I don’t know how Scoble does it. He follows over 103,000 people on Twitter and somehow manages to filter everything out to actually break news. I know he’s a big fan of using FriendFeed to filter through it all, but come on! How does FriendFeed help you break the news of a Chinese earthquake from a bunch of random people in China?!?! How would you pick up on that before CNN does if you have to sort through 103,000 other people’s tweets about ice cream and the crappy service they got at TJ Maxx?

Scoble is not just some person trying to be internet famous. I did think that at first. The guy is just completely obsessed with tools that help you obtain, filter, and then broadcast information. It’s not about being famous for him–he’s working on the small project of knowing everything everywhere all the time. Maybe military scientists will implant a MacBook Pro with wifi into his head which will push him to become an XMen character or something. But I digress.

So reporters obviously dropped the ball when reports of election fraud in Iran broke on Twitter well before they were covered on CNN (see #cnnfail). Scoble and Mark Hopkins were on it pretty quickly and were pumping out some really good stuff as things unfolded. Why couldn’t the reporters do this? Why are newspapers not empowering their journalists with this information and these tools? Do they not see information as their big competitive advantage over all the other noise we see in day to day life?

The flaw with newspapers is not that they aren’t free. On the contrary, I can go to any newspaper’s website and find all the info I need for nothing. The problem is that they just aren’t as relevant as they used to be. Journalists rarely have long-term specialties and are often ill equipped in today’s modern world. Why can’t newspapers upgrade to be Scobleistic organizations of people thriving on breaking information, tracking information, etc? Forget being threatened by new media–why do they not have the same intellectual curiosity to use it just by their very nature? Isn’t that their job?

In newspapers’ defense, this is usually a decision made by the top. I have met journalists who are very much into using the latest and greatest tools to get the job done. But why aren’t the higher-ups giving their people iPhone 3Gs and computers with Aircards? Don’t they want to deliver the freshest and most accurate news possible?

So if you run a newspaper, hire Robert Scoble as a consultant to teach you how to actually report news in a modern world. Or go away. If your news is that good, you could even (gasp) charge for it. Just don’t tell Chris Anderson that.

“In the digital realm you can try to keep Free at bay with laws and locks, but eventually the force of economic gravity will win.”
–CHRIS ANDERSON

Are you kidding me? “Free” with a capital F? What are you, Effing Jesus?

Chris Anderson seriously needs to slow down. I saw him at South by Southwest and felt his “content should be free” shtick was more of a marketing ploy to push his book than genuine advice to help people build a business model. It was very disappointing, and at this point, I’m not sure his free book is worth the time it takes to read.

Well, Malcolm Gladwell wrote this New Yorker article stating that when you give something for free, people assume it has no value. He pointed to YouTube, which has yet to make money for Google. Okay.

THEN Seth Godin jumped on the Free (note the capital F so as to not offend Chris Anderson) bandwagon and went on an ad hominem attack stating that Anderson’s Wired is making money with free, while the New Yorker, who Gladwell writes for, is not. Apparently, free gets people’s attention in an A.D.D. world.

Guess what? You are all right. Now shut up.

Chris Anderson. You need to appreciate that not all people want their content to be the same as everyone else’s. When things are free for everyone, we do not have that choice. The Wall Street Journal will ALWAYS be able to charge people for content, so long as that content provides their readers with a competitive advantage for their jobs. If money is an exclusive barrier that makes subscribers part of a club others can’t afford, they’ll pay for it. People like the exclusivity that money affords them. Just ask the people who actually venture to TED to see you. If it makes me money, saves me more time, or makes me happier than what I can get for free, charge me money. Apple does it and it works just splendidly for them.

Malcolm Gladwell. You need to acknowledge that the web crashes barriers. Web hosting is DISGUSTINGLY CHEAP unlike print. The best thing the New Yorker could do to preserve itself is to kill its presses, go web-based, and hire bloggers who fit their style. As soon as you launch a paid subscription, someone else will come up with a cheaper or free subscription with something similar, and it can be just as good and paid for by ads. Maybe they’ll even go user generated and just hire some editor who is brilliant but lives in his mom’s basement. Seth is right. You need to learn to leverage the web better.

Seth Godin. “In a world of free, everyone can play.” True, but not everyone can win, or even stay afloat. Free IS a relatively cheap way to get attention, but not always able to keep that attention. People want content to do certain things for them. If the free stuff doesn’t do it, they’ll pay for something else.

Oh, and don’t tell me that free is the future and then blog using TypePad instead of the superior AND free WordPress. Seriously. Software is code, and code is content too.

Free content can suck. Proprietary content can suck. Just don’t suck at delivering the content that your current and potential readers want and you are okay. I feel like I’m watching a bunch of kids throw sand in each other’s faces in the playground.

Much of what Seth Godin says seems like common sense to me. Unfortunately, I’m finding more and more that companies need his lessons pounded into their brains. Here’s a video of Seth that Keith Burtis brought to my attention via Twitter:

Numbers don’t matter. That’s like saying because you weigh a lot, you are a more powerful tennis player than Roger Federer. Federer can hit a tennis ball harder than people twice his size simply because he gets in position and has better technique. Tennis analogy not working for you? Here’s an example of what Seth is saying worked out:

HOW A PERSON WITH 2000 TWITTER FOLLOWERS CAN BE MORE POWERFUL THAN SOMEONE WITH 25,000 SIMPLY BY FOLLOWING SETH GODIN’S ADVICE:
1.) A person who blogs about foreign films starts following people who tweet about movies like “Dinner with Andre” or are tweeting about the Cannes Film Festival while it is occurring. By tweeting back and forth and engaging people, tweeting unique links, this person gets 2000 followers. Many of these followers have over 1000 film obsessed followers themselves.
2.) Another person buys followers, follows people just so they follow back, etc. The whole mentality of “I’ll follow you only if you follow back” is just childish. Tim O’Reilly offers useful info all the time and will probably never follow me in my lifetime. So what? Anyway, by playing this numbers game, this person gets a whopping 25,000 followers who are more concerned about reciprocal followers than actually getting useful information.

Say I’m marketing a foreign film. If I have these people tweet something with the intention of it getting as much exposure as possible, the person with 2000 followers will probably be of more use to me. Why? Because this person will get retweeted by people who actually care what I have to say, who would have a lot to offer their own followers by retweeting my stuff. Do the math:

2000 people exposed initially
50 retweets
x 6000 unique followers among these retweeters
600,000,000 possible impressions

vs. 25,000 possible impressions for person #2

Someone who just gets followers to have them will probably get few to no retweets, and often gets them simply with the notion that he or she will feel obligated to retweet in return. That’s lame. It’s not targeted or effective. So this person with tons of followers has little influence, because he or she is more focused on being perceived as influential rather than actually having something to say.

Power=mass x acceleration. If you are in the right position and surrounding yourself by people who actually care about what you are trying to do, you can do a lot more with a lot less. Ignore the numbers game. Engage people who are useful and who would find you useful. The numbers come, and not always where you expect them to.

Gary Vaynerchuk’s winelibrary.tv is brilliant. If you sell something that people are intimidated to buy, create a TV show about it. Educate people. Let them know that you personally want them to be happy with their purchase. He’s basically taking the sales methodology of old (trust, passion) and applying it to the modern world with the new method that is social media. Like him or not, that’s pretty damned beautiful.

Gary has a new book called Crush It: Why Now Is the Time to Cash In on Your Passion. I haven’t read it yet, but I’m guessing he’s trying to show other salespeople and marketers how they can use social media to build flocks around their brand. As Hugh MacLeod might put it, you make your product a “social object” to bring people together in good ways. This is how people should make their livings–not in cubicles staring at stock prices, scheming how to squeeze more out of customers.

So various bloggers are mad because Gary’s PR people pitched that they interview him. The letter was a form letter sent to many other bloggers, many of whom expressed their offense on a BlogTalkRadio show Gary was on. An excerpt from the letter reads “He’d love to do book giveaway contests, interviews, Q&A sessions, an interpretive dance summarizing a chapter, really anything that you think your readers would like to see”.

Why does this make you mad? Because it wasn’t geared just for you? It’s not about you–it’s about your readers. Who cares how the email was addressed. Use the opportunity or don’t. Just offer a unique interview that others couldn’t offer as well.

Talking about social media is very easy. Anyone can be “an expert” and dictate etiquette that doesn’t really exist. Actually making money with it is very hard. I’ve succeeded and failed with it. Sure, you can get attention for your brand, but actually producing income is a different story. Gary Vaynerchuk sells wine online. Do you know how effing hard that is? Do you know how many state regulations and shipping costs come into play? It is VERY HARD TO CLOSE SOMEONE BUYING WINE ONLINE. The fact that he’s succeeded and made a brand for himself doing it is very exceptional and I have no doubt that Gary works his tail off.

Well Gary, I work for Interspire, who sells a shopping cart license and a hosted shopping cart called BigCommerce. I’ve worked in ecommerce for a long time, and I would love to interview you. I would love to do book giveaways. Why? Because I love watching people succeed at selling what they love online. It is so satisfying to see people who were former slaves at a company actually thrive when they open their own online store. I’ve also seen people with beautiful ideas and products pour their hearts and souls into a business and completely fail. It is completely heart-breaking. So if you want, send me your form letter. I’d like to share your advice with people who may be struggling to sell something they really love and know a lot.

Hold off on the interpretive dance though. I doubt that is your forte.

Guess what? Today is my second 29th birthday. And although I’m not too fond of birthdays, I’m trying to make this one rock by raising money for my niece Zoe’s college fund. She just lost her mother to leukemia and has had a rocky past four years dealing with her mom’s sickness.

If you are down for helping cool nine-year-olds who raise thousands of dollars for the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, you might want to contribute. I have high hopes for Zoe.

You can find the PayPal link on this page:
http://www.debutaunt.com/archives/000698.php#000698

First of all, the title seems harsh, but it’s a good title. The book isn’t about being a jerk to everyone, FYI.

Too often I see really talented people “not make it”. And then I see people with no talent and they are all over the place, and I want to gouge my eyeballs out with barbed wire. Hugh is a guy who IS talented who DID make it. Sure, a part of me is jealous that he’s out getting book deals and making the cash, but that part isn’t nearly as big as the part that is just happy to see that someone out there who busted their ass without stepping all over people is doing well.

Hugh really seems to write this book for talented people who are just tired of playing the role of work all the time. Our professions aren’t easy and if you expect work without struggle, you are kidding yourself. Essentially, Hugh is the anti-”get rich quick” scheme because he’s going to tell you 1.) it’s not easy and 2.) it might not work but 3.) you should still go through with something if you are passionate about it. As always, Hugh’s style is engaging and honest and the cartoons made me laugh.

Honestly, I cried a little after reading this because it reminded me that I’m not a special little flower in the universe. But that’s okay. I think I needed that swift kick in the ass.

So, can you handle it? I think you can. Here’s the book if you want to buy it.

I used to work at Dell selling computers to the consumer market. This is the trenches of selling. I could tell you about how your flat panel monitor would reduce eyestrain and cut down power usage and why a Centrino processor would make your computer run cooler and therefore extend the battery life. I dealt with hardcore geeks and some of the least technically savvy people on earth. Needless to say, it was a learning experience.

I’ve also sold ecommerce software to mom and pops and to the likes of the Barack Obama campaign and Crutchfield. That means I’ve had to explain what CSS is to a total newbie, but I’ve also had to explain the exact PCI settings in place for a hosting environment.

I’ve seen too many websites created by web developers and designers who have never had to explain a product to someone. If you are a developer explaining to a developer, that’s one thing. However, too many products on the web are actually consumer products that never seem to escape the echo chamber of the web geek, and that is a shame.

As someone who has been on the phone and answered the questions your website doesn’t seem to answer, here are my tips:
1.) Lead with benefits, not with features. Whether you are developing software or selling it on your website, your focus should be “What problem does my product solve?” Most people don’t come to you looking for specific features. They come to you with a problem. If you lead with features, you are forcing your audience to think in your framework, i.e. software, vs. their framework, i.e. um, fix my stupid problem. It’s like telling someone a car has Fortera TripleTred tires instead of saying “These tires are safer in the rain.” Most people aren’t familiar with that tire so it means nothing to them and you are probable making them feel stupid if you assume they should.
2.) Know your audience. Your app is going to make you rich and famous. You are going to be playing craps in Vegas and drive a fancy car, right? That’s why EVERYONE must buy it. Guess what? Software is really competitive. If you don’t pick a niche and really dominate that niche, your online message AND your app will be a muddled piece of crap.
3.) Don’t get too dumbed down. What is your app and what makes it exceptional? The hardest part to a website is the one-liner, but if you can answer it effectively, you’ll convert a lot more.
4.) Have a brand your employees and customers can be proud to recommend. Yes, this means spending money on an actual designer and forgoing ridiculous stock images of people around a computer. Seriously. Stop it. Even though your app should speak for itself, they rarely do. It’s amazing how many crappy apps have customers because of good branding, and how many good apps have no customers because of crappy branding.
5.) Um, listen. People ask you questions about your software. Guess what? Put the answers on the website. The more frequently a question is asked, the more prominent the answer should be on the site. The better your site is, the less time you can spend on the phone explaining your software to them. Take that extra time to go on vacation. Yay.

I recently saw a tweet from Mark “Rizzn” Hopkins that hinted the possibility that YouTube clips were being deleted out of Iran regarding their recent presidential election. I have no doubt that this is a reality. Iran has a long history of silencing opposing voices such as feminists and those who wish the country could be secular. This would in no way surprise me whatsoever, but does frustrate me because I feel powerless to help them.

The dialog in the United States must change. We are not facing merely “terrorists” and “evil doers”. We’ve elected Obama and are passed that. In this world, we have open countries, who believe in free speech and civil liberties. We have somewhat open countries, who monitor what is said and may interfere, but do not restrict free speech as heavily as others. Then we have closed countries, who feel every message must come from the top and must be controlled. These nations such as Iran, North Korea, and to a concerning extent China, feel that order is more important than free speech. They feel that control from the top is crucial to executing their plans. While the concept of free speech varies from country to country, the people of China should be able to know that Tienanmen is not just a tourism spot. Women in Iran should be able to blog about equality for women without being detained for “disturbing public opinion”.

Our nation was not born in the paranoia that haunted us for eight long years of Bush. Our country was born from the blood and sweat of people who felt they should have a say in how their lives should be lived. This is a fundamental desire of people around the world, and the way to stay true to our heritage is to honor that. By accepting the Iranian elections and others like it in Egypt, Russia and Pakistan (which we have unfortunately done for decades because it is convenient to us), we are telling the world that this is a right that is good enough for us but not for others. By turning a blind eye to worldwide free speech via the internet, we allow countries dominated by the few to suppress the will the many. Given the harsh realities of being punished in some of these states it can often mean turning a blind eye to murder.

I believe Bush was claiming this idea, but violence won’t fix this problem if it doesn’t come from an internal revolution. It only exacerbates it as it gives these dictators justification behind their strict rule. Rather than criticizing those who suppress, we must praise those who don’t and empower people within these closed countries who seek free speech. We must always remain free ourselves. That is what people around the world admire about us and it’s what we do best. If we do not apply this principle to ourselves as well as others, we are lost.

P.S. Follow Mark Hopkins on Twitter. That guy is smart. Oh, and use the hashtag #iranelections if you are mentioning them so we can keep track of what’s going on.

Not too long ago, Woody Allen won a $5 million lawsuit against American Apparel because they used his image on an ad. It wasn’t the ad that is above. I Photoshopped that this morning. It was this one:

1.) I don’t really see what this ad would have done for American Apparel. It’s a far departure from their other more noticeable ads. 2.) Anyone who’s been in advertising for any period of time would know that this usage of Allen’s image is far from fair use.

My theory is that American Apparel baited Allen into suing them and then milked all of the free press. Just Google “Woody Allen American Apparel” and you will see hundreds of links in all sorts of publications around the world. Association with American Apparel would not be good for his image considering their usual ads come off just shy of porn. Suing them would be a pretty clear cut case as well. You can’t use images of movies in your advertisements without permission.

For five million dollars, I’d say the natural press they got made this a better investment than a TV ad campaign. American Apparel has never shied away from controversy and challenging copyright makes them seem cool to a younger generation. Considering he got $5 million just because a clothing shop put an image of him with a beard on a billboard, he came out pretty well too.

Like most Americans are apparently doing, I am doing what I can to save more. I appreciate that whether this economy goes up or goes down, it can’t hurt to have a little more saved in the bank for a rainy day or a great opportunity.

Just this past Sunday, I spent more than I care to spend on clothes. Why? Because lately I’ve been thinking a lot about sweatshop labor and it creeps me out that style comes at the price of someone else’s sanity and well being. So I finally found a place called Parts + Labor off of South Congress that is essentially a marketplace for local independent designers to sell their purses, clothing, and jewelry. I bought clothes that were made with recycled fabric by a line called CurryBeth. I paid a bit more than I normally would, but I know that what I’m wearing is unique and actually empowers someone rather than exploits them. I feel good putting these clothes on. Even if I had to sell them, I’d get much more than I would for the latest forgettable Gap dress.

Here’s the coolest part. I needed another dress I bought altered. The people at Parts + Labor called the gal who made it and she’s going to fix it herself. Craftsmanship. Love it.

Consuming goods made by well intending people who are happy feels good. Watching shows made by people who enjoy what they are doing instead of worry about ratings all day is gratifying. I wonder to what extent this economy will make all the people who are getting laid off decide that they want to fix this bottom line-obsessed culture to create rocking stores like Parts + Labor.

P.S. When I write posts like this, people accuse me of getting paid by the people I’m writing about. That weirds me out a bit. This is not the case and if it were, I’d always disclose it. Cheers.