, "Hey, I thought you might like this." I started blogging before it was called blogging, back in 2001 or 2002. You can actually go to Archive.org and search sheagunther.org and you can still see some of the posts-- random thoughts and links and whatnot. Blogging just suits the way that I'm wired, and the fact that I've been able to find a way to make a living blogging is miraculous. Being a blogger is awesome.
Q: What are you working on right now?
SG: I write for Mother Nature Network, two posts a day, Monday through Friday. And about month ago I started working with a company that's kind of like a green Costco. There will be an online club, and you'll be able to browse through different categories and search, and buy green products, and members will get a 20-40% discount compared to regular retail. I'm writing the social media plan, so it's my job to figure out how we're going to use blogs, Facebook, and how we're going to create relationships with bloggers. It's kind of like building a marketing department.
Q: When did you to become an "eco-entrepreneur"?
SG: The first green company I started was in 2001--I started Renewable Choice Energy, which is now one of the bigger wind credit companies.
Q: What inspired that company?
SG: When I was 21 I started a dot-com at the end of the bubble, and a buddy and I raised $16 million for a project that was basically like Youtube too early. That was at the end of the 90s. After two years of working on that, a couple friends and I moved to Colorado. We knew we wanted to start something, but we weren't quite sure what. So we spent 9 months thinking about that, and we came up with this idea for a wind credit company. And this was only about 6 months after the whole concept of wind credits came about. The protocol was really new, so we just started the company.
Q: What did you do after that project?
SG: I spent a year working as a freelance graphic designer, and then I started a green design marketing and ad agency. I spent a year doing that, and made about every mistake a person can make running a business, and ended up driving it into the ground. Then I moved back to Maine and co-founded Green Options, which is a green blog network.
Q. What was the original intent of Green Options?
SG: Well, originally I was contacted by David Anderson, the other founder, who had come across a blog post of mine and decided to contact me. He had an idea of building an online application that makes it easy for people to figure out how solar panels would work in their house. You could just punch in their address, and it would tell you things, like, you have this much sunshine, and this is what your rebate would be, and stuff like that--it told people how long it was going to take make a return on their investment. My idea was to build a green blog around it to give it credibility. Originally it wasn't a network, it was just Green options. I just hired all of my friends, all the prominent, top green bloggers, so it wasn't that hard to build a strong stable of writers.
Q: How would you describe the green blogging landscape right now?
SG: Right now it's interesting. Treehugger was always the considered the big green blog. And it spawned so many different blogs that did the same thing -- maybe a little different this way or that. And in that environment, all of these one-man shops and small blogs were able to find a niche and grow. For example, if you look Ecogeek, by Hank Green. He blogs about Greeen Technology, and no one does it better. Or take a look at ecorazzi.com, run by Michael d'Estries, which is green celebrity news. So over the years these types of bloggers have been able to build these really cool, well traveled sites. But in the last year, some of the bigger corporate money has entered the scene--like Hearst media with The Daily Green. The Discovery Channel owns TreeHugger, and now they have Planet Green. And the company that I work for, The Mother Nature Network, they're in an acquiring mood. They bought the web content of Plenty Magazine, which went under. So, in a couple years there's definitely going to be more consolidation, and a lot of these one-man shops are going to be swept up by bigger fish.
Q: Do you think some of these media networks might start featuring some real reporting, to supplement the blogging?
SG: I would hope so. I know if I were going to start a media site right now, real reporting would definitely be part of the mix. There's always going to be blog networks because it's so easy. It takes a lot less time to produce a couple posts per day than it does to do a bunch of in-depth reporting. But real reporting is able to get you above the echo chamber fray.
Q: What drives you as a blogger?
Shea Gunther: I like sharing things that I find. Pretty much for as long as I've consumed media I've been the guy sending off an email to someone saying, "Hey, I thought you might like this." I started blogging before it was called blogging, back in 2001 or 2002. You can actually go to Archive.org and search sheagunther.org and you can still see some of the posts-- random thoughts and links and whatnot. Blogging just suits the way that I'm wired, and the fact that I've been able to find a way to make a living blogging is miraculous. Being a blogger is awesome.
Q: What are you working on right now?
SG: I write for Mother Nature Network, two posts a day, Monday through Friday. And about month ago I started working with a company that's kind of like a green Costco. There will be an online club, and you'll be able to browse through different categories and search, and buy green products, and members will get a 20-40% discount compared to regular retail. I'm writing the social media plan, so it's my job to figure out how we're going to use blogs, Facebook, and how we're going to create relationships with bloggers. It's kind of like building a marketing department.
Q: When did you to become an "eco-entrepreneur"?
SG: The first green company I started was in 2001--I started Renewable Choice Energy, which is now one of the bigger wind credit companies.
Q: What inspired that company?
SG: When I was 21 I started a dot-com at the end of the bubble, and a buddy and I raised $16 million for a project that was basically like Youtube too early. That was at the end of the 90s. After two years of working on that, a couple friends and I moved to Colorado. We knew we wanted to start something, but we weren't quite sure what. So we spent 9 months thinking about that, and we came up with this idea for a wind credit company. And this was only about 6 months after the whole concept of wind credits came about. The protocol was really new, so we just started the company.
Q: What did you do after that project?
SG: I spent a year working as a freelance graphic designer, and then I started a green design marketing and ad agency. I spent a year doing that, and made about every mistake a person can make running a business, and ended up driving it into the ground. Then I moved back to Maine and co-founded Green Options, which is a green blog network.
Q. What was the original intent of Green Options?
SG: Well, originally I was contacted by David Anderson, the other founder, who had come across a blog post of mine and decided to contact me. He had an idea of building an online application that makes it easy for people to figure out how solar panels would work in their house. You could just punch in their address, and it would tell you things, like, you have this much sunshine, and this is what your rebate would be, and stuff like that--it told people how long it was going to take make a return on their investment. My idea was to build a green blog around it to give it credibility. Originally it wasn't a network, it was just Green options. I just hired all of my friends, all the prominent, top green bloggers, so it wasn't that hard to build a strong stable of writers.
Q: How would you describe the green blogging landscape right now?
SG: Right now it's interesting. Treehugger was always the considered the big green blog. And it spawned so many different blogs that did the same thing -- maybe a little different this way or that. And in that environment, all of these one-man shops and small blogs were able to find a niche and grow. For example, if you look Ecogeek, by Hank Green. He blogs about Greeen Technology, and no one does it better. Or take a look at ecorazzi.com, run by Michael d'Estries, which is green celebrity news. So over the years these types of bloggers have been able to build these really cool, well traveled sites. But in the last year, some of the bigger corporate money has entered the scene--like Hearst media with The Daily Green. The Discovery Channel owns TreeHugger, and now they have Planet Green. And the company that I work for, The Mother Nature Network, they're in an acquiring mood. They bought the web content of Plenty Magazine, which went under. So, in a couple years there's definitely going to be more consolidation, and a lot of these one-man shops are going to be swept up by bigger fish.
Q: Do you think some of these media networks might start featuring some real reporting, to supplement the blogging?
SG: I would hope so. I know if I were going to start a media site right now, real reporting would definitely be part of the mix. There's always going to be blog networks because it's so easy. It takes a lot less time to produce a couple posts per day than it does to do a bunch of in-depth reporting. But real reporting is able to get you above the echo chamber fray.
2.12.2010
Fine Lines
So far on this entrepreneurial quest, I've picked up that making money on the internet as a publisher is a tricky enterprise--especially if the project aims to be journalistic.
It didn't used to be so tricky. In the beginning, when advertisers didn't know anything about the internet or its users, they were much more willing to spend money on, say, a display ad. Now, they know how many users click on ads, and they know how long those people stay on the product's site. And they use both of these indicators to determine whether or not advertising on a specific site is worth their while.
Take for example a site like Ecopolitology, which is part of Matt Embrey's LiveOak Network. Say there's a Nissan Leaf ad on the site. I don't know what Nissan's sales strategy is, but it would make sense that they would be targeting readers of a site like Ecopolitology--which focuses on the politics of climate change and clean energy. But Nissan doesn't want to be paying for ads unless people are clicking AND reading about the Leaf, and this puts publishers like Embrey in an awkward situation. Already strapped for cash and somewhat at the mercy of the advertisers, it may not be a smart business decision to run a story that examines the drawbacks of electric cars, especially if it mentions the Leaf. On the other hand, posts examining the environmental benefits of electric cars, or a video that highlights the high-tech features the Leaf, is the kind of content that might inspire more click-throughs.
Obviously, every advertiser offers a different product, and each relationship is different. Some--like, for example, one with an online college, or a Haiti earthquake relief organization--are not so inherently awkward as the Nissan example. But still, the current situation is something wannabe publishers, as well as wannabe multimedia content-makers, should be thinking about.
It didn't used to be so tricky. In the beginning, when advertisers didn't know anything about the internet or its users, they were much more willing to spend money on, say, a display ad. Now, they know how many users click on ads, and they know how long those people stay on the product's site. And they use both of these indicators to determine whether or not advertising on a specific site is worth their while.
Take for example a site like Ecopolitology, which is part of Matt Embrey's LiveOak Network. Say there's a Nissan Leaf ad on the site. I don't know what Nissan's sales strategy is, but it would make sense that they would be targeting readers of a site like Ecopolitology--which focuses on the politics of climate change and clean energy. But Nissan doesn't want to be paying for ads unless people are clicking AND reading about the Leaf, and this puts publishers like Embrey in an awkward situation. Already strapped for cash and somewhat at the mercy of the advertisers, it may not be a smart business decision to run a story that examines the drawbacks of electric cars, especially if it mentions the Leaf. On the other hand, posts examining the environmental benefits of electric cars, or a video that highlights the high-tech features the Leaf, is the kind of content that might inspire more click-throughs.
Obviously, every advertiser offers a different product, and each relationship is different. Some--like, for example, one with an online college, or a Haiti earthquake relief organization--are not so inherently awkward as the Nissan example. But still, the current situation is something wannabe publishers, as well as wannabe multimedia content-makers, should be thinking about.
2.10.2010
High-Frequency Novelty Production, Stock, Flow, and Truth
I agree with this recent anonymous answerer on Explainthis.org (I'm pretty sure it's Ed Yong): the blogger vs. journalist trope is downright exhausted. Obviously, the term blog does not refer to the journalistic integrity of blog posts, or bloggers. In the context of journalism, blog shouldn't imply anything but high-frequency novelty production. If you are not telling the truth with your novelty, you are not a journalist. The same is true for microblogs. How much novel truth are you telling?
A good reporter-blogger is like a really good museum tour guide--the one whose tour keeps growing as randoms that happen to overhear can't help but join the group. If you are still trying to figure out what I mean, read Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo for a week. Marshall manages to combine his knowledge of the insider games with clear-headed writing style to produce a consistently enlightening flow of truthful, digestible information packets.
Truth is truth, whether it's a marathon New Yorker piece or a 128-character explanation + link. Twitter is not about telling people what you are doing, it's about sharing truth. NYU professor Jay Rosen says he uses Twitter for "mindcasting." I'm not sure that's exactly what I do, but it's something like that. When I was a kid, I would get hyper when I found certain new facts in my picture books about dinosaurs, constellations, and germs, and would immediately feel the urge to run and tell one of my parents, my sister, or whoever I happened to see first. That pattern of behavior has never really gone away, and that's why I love Twitter.
Robin Sloan's stock and flow analogy is apt:
A good reporter-blogger is like a really good museum tour guide--the one whose tour keeps growing as randoms that happen to overhear can't help but join the group. If you are still trying to figure out what I mean, read Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo for a week. Marshall manages to combine his knowledge of the insider games with clear-headed writing style to produce a consistently enlightening flow of truthful, digestible information packets.
Truth is truth, whether it's a marathon New Yorker piece or a 128-character explanation + link. Twitter is not about telling people what you are doing, it's about sharing truth. NYU professor Jay Rosen says he uses Twitter for "mindcasting." I'm not sure that's exactly what I do, but it's something like that. When I was a kid, I would get hyper when I found certain new facts in my picture books about dinosaurs, constellations, and germs, and would immediately feel the urge to run and tell one of my parents, my sister, or whoever I happened to see first. That pattern of behavior has never really gone away, and that's why I love Twitter.
Robin Sloan's stock and flow analogy is apt:
"Flow is the feed. It’s the posts and the tweets. It’s the stream of daily and sub-daily updates that remind people that you exist.The new journalist must not only navigate job-less waters, he or she must also always be balancing stock and flow--a feat that's lot easier said than done. I'm trying to wire my brain so it will think in terms of stock and flow at the same time. Sometimes it works, but often it just leaves me with a headache.
Stock is the durable stuff. It’s the content you produce that’s as interesting in two months (or two years) as it is today. It’s what people discover via search. It’s what spreads slowly but surely, building fans over time."
2.04.2010
Q&A with Matt Embrey, co-founder and publisher of LiveOak Media
Over the past five years, the green blogosphere has become a force to be reckoned with. And I would bet it's here to stay, because the mountain of interesting news and information about sustainability-related topics is growing every day. I had a chance to chat via telephone with Matt Embrey, the co-founder of the green blog network LiveOak Media, and he had a lot of interesting things to say about content, building readership, and navigating the turbulent internet advertising market.
Q: How did LiveOak originate?
Matt Embrey: It's actually an ongoing story because we're still coming together right now. A friend and I started with one site, called Green Upgrader, about two years ago. We both still work full-time jobs. Right off the bat, Green Upgrader was focused more along the lines of product-based, specific upgrades for your life. It started taking off and doing really well. It was on the early-middle half, I'd say, of the green uprising on the internet. Not quite as early as Sustainablog, which has been around since 2005, or Treehugger, which came before that. Anyway, it took off and it kind of morphed into a general green living site where we were publishing all kinds of news, from posts about corporate responsibility to interesting humanitarian issues. I realized we would be better suited to have separate channels for the stuff that's a bit more focused, and bring Green Upgrader back to just products. That's when I started working with Tim Hurst, and we started this network. And we're actually still in the process of rolling out the different channels. Ecopolitology will focus on policy and politics. Earth and Industry will focus more on sustainable business. And we have two more coming down the pike--one will focus on green technology, and one will focus more on advocacy and activism. Green Upgrader will still be there. That allows us to tailor the content more towards the audience. We don't have the resources to be a Treehugger and publish 40 articles a day, so we decided to refine the message down to these specific channels, and I think that makes for a better conversation with the readers.
Q: Did you find that specific types of content on Green Upgrader were consistently more popular than others?
ME: Certain topics did get better engagement than others. What really drove it, though, was editorial engagement. It's fine to publish an article a couple people might post, but it's a much more enriching experience when the author of that article is posing a question to the audience or at least is responding to the comments and interacting in the social media area--wherever that story has moved on to. That way the conversation continues beyond the original post and article. That led logically to having the whole publication be more of a focused conversation, instead of bouncing around from topic to topic.
Q: So you found that the posts with more editorial voice were popular with readers?
ME: Well, there's definitely a certain flavor that people tend to like. And I think when you engage the audience, either by posing a question or talking about something that is relevant to them, as opposed to just reporting on a piece of news, it tends to do a better. You can quantify popular in a different ways. Popular could mean that it gets picked up by a lot of other sites and syndicated in different ways--popular with bloggers and journalists. Other times it's popular because it gets a lot of comments on site. And the third way it could get popular is if it gets picked up on Digg or Twitter and it permeates like that. Social media is really geared toward the activism and advocacy sort of articles. People respond really well to that type of thing.
Q: What is your strategy for building readership?
ME: When we started out, it was all social media traffic. We spent a considerable amount of time out engaging in social media with people, submitting to Digg and responding to comments and Twittering and whatnot. I was spending more time promoting these articles than I was actually writing them. But we've refocusing our efforts on quality editorial content as opposed to the social media. Social media is great way to get your content in front of a lot of eyeballs. At the end of 2008, if you got an article that was really popular on Digg, you could have 50,000 people come to the site in one day. But what ends up happening is that only a small percentage of those visitors stick and become readers, so the conversion from those types of social media aren't really high.
Q: How does the change in philosophy affect your revenue model?
ME: Right now we are all display advertising. You can get a lot of traffic from something like Digg, but it ends up watering down the conversation on the blog. You don't have a lot of engaged people, and those are the people that tend to be more interested in clicking on sponsored links and going through. So while advertisers are paying for every time the ad shows, they are also evaluating what kind of a return they are getting. They could put their ad on a site that gets a million hits, but if none of those people that go to that site actually care, then they've wasted their money. From the business standpoint, as a publication, you want to produce quality content and keep your readers engaged in a way that, hopefully, the advertisers will also fit into it. Otherwise, they'll advertise once and they won't come back.
Q: How did LiveOak originate?
Matt Embrey: It's actually an ongoing story because we're still coming together right now. A friend and I started with one site, called Green Upgrader, about two years ago. We both still work full-time jobs. Right off the bat, Green Upgrader was focused more along the lines of product-based, specific upgrades for your life. It started taking off and doing really well. It was on the early-middle half, I'd say, of the green uprising on the internet. Not quite as early as Sustainablog, which has been around since 2005, or Treehugger, which came before that. Anyway, it took off and it kind of morphed into a general green living site where we were publishing all kinds of news, from posts about corporate responsibility to interesting humanitarian issues. I realized we would be better suited to have separate channels for the stuff that's a bit more focused, and bring Green Upgrader back to just products. That's when I started working with Tim Hurst, and we started this network. And we're actually still in the process of rolling out the different channels. Ecopolitology will focus on policy and politics. Earth and Industry will focus more on sustainable business. And we have two more coming down the pike--one will focus on green technology, and one will focus more on advocacy and activism. Green Upgrader will still be there. That allows us to tailor the content more towards the audience. We don't have the resources to be a Treehugger and publish 40 articles a day, so we decided to refine the message down to these specific channels, and I think that makes for a better conversation with the readers.
Q: Did you find that specific types of content on Green Upgrader were consistently more popular than others?
ME: Certain topics did get better engagement than others. What really drove it, though, was editorial engagement. It's fine to publish an article a couple people might post, but it's a much more enriching experience when the author of that article is posing a question to the audience or at least is responding to the comments and interacting in the social media area--wherever that story has moved on to. That way the conversation continues beyond the original post and article. That led logically to having the whole publication be more of a focused conversation, instead of bouncing around from topic to topic.
Q: So you found that the posts with more editorial voice were popular with readers?
ME: Well, there's definitely a certain flavor that people tend to like. And I think when you engage the audience, either by posing a question or talking about something that is relevant to them, as opposed to just reporting on a piece of news, it tends to do a better. You can quantify popular in a different ways. Popular could mean that it gets picked up by a lot of other sites and syndicated in different ways--popular with bloggers and journalists. Other times it's popular because it gets a lot of comments on site. And the third way it could get popular is if it gets picked up on Digg or Twitter and it permeates like that. Social media is really geared toward the activism and advocacy sort of articles. People respond really well to that type of thing.
Q: What is your strategy for building readership?
ME: When we started out, it was all social media traffic. We spent a considerable amount of time out engaging in social media with people, submitting to Digg and responding to comments and Twittering and whatnot. I was spending more time promoting these articles than I was actually writing them. But we've refocusing our efforts on quality editorial content as opposed to the social media. Social media is great way to get your content in front of a lot of eyeballs. At the end of 2008, if you got an article that was really popular on Digg, you could have 50,000 people come to the site in one day. But what ends up happening is that only a small percentage of those visitors stick and become readers, so the conversion from those types of social media aren't really high.
Q: How does the change in philosophy affect your revenue model?
ME: Right now we are all display advertising. You can get a lot of traffic from something like Digg, but it ends up watering down the conversation on the blog. You don't have a lot of engaged people, and those are the people that tend to be more interested in clicking on sponsored links and going through. So while advertisers are paying for every time the ad shows, they are also evaluating what kind of a return they are getting. They could put their ad on a site that gets a million hits, but if none of those people that go to that site actually care, then they've wasted their money. From the business standpoint, as a publication, you want to produce quality content and keep your readers engaged in a way that, hopefully, the advertisers will also fit into it. Otherwise, they'll advertise once and they won't come back.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
