Howard Owens

I love this: N.L. Belardes, who has been a thorn in the side of the local MSM for a couple of years, the ultimate media gadfly, is being slighted by a group of would-be alternative journalists because of his ties to Bakotopia, the TBC-owned social networking site.

The deeper layer there is Bakotopia is supposed to be alternative itself, but clearly has established a reputation among some locals as just another mainstream game.

I love the irony.

The would-be alternative journalists are trying to replace the now defunct Blackboard with "The Elistist Press" a name N.L. does like:

The name of the paper had already been decided before the first meeting: The Elitist Press. I get it. It’s some joke that really states that mainstream media are the elitists showering down their perspectives of the universe on innocent readers. Kind of silly and stupid—definitely arrogant. A trap waiting to slam shut on itself perhaps? I think so. For instance, what if the tiny Elitist Press became successful, or mainstream? Would they change their name? “People aren’t going to get the joke,” I said to Black Dog. “You’re going to take heat.”

Black Dog is John Jones, one of my all-time favorite bloggers.

Read the comments on N.L.'s post -- quite a controversy is breaking out over The Elitist Press before it even launches.

I still say they should do it all online as a sort of group blog. From the description N.L. gives of the meetings, they're all still thinking very old media -- the meeting sounds a lot like many MSM budget meetings all over the land -- instead of just going out and doing it and filing as much shit online as they can, and letting the readers decide what's important. They're thinking about their own egos as journalists instead of putting the audience first. The ultimate ironey.

Meanwhile, BD isn't happy with N.L.'s post.

Good idea from Battelle: Protect our privacy with a Data Switzerland.

One of my recurring themes is how AdWords sucks for small business/local advertisers -- the brick and mortar bread and butter of local print publishers ... it's too hard, too time consuming, too confusing. I've wanted to see newspapers develop a solid competitive business model before Google got a clue. It looks like Google is cluing in:

Jonathan Rosenberg on AdWords “Starter Edition”:

So basically the AdWords Starter Edition is an alternative version of AdWords, and it’s a lot easier for novices to get into search advertising. It’s got a much simpler UI. I’m not sure in terms of color how much I can offer you. We have been using it extensively. We have been tracking the percentage of advertisers who start with AdWords Starter Edition who then actually are successful in getting their work to manifest itself in the form of a working campaign; and who then continue to opt into our ad systems.

We are doing much, much better there on a percentage basis in terms of getting the advertiser signed up. So in that sense, it has been successful. We are also then getting a number of those advertisers using AdWords itself. So the take rates are strong.

It doesn't sound like Google has it figured out yet, but look out if they do. Though, I've got to say, I still have strong doubts about the whole self-serve model for local B&M advertisers. It will take more than a good UI and simple process to make that work.

The other day when I looked at the NAA's NadBASE site, and glanced at the spreadsheet charting how newspaper Web sites extend local audience reach, I was curious -- what newspapers are doing the best at extending reach?

I'm no statistician -- didn't even take the course in college -- so maybe my methodology is full of holes, but I just dumped the table into a spreadsheet and calculated the differential of the percentage of total reach minus newspaper penetration for the given DMA.

Total reach is measured by Scarborough Research through surveys and is based on a "visit within the past 30 days" metric, which I think is of dubious value, but it is how these things are being measured. Scarborough claims this is unduplicated, extended, local reach.

If my methodology or logic is flawed, I invite somebody else to take a stab at establishing the same comparison.

If my calculations are right, the average newspaper.com extends the reach of the newspaper by a differential of 3.3 points.

Here are the Top 10 performers, based on this math:

At the bottom of the pile are mostly suburban newspapers in fragmented markets, so maybe expecting stronger performances isn't realistic, but for what it's worth, here's the bottom 10.

Again, FWIW, and I welcome comments, corrections, feedback on the comparisons, but it seems to me that if one paper reaches 55 percent of the market in print, and 58 percent combined, and other is 18 and 20 and another 45 and 53, there is some comparative value in just subtracting one number from the other and seeing who has the better differential. And if it does, maybe we should be trying to learn all we can from the sites that are beating industry averages by wide margins.

Local DA Ed Jagels has never received good press.

Local bloggers attack him (and here and here). Rolling Stone has gone after him, and he hasn't received favorable treatment from the NYT. He's been the subject of book critical of local law enforcement. His name has been associated with the infamous, possibly mythical, Lords of Bakersfield. In fact, if you Google Ed Jagels, you'll be hard pressed to find any Web page with anything positive to say about the man, except on his own site.

And it's not just his professional conduct that gets scrutinized. His relationship with his wife has also been media fodder.

Which makes his announced plan to fight back against the media all the more interesting. Specifically, Jagels is going to expose "Every Lie They Print" with The Bakersfield Californian as a target of special interest.

In its reporting of public safety matters, the Californian has raised journalistic lying to an art form. Of course, muckraking instincts and a vaguely anti-police agenda are hardly unique to the Californian. These are pretty much nationwide phenomena in the media. But the Californian's law enforcement reporting has reached such a level of virulence that it must be judged a special case.

Unfortunately, it looks like Jagels is planning to release his missives in PDF form, which only reveals a certain level of cluelessness about the Web. There will be no opportunity, such as a blog with comments would afford, for citizens to interact and refute or expand on Jagels claims. One is forced to wonder if Jagels can afford to expose himself to the same level of transparency, public accountability and truthfulness he now demands of the local media?

Among Jagels claims is that TBC distorts by taking quotes and information out of context, but right within the initial press release, Jagels does the very same thing:

Is there a reason? Well, in a (vain) effort to arrest its plummeting circulation, the Californian has changed its reporters' mission. Instead of finding and reporting the news on a given beat, they have been ordered to write so-called "impact stories." "Impact story" is a euphemism for: "Go find a scandal. If you can't find one, invent it." And they are convinced these so-called scandals involving law enforcement sell newspapers.

Which is a complete misrepresentation of what an impact story is, and turns the concept into a strawman. An impact story can be one about a mother who dedicated her life into turning her son into an Eagle scout, if the story is told well enough to have some wallop. It's about finding stories that impact the community, and getting away from what the City Council or the DA spoon feeds you (boring, snoozer stuff that is too easy to report and too easy for a reader to ignore).

Additionally, while calling TBC on the carpet for falsehoods, Jagels gives himself and his team plenty of wiggle room for their own inaccuracies (I can hear it now, "Oh, that was just a joke," or "couldn't you see we were being sardonic?"), along with his over-the-top claim that "we can't expose every inaccuracy."

Bakersfield.com has tweaked its homepage. The changes are smart and logical improvements to the previous design. The newsroom has been hitting multimedia hard and the changes play MM well. The main multimedia page is also vastly improved -- great, logical organization. As part of Bakersfield.com's increased multimedia efforts, they've started putting video on verticals, such as real estate (a must-do for newspaper sites that I advocated in Ventura). Here's an example: A tour of Buck's old house (just blocks from where I live now). Due credit, of course.

Mark Glaser's most recent post covers Creative Commons, telling the story of a photographer who has built a career based on CC and Flickr. I think there is a lesson here for newspapers.

Rich Gordon, writing for the Readership Institute makes some important points about online community.

One key reason is that media companies have the "If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" problem. These companies consider themselves to be content publishers, so they've seen the Web primarily as a publishing medium. It's people and companies unencumbered by a publishing mindset that have built the great online community sites such as MySpace, YouTube, Slashdot, and eBay (a community site as well as an auction site).

But if you're a community news publisher, you're not running a content company -- you're running a community company. I first said this at an API conference two years ago: Community newspapers are the glue that bind communities together. It's all about connections. This stuff is in our DNA. We should be able to do it well.

But . . .

Another problem for publishing is an unwillingness to devote real resources and expertise to online communities. News organizations seem to think that content creation is the only job worth devoting staff time to. But enabling story comments or establishing message boards isn't enough. Communities, online or off, need staff attention. Without one or more people to provide leadership, guidance, support, and a willingness to respond to or delete off-topic or hostile comments, many online communities lie barren or descend into name-calling and profanity.

If we saw our job more about community building and less about repurposing town council agenda items, it would fundamentally change how we do our jobs, and what kind of Web sites we build.

As they say, read the whole thing.

As a point of disclosure, Rich is working on a project for the NAA NMF audience development committee, which I chair.

Friendster's received another patent, which they claim covers all kinds of content sharing. See if you can figure that out from the abstract. I think it means that if you and are part of the same social network, and I upload a photo I took of you at a part to your profile, then my action is covered by the patent (or at least the technology that makes it possible).

U2Log alerted me to this video, a duet by Alicia Keys and Bono on the Peter Gabriel standard "Don't Give Up." The video U2Log originally embedded was "removed for copyright violation." But of course as soon as one version is taken down, another appears. It will be interesting to see if the cat and mouse game continues. By the time you read this post, the video I linked to might be gone, so try searching for another version, if you're interested.

UPDATE: 24 hours later, the video is still there

Memo to Jeff Jarvis: Stop reading my mind.

I've told more than one newspaper reporter who is or will shoot video: If you want to know how to shoot video for the Web, watch Huell Howser.

Huell is is on California PBS stations with a couple of shows -- the most famous is probably California's Gold. His style is anything but slick. Howser looks like a construction worker wrangled by a film crew to stand in for the real host. His interview style lacks any subtlety and he's often goofy. Yet, he has legions of fans. Howser knows how to tell a story and capture the ambiance of a location. He brings people and history to life in ways commercial TV misses. His informal style is perfect for the Web and fits well with a print journalist's gift for detail. You can have far worse tutors than Huell Howser.

Which is why this post on LAObserved grabbed my attention.

Jacob Soboroff just got a new HD video camera and went over to the Cornfield state park downtown yesterday to try it out. Walking the grounds he saw Huell Howser, "my idol in all things television," filming a segment for KCET. Jacob headed over, camera running.

Here's the YouTube post.

There's more Huell on YouTube, too.

In Soboroff's video, Huell talks about this sort of thing being how things are now. I wish Huell would get with the times on his Web site and at least make his current episodes downloadable for free (and shareable), and iTunes-like sale of old episodes for download. I haven't been able to regularly watch Huell since moving to Bakersfield because as a DirecTV customer, we can't get the local PBS station (the only local station we don't get -- PBS blames DTV, DTV blames PBS).

Michael Parsons offers five rules for running a media business on the Web. Satirical. Funny. True.

Many mobile TV users are somewhat like me -- older guys, though not necessarily older white guys, according to this Research Brief post. Primetime for mobile is much like the Web -- during the day.

My favorite punk-bluegrass band, Split Lip Rayfield, is closing up shop. From an e-mail:

Kirk Rundstrom, whose battle with esophageal cancer has been well-chronicled, will retire from live performance following two final Kansas shows – one in Lawrence on Dec. 1st, and the other in Wichita on Dec. 8th. He continues to fight this devastating disease and has chosen to stop performing altogether to concentrate on doing whatever he can do to restore his health. While the immediate musical plans of Jeff Eaton, Wayne Gottstine and Eric Mardis remain undecided, they’ve agreed that Split Lip Rayfield will not continue to perform in any incarnation following these shows.

Unfortunately, I won't be able to make their final Los Angeles show on Nov. 18.

Billie and I only ever saw them perform once -- and we became instant fans -- when the band opened for Dave Alvin in Santa Barbara in late August 2001. They put on a great show, too.

I knew once we placed in ad in the paper, as we did this weekend for our open house, the real estate agents would start calling. And they have.

This wouldn't be notable, except for the package I just received in the mail from Jason Gillies. The headline: "How To Sell Your Home Yourself, For The Highest Possible Price, And Avoid Paying A Big Commission."

It's a twenty page report. The cover letter proclaims: "I'M NOT GOING TO BUG YOU." Gillies notes that he has a B.S. in marketing. I think it shows. His presentation is well done, well written, full of useful information and smart. For the naive homeowner who might think FSBO is an easy path to saved money, Gillies' report should dissuade all but the hard headed.

FSBO is not easy. It takes a lot of planning, work and caution. Gillies correctly notes that 90 percent of all FSBOs wind up with an agent.

Which is why I've never understood local MLS boards' insane practice of not letting newspaper Web sites mix classified FSBOs with the regular MLS listings. Old-line Realtors are absolutely nuts when it comes to the subject of FSBO. They throw temper tantrums when the subject is raised. Still, no matter how hard they try to ignore FSBO, FSBO is never going to go away. Preventing a newspaper site from building a comprehensive, one-stop source for real estate listings makes no sense. It's hostile to home buyers, drives FSBO traffic to alternative sources, and only serves to perpetuate an image of Realtors as greedy. When six percent of a home's sales price goes to people who, from a consumer prospective, have a very easy job, it tends to breed resentment. I understand all the justifications Realtors throw up for the fees, but when Realtors operate with old-media think about FSBOs, the Internet and a growing DYI culture, they harm themselves and the newspapers they partner with.

Gillies strikes me as an agent who gets it. His approach is quite a contrast to the facile self-promotion of the local MLS. He is willing to embrace FSBOs, knowing that because of his open-door policy, enough business will flow his way that a free brochure here, a free consultation there and a lack of hostility toward FSBOs has more rewards than limitations. Sure, his brochure is a slick bit of reverse psychology, but it also offers help without telling sellers they are idiots to not use a Realtor.

We have no choice but to go FSBO for financial reasons, but FSBO isn't for everybody, and Gillies' brochure will give sellers the ability to more rationally evaluate whether going it alone is the right option.

His Web site needs some work -- it lacks the same spirit of openness (like, why isn't this same FSBO report easily available the site? And why do I have to surrender my e-mail address for a report on preparing my home for sale?) -- but that seems to be more Coldwell driven limitation than his decision, so far (though it's also easily fixable).

The classic innovator's solution is to figure out what job customers want/need to get done and then build a product that is just good enough to get that job done.

One of the most disruptive innovations of the past decade, the iPod, didn't begin life that way, according to this Wired piece.

In Apple's case, Steve Jobs and co began with a simple proposition: We need to sell more Macs. To do that, we need a product that extends our brand. So they looked around and saw that digital cameras were good enough and cell phones were good enough, but portable music players of the time sucked. It also so happened that at the time Napster was hot and college kids were using their shiny new iMacs to rip MP3s to CDs. So there was a job-to-be-done angle, but Apple's approach wasn't to make a product that was just good enough -- they set out for vastly superior from the start.

Read the story of the team effort to improve and refine an idea that already existed.

Is the API/N2, Christensen-inspired approach the right approach?

What if the answer isn't in trying to be disruptive (though I have very strong ideas about what disruptive opportunities exist out there)? Maybe the answer is in building vastly superior digital distribution channels that enhance our brands and help us sell more newspapers (though, I think our goal shouldn't be, per se, to sell more newspapers; it should be to reach more people in our communities for both the benefit of those people and our advertisers, through any means available)?

Up until now, newspaper companies have responded to the Web with largely defensive postures, and a general philosophy that the Web merely extends the brand. That approach hasn't worked, or hasn't worked as well as it should. But what about enhancing the brand? (Hint: More of the same isn't enhancing the brand.)

I can't prove it, but I bet Steve Colbert is more popular because of YouTube than Comedy Central. When I read that Viacom was working itself into a possible litigious snit, I found it ironic. Colbert demanding $500 million -- that's funny. (via Lost Remote)

The following media bloggers have been added to the blog roll:

• Dick McMichael
• Danny Sanchez
• Paul Conley
• Matt McAlister

This past summer, Matt Welch did a series of posts about great moments of rock and roll television now available on YouTube (sadly, his archives of this period disappeared). At the time, it prompted me to search YouTube for one important moment he neglected to include: Elvis Costello's first performance on Saturday Night Live where he interrupts the song he was supposed to do and launches into the song he wasn't supposed to do, "Radio, Radio." That supposedly unauthorized change caused a bit of buzz at school the next Monday.

This morning, while looking for a recent SNL skit mentioned in the morning paper, I found that about a month ago, somebody uploaded that historic moment.

In one of my media-related e-mail newsletters was a brief this morning about a new PSA running on Arab television. It is an anti-terror message using cinemagraphic special effects. I was immediately curious if it is on YouTube, and of course it is. You can view it here. Unfortunately, the original Houston Chronicle story doesn't link to the video -- either on YouTube or the other non-linked URL included in the story. Newspaper sites need to get over their phobia of not linking out.

Elvis imitators on YouTube imitators:

• AOL's Uncut
• MetaCafe
• Vimeo
• Eyespot
• Google Video
• Grouper
• JumpCut
• Revver
• Vsocial
• Buzznet
• DailyMotion
• Bolt
• Yahoo! Video
• Blip.tv

Of course, not all of those are true imitators of YouTube. Some, such as Revver, actually have a business model, and I think Google Video was in beta before YouTube launched, but the King remains the King (with apologies to my friends at Buzznet)

So after putting you through all those miserable videos (you did watch them all, all the way through, right?), here's the real thing: the King on YouTube.

Yahoo! has the worst video sharing service -- it's bring your own hosting, which means videos are in multiple file formats (rarely Flash), and download speeds are likely to be atrocious. Why bother?

YouTube is the best, but not all services are bad. Some, in fact are quite good, such as MetaCafe. The interface is actually slightly more attractive than YouTube, and it has copied many of the same features. It just doesn't have the long tail YouTube has. Google Video is a close third. My main gripe about Google is videos tend to be slow to download, and there are not enough of them (that whole long tail thing). AOL ain't bad. It offers the most navigation options, which sets it apart to some extent. Browsing by tags is interesting. Real Estate agents seem to love the "about me" tag. It almost looks as if DMC or AdFare uploaded a bunch of its videos (or a client did).

In researching this post, I came across a bit of news I had missed last August: Sony bought Grouper for $65 million. Grouper has plenty of what appears to be copyrighted material on its site. As far as I know, Sony isn't under the legal scrutiny Google is now. I guess because Sony is part of the family.

UPDATE: About 24 hours after posting this ... I see a headline reporting that Universal is suing Grouper and Bolt.

For years, I've wanted to see The Man with the Golden Arm. I had heard it was one of Frank Sinatra's greatest performances and the film was ahead of its time in its gritty depiction of addiction.

I would say the film scores on both counts. Sinatra is brilliant and his portrayal of an addict's hope, good heart, insecurities and easily influenced temperament is timeless. The push and pulls of society on an addict who returns to his old environment reveals how hard it is to put behind a seedy past. Frankie Machine had talent and hope, but keeps laying down with the wrong dogs. Kim Novak and Eleanor Parker also turn in landmark performances. The entire cast is effective, including Arnold Stang, Robert Strauss and Darren McGavin.

The script is tight and filled with colorful language.

Overall, great film that was probably under appreciated in the 1950s because of its controversial subject matter, but it stands with the best work of the period.

I'm back in Bakesfield after two weeks on the East Coast. The first half of my trip was in Boston/Quincy, and then I spent five days in Fairport/Rochester. Billie joined me in Rochester. It was her first tour of our future hometown (whichever town in the region that might be). Before she arrived, I was joking, "This is Billie's first visit to Rochester. We'll see if wants to divorce me at the end of the week."

Billie isn't going to divorce me. She liked what she saw. She especially liked Wegman's. This regional chain of supermarkets includes some megastores that are as big if not bigger than the biggest Wal-Mart you've ever seen -- and all Wegman's sells is groceries. Here's a picture of a produce section. Here's a candy aisle. Here's an olive bar. The largest of the three stores we were in had a deli counter that was at least 80 yards long (fully staffed), multiple cheese bars, a sushi station, a grill, a dining area, a large bakery and a walk-in beer cooler. The meat counter has every cut, every variety you can imagine. I can see where much of my paycheck is going to be going every week. Billie can't wait to start shopping at Wegman's.

As I said, I started the trip in Boston. I like this shot of downtown and this one of a bridge near downtown. I think this is a pretty cool shot of Boston at night from the air.

In Rochester, Billie and I drove up to Sodus Bay and toured a lighthouse. I like this interior shot.

Here's my barn shot from the trip (this will become my new desktop wall paper).

On our last full day, we drove around downtown and found the George Eastman estate/museum, so we stopped there. Eastman was the founder of Kodak. Here's the front of his house. Here's one of his gardens.

Even if you have no interest in Internet gambling, you should take a moment to ponder how Congress's latest attempt to ban the online activity will play out. We may learn a lot about the government's power to control online lives.

The new law is going to be tested both online and in the courts. The biggest test of the law will come in the online poker world.

• There is already a legal president in the US that poker is a game of skill, and therefore is not gambling.
• PokerStars, one of the world's largest poker sites, has already announced that it will continue to accept funds and make payouts for US customers.
• One of the most popular online payment services for poker players, Neteller, will continue to handle transactions for US customers. Neteller is based in Canada.

In my early days on the Net, somebody pointed out to me that the nature of networks is to route traffic around trouble. That innate ability of networks to find the groves where information and activity flows freely is the biggest hindrance governments face in trying to control what people say and do online. The Internet is inherently a libertarian environment. This law presents a opportunity to see if that concept is true.

As a side note: The bill doesn't ban online, state-run lotteries or placing online horse racing bets.

The LA Times has assigned a group of investigative journalists the task of figuring out how to fix the newspaper business. Interesting idea. Their report is due in two months. We'll see what a group of Big-J reporters and editors can think of that nobody else has thought of yet.

Jakob Nielsen writes about the contribution inequality in online communities, and how to deal with inequality.

Inequality is this: Only 1 percent of your users regularly contribute to your community. Most people are lurkers.

Inequality is a fact of life, an immutable law of cyberspace. You're never going to get five percent or ten percent of your users to contribute, so don't try. Even two percent is probably out of the question. But you can manage contributions better and marginally increase participation on the edges. Jakob's tips (my condensed version):

• Make it easier to contribute. For example, use star ratings instead of or along with feedback.
• Make participation a side effect. Like Amazon's "customers who bought also bought" feature.
• Edit, don't create. Don't give users a blank slate with no guidance.
• Reward -- but don't over-reward -- participants. I've long been a fan of WholeNote's point system, which is just points for pride with no prizes.
• Promote quality contributors. It should be easy to find the gems among the noise of contributions, and if you make it easy, the semi-regulars will be more encouraged to comment.

In my experience, hardcore lurkers will always be lurkers, but you can induce the not-quite-heavy contributors to participate more if you manage the community correctly. Nielsen doesn't, in fact, mention managing the community, but that is also vital to a community's well being. The best communities have out-front personalities (either paid moderators (or the community owners) or volunteers. You can raise the quality of participation through weeding and feeding, but that takes time and dedication.

Common mistakes I see newspaper Web sites making start with the lack of detailed attention to their forums. They don't assign a staffer to monitor and participate. The same applies to comments on stories and blogs. And then they wonder why the barbarians take over. The other mistake they make is to assume their communities are dysfunctional because so few people participate. "See," they'll say,"We're damaging our brand because most people are turned off by the regular contributors." That's bunk. People are turned off because you don't control the barbarians. The people tarnishing the brand aren't the ones making ugly comments, but the site managers who fail to manage the community correctly.

Online community isn't something you commit to casually. On the other hand, it's not something you can neglect and ignore. Community, connections, is an essential part of the Web world.

It's amazing what one man can do with a color copier and a little imagination.

Matt Welch romps through some of the more outlandish quotes related to the firing of Jeff Johnson and hiring of David Hiller as publisher of the LA Times.

My friend Dave Insley gets a big write up by Nat Hentoff in the Wall Street Journal today. Dave had sent out an e-mail to his fan list letting us know about the upcoming article, but it wasn't even on my mind when I flipped to the back of the Personal Journal section and saw a gorgeous drawing of my buddy. How very cool for one of the coolest singer/songwriters in country music.