In the Wake of the Flood: What Scoble's Move Means to the Blogosphere

Dave Winer wrote today a post that is a second cousin of a post that has been rolling around inside my head since we learned that Scoble gave Microsoft the Mississippi half-step uptown toodleoo for startup Podtech.

Dave talks about how big Scoble’s presence in the blogosphere and beyond has become- and rightly so, given all the work he has done to make Microsoft relevant in the blogging/RSS space. Dave calls Scoble an “evangelist” in the Guy Kawasaki mode. Evangelist is a word that I have used with approval in a similar context that means someone with an agenda who is smart, well liked and has a strong personality. Evangelists are fishers of men and motivators of people. But sometimes, by doing what they do so well, evangelist types tend to overwhelm the systems within which they work and, while perhaps not in Scoble’s case, but definitely in others, can sometime face resistance and resentment from the coat and tie establishment. Or as I have said to colleagues, they too often are rightly loved downstream and wrongly despised upstream.

My thinking over the last couple of days is more along the lines of what Scoble’s departure tells us about corporate America and the blogging movement. I can’t help but think this is a stormy forecast for company acceptance of the blogosphere as a legitimate marketing and information distribution channel. Scoble and others have made it clear that Microsoft did right by Scoble. But if a huge tech company with billions of dollars in the bank hasn’t embraced the blogosphere enough to keep the single biggest personality in the blogosphere on its payroll, can we assume that maybe Microsoft (and likely other big companies) believes that the blogosphere is little more than an online geekfest full of people who are either already customers or not likely to become customers.

Stated another way, is the blogosphere where the customers aren’t?

Sure, there is an army of bloggers at Microsoft, but no one will deny that Scoble was the commander and chief. The successful move to keep Scoble in Redmond would have started months ago, not days or weeks, ago. I don’t know if this is just a big coincidence or tea leaves demanding to be read, but I can’t help but wonder if this isn’t more evidence of the marginalization of the blogosphere by big business.

As far as Scoble’s new gig goes, I had never heard of Podtech until the Scoble news broke- which means that he is already doing his job. I started out thinking podcasts were too hard and that nobody listened to them. Now I think they are too hard and I do one every couple of weeks. I don’t mind hard because I am interested in technology, but a whole potential podcastees do and aren’t.

Do I think podcasting will take hold in mainstream America. No, not as long as the RIAA is still circling around to make sure nobody puts anything on a podcast that mainstream America really wants to hear. But is it a growth area? Of course.

And of course I note that podcasting, unlike software, is one industry that is joined at the hip with blogging and RSS. I don’t think that’s a coincidence.

Whether he’s promoting software, podcasts, religion, apples or bass-o-matics, an evangelist’s job is to take the message to the people. I have no doubt that Scoble’s new message will soon be heard loud and clear.

It’s the other message I’m thinking about.

Scoble Leaving Microsoft?

SiliconValleyWatcher just posted an article stating that everybody’s favorite blogger and the guy who has done more to bring blogging to the mainstream than any other person is leaving Microsoft and joining Podtech.net.

I don’t know all the facts surrounding Robert’s alleged departure, but I will say that this is a huge loss for Microsoft. Scoble gave Microsoft the sort of blogosphere credibility and influence that simply cannot be replaced at any price.

Since I am sure Microsoft knows that, I have to wonder what this tells us about Microsoft’s view of the relevance and future of blogging?

I wish Scoble the best at his new gig.

As a shareholder, I wish Microsoft had stepped up to the plate and done whatever was needed to keep Scoble in the fold. Instead, Microsoft may have stumbled into another PR mess and certainly just became less relevant in the blogosphere.

Why Google Seems Desperate

It has zero to do with anything it has or hasn’t done in China, notwithstanding the protestations of those naive souls who believe Google can force political change merely by denying itself access to billions of Chinese who’d rather have some Google than no Google. The China thing is a PR problem for Google, nothing more.

It’s because Google and, more importantly the perception of Google, is slowly but surely moving from the backbone of the internet to a spam enabling pox on the internet. From a one-stop shop to a semi-glorified ad network. Mix in a little (or a lot, actually) of insider stock sales and you end up with one very big question mark.

Seth Jayson over at the pop-up ad loving Motley Fool has a very thoughtful article about the challenges that face Google as it tries to justify its valuation- both stock price wise and perception wise.

Google’s problems all originate from one fact: Google became the best in the world at something no one will pay for- search. It’s like being the world’s greatest aeroball player, except without the benefit of the ESPNs.

Once it became necessary to actually make a little money, all Google had to work with was a ton of eyeballs. It’s understandable that Google would become an ad network by necessity, though it’s also a little sad to watch it toss out one free thing after another in an effort to acquire and retain eyeballs. Microsoft, for all of its internet-related failures, has a ton of actual products that people buy. The fact that Microsoft, with its half-hearted efforts, is still in the internet game with all the young upstarts tells you all you need to know to separate the real businesses from the disguised ones.

Meanwhile, all the Google stuff that is free to us is costing Google a fortune. It takes a lot of clicking on a lot of ads to pay for all that stuff.

Google has keyword sales that it can combine with the traffic generated by its search dominance, so it is not without advantages. But it’s still a short play in a long game.

And that’s why Google is struggling.

Tags:

The MPAA, the Dead and Web 2.0

Absolute truths have a way of getting less absolute when the distant worlds of art and business collide.

Which I why I read something this morning that I both agree with strongly and disagree with strongly. Add to that the fact that it was said by a man I generally disagree with to the man who wrote the song I named my oldest daughter after and who has been cool enough to email Cassidy now and again over the years just to see how she’s doing- and it gets very confusing.

Techdirt reports on and links to an exchange between Dan Glickman of the MPAA and John Perry Barlow, of EFF and Grateful Dead fame.

In what Mike at Techdirt accurately calls a bizarre exchange, Glickman and Barlow talked about the entertainment industry.

sand-794348Barlow starts out by saying, again correctly, that the movie industry will eventually adopt to the new information age (and the new distribution and pricing methods that are the backbone thereof). The only question is how long will it resist the inevitable and how much damage will it do to itself in the meantime.

Glickman responds with the same old line about paying the people to produce the work or you won’t ever get any work to watch, etc., etc.

Barlow points out that he made a lot of money writing songs for the Dead, who as we all know have always allowed people to record and share their shows.

What is lost on Glickman is the fact that if not for all those concert recordings, there would be a lot less Dead music to be had by new fans and the Dead would be less relevant today. By allowing recording and tape trading, the Dead made it easier to become a Dead fan, which made it easier to keep selling records, which made it easier to keep touring to packed houses. And on and on.

Glickman’s problem is that someone moved the movie industry’s cheese and they hired him to frantically search for it. All the futile searching prevents him from seeing that making those recordings available did as much or more for the Dead as it did for the fans.

Then it comes. Glickman makes a statement that I believe it totally wrong in the context of music and movies, yet it is one of my themes with respect to Web 2.0:

“It is ridiculous to believe that you can give product away for free and be more successful.”

So, either I am wrong about art or wrong about Web 2.0 or there is a way to distinguish the two. Let’s think about this for a minute.

Something Glickman said later keeps rolling around inside my head:

“[P]eople who create content for movies and television have to make a profit. If they don’t you won’t see all this wonderful stuff and listen to it.”

I think the difference is that in art, you can give away some of your art and make more money by selling more of your other art. John Perry makes money not only from royalties on record sales, but also on performance royalties, sheet music and other revenue generated from his songs. By allowing all of those concert recordings, the Dead managed to increase and maintain its fan base and mindshare- and to increase the sales of its records through traditional channels. It’s no coincidence that the Dead has released so many of their “from the vaults” recordings over the years. A lot of those records that “went platinum sooner or later,” would not have if not for tape trading.

It’s not unlike those “SE” (for Special Edition- which in computer lingo means watered down) versions of software you get when you buy a new computer or camera. They work fine, but the manufacturers know that if you like it, you’ll eventually buy the full version.

But what about Web 2.0?

I think what separates a lot of these Web 2.0 applications from music and movies and software is that they have nothing else to sell. Some of them, like Box.net, give away some stuff for free to attract users who may then buy more stuff. That is a tried and true business plan.

But many others give away everything they have to offer in a belief that if they can get enough eyeballs on their site, advertisers will pay to bombard those eyeballs with ads. It may work for the mega-sites like Digg and MySpace, but it takes a whole lot of eyeballs to generate enough revenue to run a company. Beer money, yes. Companies, no.

Not to mention the fact that I have never once clicked on an online ad on any site I didn’t own, and neither had any of the 10 or so people I asked in connection with a another post I wrote a few weeks ago.

The point that I would have made had I awoken to the nightmare of Glickman’s job is that unlike bands who all share in the revenue for all their projects, each movie is a one-off deal. The fact that the next movie makes a lot of money does nothing for the investors in this movie.

Regardless, the bottom line as far as movies go is that Barlow is right- the train has left the station and there are millions of young people out there who are going to force the movie industry to play it their way.

The only question is how long it will take Hollywood to face it.

Steve Gillmor’s Self Fulfilling Prophecy

troll-766659Steve Gillmor can’t even go two sentences without insulting those who dare to disagree with him:

“Note: trolls should already be moving down to the comment section or, more wisely, clicking off to less elitest and more page-view oriented material elsewhere on the Net.”

Of course, Steve won’t engage anyone, other then his hand picked worthies, in any sort of discussion about the various topics he whines and cries about. He seems content to write about his little cadre of pals and continually call the unworthies who have different opinions “trolls.”

Here’s a good way to build trolls: toss out new and occasionally radical ideas, refuse to engage anyone outside the fanclub in anything resembling a discussion and the call those who express their disagreement names. Ask for trolls and trolls you shall get.

Dave Winer had this to say. I’m sure Dave and Steve are pals and I expect Dave is just busting his chops. But truth lies beneath many a jest.

The difference between Steve and Dave is that if Dave thinks you’re wrong, he’ll engage you and tell you why. That’s all a conversationalist can ask.

Get Your Vista: Public Beta

vista

Microsoft released a “Customer Preview” of Vista today, which is available to the general public. Previously, Vista has been in private beta testing. According to C|Net, Microsoft is still planning a January release.

Casual users beware, Microsoft warns that the beta version is not yet ready for primetime:

“This is beta code and should not be used in a production environment or on a main machine in the home. Beta 2 is intended for developers, IT professionals and technology experts to continue or begin their testing of Windows Vista. Before you decide to use Beta 2, you should feel comfortable with installing operating systems, updating drivers, and general PC troubleshooting. Some risks of using beta operating systems include hardware and software incompatibility and system instability. If you have concerns about installing this beta software on your computer, we encourage you to obtain the final release version of Windows Vista when it is available in 2007.”

I will probably install the beta on one of my extra computers this weekend. If I do, I’ll post the results and my thoughts.

The Houston Chronicle Gets RSS

In more ways than one.

Demonstrating once again that someone or ones there really understand the evolving world of information distribution, the Houston Chronicle has added even more RSS Feeds. The Chronicle has been at the top of the internet curve for some time now, and it shows.

I am delighted about the new feeds, because I get more and more of my news via RSS feeds all the time. Part of this is by choice and part of it is because I’m still not crazy about their new web site design (sorry Dwight). The news is too hard to find and the text far too small for my middle aged eyes.

It could be worse, however. The worst web site redesign this side of Geocities is the one The Houston Press did a few months ago. I used to read the Press every week. I haven’t read a single article since the redesign.

CBS Reaches Out to Bloggers

I love it when old media (or their newer offspring) reaches out to new media. It tells me that some smart person has correctly concluded that bloggers are not competing with CBS News, CNN, etc.

I got a Comment to my Google post today from an intern at CBS asking me if I would consider writing about an upcoming series on CBSNews.com. It seems that starting on June 13, CBSNews.com will do a three day series of reports on the “intersection of teenagers and technology.”

CBS is encouraging people to write in with questions or concerns. The email link is in the story linked above.

This is certainly a timely topic and I look forward to reading the articles. I hope the series will be a substantive piece that talks to the right people and asks the hard questions.

Here are some topics I hope they cover:

1) The “fox guarding the henhouse” problem that naturally and inevitably arises when you ask a company like MySpace, which makes money off of traffic, to improve online security by imposing restrictions on the restriction-averse kids who make up the lion’s share of such traffic. It’s easy to hire some consultant to toss out a bunch of gimmes to the eager press, but taking the sort of hard and decisive action needed to be effective is another matter.

2) The emergence of Second Life and other similar sites as the new social network. I want to hear from the developers of these sites as well as parent and teacher groups as to what is being done to make these sites safe and what isn’t being done that ought to be. Second Life should be applauded for having its teen grid, but what I want to know is how easy is it for a kid to sneak into the adult grid and what does Second Life and others do to catch them whey they do.

3) The degree to which technology encroaches into the educational system as a disruptive influence. I can tell you from experience that a lot of the kids in the law school classes I teach are constantly surfing, chatting, etc.

4) And finally, I want them to find the person responsible for that idiotic, indefensible Tagworld ad and ask him to explain in great detail and defend the decision making process that led to that ad.

I’ll write again on this series once it starts.

An Expensive Game of Risk: Google’s Roll

As I expected, Henry Blodget has a interesting and on the money take on the new Google Spreadsheet. Along with Gmail and Writely, Google Spreadsheet makes the core of a free, online alternative to Microsoft Office. It’s a high profile and expensive game of Risk, where the game board is comprised of groups of computer users.

Henry begins with the potentially good part of Google’s play:

“First, if Google’s long-term ambition is to bring Microsoft down, this is, in fact, the way to do it. Google Spreadsheet and Google Word, as described, resemble classic disruptive technologies: cheaper, more convenient, no-frills solutions aimed at products with fat product margins whose complexity and usefulness have overshot the mainstream.”

He then expresses two very good concerns. First, he says, and I heartily agree, that power users who use Excel for their businesses (and their job security) are not going to dump Excel in favor of a stripped down, online alternative. Second, he wonders, as I did back during the Writely acquisition, what is the business plan here? A million users times free is still free.

It’s likely all about the almighty ad dollar, but Henry and I agree on that strategy as well:

“[N]o serious spreadsheet and word-processing user I know of is ever going to stop working on documents to click nearby ads (The “PPC ads in apps” concept is absurd).”

Microsoft is camped out on the side of the game board with all of the business and corporate users. It is heavily fortified and will be virtually impossible to displace. That was my strategy back in my Risk playing days: fortify a strategic area and let the other players fight it out for the less valuable real estate.

The reason this game is unwinnable for Google comes down to two things: the free part and the online part.

When something is free, people ask themselves two questions:

How do I know this free thing will always be available?

How do I know they won’t start charging me once I go to all the trouble to adopt and use it?

These are good questions.

When something is partially or fully online, people also have two questions:

How do I know my data is safe and won’t get lost, thereby causing me to lose my job?

How do I know all the hackers I read about in the paper won’t intercept my data and give or sell it to my competitors?

For these reasons, corporate America will not, in our lifetime, adopt online word processing or spreadsheet applications to any significant degree.

All of this means that Google is making a play for what Henry calls the “casual Microsoft Office user.” I would say it’s more accurately the casual Microsoft Works user. There are a lot of people who will adopt these free applications for personal use, but big business will not. Never. Ever.

So my specific question is how does Google think this is going to make, as opposed to cost, money?

And my general question is when and why did spending a fortune trying to hurt Microsoft by giving away free stuff become Google’s strategic business plan?

Agoraphobia in the Blogosphere

agoraphobia

Early 2006, like late 1989, was the year the wall came down. There was a lot of good conversation about gatekeeping in the blogosphere- the much debated phenomenon whereby the bloggers with the largest readership link primarily to each other and guard carefully the door to the elite blogging clubhouse. As a result of these discussions, a lot of people decided the blogosphere should be a free and open place, where new voices would be welcomed and everyone could join in the conversation.

Quite a few A-List bloggers did their part to promote and nurture the open blogosphere concept. Some even drew maps for the rest of us to use on Blogger’s Hill.

That was a good thing- for everybody. Because it is fair and just, sure. But also because the blogosphere is tiny in general (some people continually forget this)- and the tech-related blogosphere simply cannot survive and stay fresh without an inflow of new voices.

But after the walls came down, it seems a few of the old clubmembers began to feel anxious about the public and potentially crowded nature of the evolving blogosphere. A few seem to be suffering from agoraphobia. They have decided to build some new walls around themselves in an effort to recreate the blogging caste system that seems to be their safety zone. Several people (like Mathew Ingram and Scott Karp) do their best to convince these faux agoraphobics to get treatment, but their cries fall on deaf ears- because these agoraphobics (unlike real ones) don’t want to be cured. They just want their walls back.

Some, like Seth Godin and Russ Beattie (who later stopped blogging altogether), decided that interacting with the rest of us is just too much trouble. Others, most notably Steve Gillmor and those under his influence, argue that conversing with the rest of us is bad for their reputation and makes them seem less of an authority. I’m sure glad my college and graduate school professors didn’t think that.

Here’s the thing (again). There are no rules that require anyone’s personal web page (be it a blog or a walled in soapbox) to look a certain way or to link here, there or anywhere. Not wanting to talk to the rest of us is OK. Turning your blog into a personal newspaper or magazine equivalent of a one-man band is fine. Really.

The problem is that some of these faux agoraphobics want us to believe that they are making all of these decisions based on logic and reflection and with an eye toward the greater good, when the fact is they are being made primarily as a result of unchecked human nature and for personal gain. Cattle ranchers, miners, merchants and bloggers all benefit from being there first. The early arrivals get the best land and a head start on mining for gold and readers. When the gold rush starts and the rest of us head west, we are encroaching on their land and their fortunes. What began as a head start for them has transformed into a God-given right that demands protection. So ranchers, miners, merchants and bloggers try to circle the wagons against the newcomers. This isn’t some story I’m making up- this is history. Grab a book and check it out, or turn on the Westerns channel on DirecTV.

Add to that concept the other human need- to belong and exclude, and you can understand why the open and crowded blogosphere (or the possibility of it) is a ripe breeding ground for faux agoraphobia.

The absurd lengths some people go to in a silly and transparent effort to separate themselves from the rest of the blogosphere makes me wonder what these folks would do if there was actually any money to be made blogging. I suspect these turned up noses and fence building exercises would erupt into a full fledged range war.

Faux agoraphobia is spreading in parts of the blogosphere. There are lots of proffered explanations as to why. But there’s only one reason.

Human nature. They just won’t admit it.