Communication – Page 4 – The Blork Blog

October 24, 2007Ed Hawco 7 Comments

On Blogs, Blogola, and Media

Yesterday, Patrick at i.never.nu posted a passionate and erudite denunciation of the current trend towards the mainstreaming of blogs. He points out that until recently, many (most?) bloggers were happy to be apart from the mainstream; we revelled in our independence from the need to generate revenue streams and to follow marketing plans. It was all about the voice and the freedom of the format, not the business.

Nowadays we’re seeing more and more blogs created for commercial purposes. I’m not sure he, nor I, are against commercial blogs per se, but what he (and I) don’t like is the selling out of the blog format. The idea of link- and ad-farming your blog, SEOing it beyond recognition, and pandering for link love is rather distasteful for us “old school” bloggers.

On the other hand, are we just being cranky old purists, like the people who were outraged when Dylan picked up an electric guitar at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965?

Maybe. Or maybe not. Patrick’s manifesto is mostly about what happens when a blog and the person behind it become a brand, and in particular when the distinction between the person and the brand becomes lost. He really nails it.

Tangential to that discussion is the issue of the merchandising of blogs.

On some blogs I can easily tolerate a few ads here and there, or the odd commercial endorsement. Blogs like The Online Photographer deserve any rewards they can manage to get, because their creators put in a lot of effort and deliver excellent, honest content. What I look for in a blog is integrity; whether it’s a purely personal blog or one that is about a specific topic such as photography or technology, it’s the voice and the intention behind it that catches my attention. That’s what sets the tone of the blog. If the tone appears to be largely commercial, then I lose interest.

A while back I read an article on Marketing Profs (short for “professionals,” not “professors”) called “Blogging for Booty.” It talks about the phenomenon of “Blogola,” in which blog writers accept “gifts” in return for reviewing products, services, television shows, or other commercial goods. With the rising influence of some blogs in the blogosphere, big business is really starting to notice their potential.

Big mainstream media has long had integrity checks and balances in place to prevent unethical payments for dubious endorsements. Ever since the payola scandals in the music industry caused ethics laws and codes of conduct to be put in place, it’s become more difficult to buy favorable publicity and airtime. Big media has very strict rules about what its people can and cannot accept as “gifts” from sponsors.

But the blogosphere has no such laws or codes of conduct; at least not formalized ones. So now we have broadcasters flying big name bloggers out to Hollywood on “blog junkets” to promote movies and new television shows. Public Relations firms are grooming bloggers for positive spin whenever and where ever they can. The blogosphere is the wild, wild west of commercial publicity and promotions; there are no rules, only palms waiting to be greased.

I will confess to having been lightly greased myself. A couple of years ago The Food Network paid me to put a link on this blog to promote Iron Chef America. I’ve also gotten a handful of books from various publishers for me to read and promote, only one of which I have gotten around to as yet. However, in both cases I have not hidden the fact that the endorsement I provided was in exchange for “promotional consideration” as they say on game shows. After all, I do have a stated and published policy about endorsements and sponsorships. (Look for the link in the right-hand column, at the bottom of the “More Blork” section.)

I don’t feel bad about those small endorsements, and I don’t think they count as “blogola.” After all, I did not solicit them, I didn’t gussy-up my book review (it reflects my honest opinion of the book), and I clearly stated them as being what they are. And I don’t think it indicates a slide into decline, at least not in my case (in almost seven years of the Blork Blog I’ve gotten less than $300 worth of goods or cash; and that includes my 12-month experiment with Google Ads).

But I do feel like I’m standing at the edge of a cliff. How can I judge others for accepting payments when I have demonstrated a willingness to do so myself? What would I say if someone from season four of “Top Chef” offered to fly me to New York for the weekend, put me up in a swishy hotel, and have me be the “secret judge” on an episode of the show? (Don’t laugh; that was exactly the case with Andrea Strong in season three.)

Of course I would be tempted. I’m just a regular guy with a blog; why should I say no to a free trip? Who am I to bear the burden of the integrity of the whole blogosphere? I’m only responsible for my own integrity while the blogosphere as a whole is becoming a victim of its own free-form, unregulated success.

Ultimately, those who degrade their integrity do so at their peril; unfortunately all they probably stand to lose is the respect of the “old schoolers” and possibly a listing on the roll call of “those who ruined it.” What they stand to gain is financial rewards (insubstantial in most cases) and the possibility of high standing in the “new old-fashioned mainstream.”

Open? Close?

Below you see a familiar sight; the “open door” and “close door” buttons found in the elevators of many downtown office buildings:

Maybe it’s just me, but I can never figure out which button to push. To be precise, by the time I figure out which is the correct button, it’s too late. The reason is that my brain cannot decode the symbols because I don’t know if they represent the state of being or the state of desired being. Also, there is the complicating factor of the visual representation of openness and closedness implied by the triangles if thought of as nouns, versus the opposite message implied by the triangles if thought of as arrows, or verbs.

Take the one on the left. It shows a line in the middle (presumably representing the seam between the closed doors) and a pair of triangles pointing to the seam. To me, this can mean:

The door is currently open, so I should push the button if I desire it to be closed. (The triangles are arrows, indicating what will happen if I push the button.)
The door is closing (moving in the direction of the arrows) so I should push this button now if I want to change the state and make them open. (The triangles are arrows indicating the current state, which is not necessarily the desired state.)
Push this button to put the doors into a state of being open. (The triangles are not arrows; their flat ends represent the edges of the door. As such, the symbol on the left implies wideness, or a state of the doors being open).

Similarly, the one on the right can mean:

The door is currently closed, so I should push the button if I desire it to be open. (Again, the triangles are arrows, indicating what will happen if I push the button.)
The door is opening (moving in the direction of the arrows) so I should push this button now if I want to change the state and make them close. (Again, the triangles are arrows indicating the current state, which is not necessarily the desired state.)
Push this button to put the doors into a state of being closed. (The triangles are not arrows; their flat ends represent the edges of the door. As such, the symbol on the right implies the edges of the door are close together, or in a state of being closed).

There’s no need to explain to me what the symbols really mean. If I think about it, I come to the conclusion that the one on the left means “close the door” and the one on the right means “open the door.” But its one of those things that never gets processed beyond short term memory, so when I’m in an elevator and the doors are closing and somebody comes rushing up to it from the outside, I have to go through all these mental gymnastics all over again, every time. Similarly, when I’m standing there and the door is taking forever to close, it ends up closing by itself before I can figure out which button to push.

For this reason, I always go right to the back of the elevator, as far away from the console as possible. That way, when someone rushes up to the closing door, I just shrug because I couldn’t reach the button in time anyway. Unfortunately, people probably think I’m doing that just to avoid letting them in.

So I come off as an elevator meanie, when in fact I’m just a regular guy with an overly analytical and somewhat defective brain.

January 9, 2007Ed Hawco 15 Comments

The trouble with the iPhone

By now everyone is losing their minds over the new Apple iPhone, which was announced at MacWorld 2007 this morning. It does look pretty sweet. There’s only one problem; the iPhone’s “official” service provider is Cingular – and in order to use Cingular you have to sign away your legal right to sue them.

That’s right. The Consumerist is reporting that Cingular has changed its contract so that users are required to waive their right to sue Cingular by trial and jury, as well as their right to be part of a class-action suit against Cingular. Specifically, the new contract forces users to agree to dispute resolution via informal measures, small claims court, or binding arbitration only. No judge and jury, no class action suits.

There you go. In the land of the free, a mobile phone user contract frees you from your rights. Fortunately, you are also free to trot over to another GSM service provider for your iPhone, such as T-Mobile. It will likely require a hack or two, but hey, if I can do that anyone can.

July 24, 2006Ed Hawco 18 Comments

Try and Speak Correctly

Languages evolve, yes, and sometimes they evolve in annoying but understandable ways. But sometimes they evolve in annoying but not-so-understandable ways. My current pet peeve along these lines is the evolution of “try to” (e.g., “I will try to speak correctly”) into “try and” (e.g., “I will try and speak correctly”). It’s one of those things that we barely notice, as we live in times of many contractions and much mumbling (e.g., “I’ll try’n speak c’rectly”). But this morning I heard it on CNN, from the mouth of a professional broadcaster. She said “Israeli troops have entered southern Lebanon, where they will try and cleanse the area of Hezbolla fighters.”

Aside from the questionable editorializing in the use of the word “cleanse” in this context, and aside from the fact that my pet peeve about this language issue is the smallest concern when it comes to the Middle-east right now, I cringed when she said that.

But there it was, right on television, from the mouth of a broadcaster. This error is primarily found in spoken language, but occasionally one even sees it in writing. Few people seem to object, so it’s just a matter of time before it becomes the norm.

That would be sad. One of the things that make languages work is when they make sense – whether or not we are conciously checking the logic. In this case, the use of “and” makes no logical sense.

Here’s why: when you say someone will “try to cleanse” something, it means they have a goal and are taking action towards that goal. They are making an attempt at cleansing. When you say someone will “try and cleanse” that means they will do two things: (1) they will try something (which is undefined), and (2) they will cleanse something.

That’s a whole different thing. And it makes no sense because it doesn’t explain what will be tried (cleansing is a whole other issue because it is conjuncted with “and” instead of “to”) and because it assumes in advance that the cleansing will be successful. In other words, there are two different things being discussed: trying something, and cleansing something. It’s like saying “they will eat and they will sleep.” The two are independent of each other. So “try and cleanse the area of Hezbolla fighters” means they will try something independent of cleansing the area, and they they will (not “attempt,” will) cleanse the area of Hezbolla fighters. So in other words, the CNN broadcaster is saying that the Israelis will cleanse the area – as if she has some kind of Coca-Cola-sponsored foresight that lets her know in advance that this “cleansing” will be successful.

Bollocks.

On the other hand, the human brain has the ability to fill in gaps and to make assumptions about things. We see this with various optical illusions and other amusements where we see our minds making unconcious leaps of faith to connect dots over gaping holes in logic and information. It’s wonderful that we can do that, but should we base our language on that ability? (Disclaimer: I’m not talking about metaphorical language, or poetry, or other forms of language that purposefully unfold on those other planes of understanding – I’m just talking about straight-forward yakkity-yak.)

stupid vonage I’m so easily brought to boil over these things. This entire rant was brought about when I saw an ad on a Web site. It’s a Vonage ad “warning” against cable-based IP telephony. That warning is itself inherently stupid (although in this case it’s apparently just based on price), but what caught my eye was that the cable companies are going to “try and sell” me phone service. There it is in writing, folks. The cable company is going to try something (but what?) and they are going to sell me phone service. It’s not that they will attempt to sell me phone service – according to this ad they will sell me phone service, all the while trying something that no one seems to want to talk about.

So there you have it. A very long rant about a very stupid problem. Thank you for visiting the blork blog. I hope you will try and come back some time.