11 Reasons Why Blogs Still Matter

By Mark Evans in Blogs 13 Comments Tags: , , , ,

BlogSteve Rubel’s decision to pull back from blogging to focus on “lifestreaming”, Friendfeed and Twitter has captured a lot of attention given Rubel was one of the early enthusiasts about blogging – a move that helped thrust him into the high-tech spotlight and a big job with Edelman.

In the few weeks since going cold turkey, Rubel has appeared to be downright anti-blogging. His latest missive is a Friendfeed conversation: Is Blogging a Step Backward?

Here’s my take on why blogs are still important, relevant and valuable.

1. Blogs provide the platform to articulate and explore issues, trends and ideas, while providing perspective and thoughts from other sources – things that can’t be done in 140 characters or less.

2. Blogs let you provide links to multiple sources and different formats (Web sites, MP3s, PDFs, Word docs)

3. Blogs are a great way to build relationships with other people/bloggers by putting the spotlight on their thoughts and ideas

4. Blogs are a valuable “digital business card” because they give clients and potential clients a clear view of who you are and what you think.

5. Blogs are search-engine friendly, which means if people are looking for you or your area of expertise, there’s a better chance of being found.

6. Blogs are a labor of love that require time, effort and, often, brain-power. To write a good blog post, you need to think about it and have something to say. Blogs are diner; Twitter is dessert: part of the same meal and both tasty but different things consumed at different times.

7. People who are subscribers to a blog are willing to make an investment in someone else’s thoughts; people who become a friend on Twitter can make little or no investment.

8. Blogs give people the opportunity to comment on posts that capture their attention. In fact, the best part of many blog posts are the insight, perspective and passion in the comments.

9. To attract a following for a blog, you not only have to write good content but tap a variety of tools (del.icio.us, Reddit, StumbleUpon, Mixx, et al). This requires work but it’s rewarding when these efforts pay off.

10. Blogs are terrific way to indulge your passion for writing, as well as giving people an oppportunity to showcase their writing ability. Looking at the number of people who are now writing or have written books (e.g. Tara Hunt, Chris Brogan, Mitch Joel) because their blogs have attracted the attention of publishers impressed with their writing.

11. Since blogs provide a window into your thoughts and ideas, they can open doors and provide opportunities that may have never otherwise happened – be it invitations to speak, job offers, book deals, etc.

Unlike Rubel, I have no intention of stepping away from blogging. Sure, they take time and effort but the rewards – however you want to define “rewards” – are worth it. Don’t get me wrong, I’m enthusiastic about Twitter as well but I see blogs are Twitter as complementary tools rather than competing interests.

Technorati Tags:

What Services Would You Pay to Use?

By Mark Evans in Web 2.0 6 Comments Tags: , , ,

“Sooner or later people are going to get addicted to some of these services and they’ll be willing to pay for it.”
- John Malone, the chairman Liberty Media, quoted by The Guardian about his belief that consumers will eventually pay for their favorite online services.

His comments begs a few questions:

1. what online services would you pay to use?

2. How much would you be willing to pay for them?

3. Is pay-to-play going to have a bigger role in the future of online services?

They are interesting questions because, in theory, you can understand why getting consumers to pay for the services they use makes sense for many people. Malone, for example, has been running cable services in which consumers happily pay healthy amounts of money to watch TV and movies.

In the Web 2.0 world, however, free – and, to some extend, freemium – has become a key element of the competitive landscape. Even services that people are “addicted to” have a difficult time convincing people to upgrade to the paid version from the free version.

For some services such as Google and Facebook, free works because you can attract a big enough audience that they become attractive to advertisers.

For many others, however, they struggle with free because the number of users never gets big enough – even if the service they’re offering is excellent and useful.

So, what would you be willing to pay to use?

What about Twitter? For many of us, Twitter has become an essential communications, marketing and sales tool. So what if Twitter announced one day that consumer accounts would now be $2/month while businesses would have to pay $5/month? Would you pony up the two bucks, or would you and many of your friends looking for another free micro-blogging service?

Personally, I’d pay at least $2/month to use Twitter. I’d pay to use Techmeme. I’d probably pay to use WordPress if came with some premium services.

What about you? What services would you pay to use? And what services are you paying to use now?

More: For more on how Twitter might be able to monetize its popularity, check out the New York Times’ DealBook.

The Buzz About Google Chrome OS

By Mark Evans in Google 1 Comment

If a picture tells a thousand words, then the screen capture below of the front page of Techmeme illustrates the interest and excitement in Google’s new operating system.

Keep in mind this screen shot was captured 24 hours after the initial announcement, which goes to show how much attention the news continues to receive – amazing for a product not expected to be released for at least another year.

Chrome

Technorati Tags: , ,

Surprise, Surprise (Not): A Google OS

By Mark Evans in Google, Microsoft 8 Comments Tags: , , , ,

Last night, I was thinking about some of the products I’d like to see Google develop (e.g. a blog publishing tool and iPhone apps for Google Reader and GMail).

In mentally considering other possibilities, one thing that I didn’t thing about was an operating system. So, it was interesting to wake up this morning to discover Google has unveiled plans to launch a new (and free) operating system, Google Chrome OS, next year.

My thoughts:

1. If the battle between Google and Microsoft was heated before, it’s even more intense now. Instead of politely jabbing at Microsoft, Google has taken off the gloves and intent on punching Microsoft where it hurts.

2. It was really only a matter of time before Google launched an OS given it’s been moving into Microsoft’s turf with a Web browser, e-mail service and productivity tools.

3. For consumers, another OS is only a good thing to encourage Microsoft and Apple to continue to innovate. Given Google Chrome OS is an open-source project, it should be good news for Linux by validating the viability of an open-source OS.

Here’s what Google had to say about Google Chrome OS:

Google Chrome OS is an open source, lightweight operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks. Later this year we will open-source its code, and netbooks running Google Chrome OS will be available for consumers in the second half of 2010. Because we’re already talking to partners about the project, and we’ll soon be working with the open source community, we wanted to share our vision now so everyone understands what we are trying to achieve.

Speed, simplicity and security are the key aspects of Google Chrome OS. We’re designing the OS to be fast and lightweight, to start up and get you onto the web in a few seconds. The user interface is minimal to stay out of your way, and most of the user experience takes place on the web. And as we did for the Google Chrome browser, we are going back to the basics and completely redesigning the underlying security architecture of the OS so that users don’t have to deal with viruses, malware and security updates. It should just work.

So, would you abandon Windows or Mac to use Google Chrome OS?

More: Here’s what TechCrunch has to say about Google Chrome OS.

The iPhone’s Killer Apps

By Mark Evans in Apple/iPod 3 Comments

Having spent a week in Montreal on vacation, it was interesting that I didn’t use a digital camera.

It didn’t mean I didn’t take any photographs; it just that they weren’t taken with the Casio XSlim camera that was left at home. Instead, I took a few hundred photographs using my iPhone, as well as an iPhone 3G S borrowed from Rogers.

The biggest consideration in using the iPhone vs. a digital camera was convenience; it was easier to use a single device, especially while moving around seeing the sites.

Of course, the iPhone comes with a 2MB camera so the photo quality isn’t the best but when you’re mostly taking photos that could turn into 4″ x 6″ prints, 2MB is good enough. For what it’s worth, the 3G S is a better with a 3MB camera and a user-friendly video camera .

More: TechCrunch has a post on how Apple is adding video to the iPod, which will have a huge impact on the video camera market.

Technorati Tags: ,

Free Content Starting to Erode at the Edges

By Mark Evans in Media 2 Comments

It’s becoming increasingly obvious that something has to give if newspapers are going to stick around.

The most obvious problem is the availability of free content that doesn’t attract enough advertising to provide newspapers and magazines with enough of a financial return. As a result, a few things have to happen:

1. Business models need to be overhauled so newspapers are leaner and more cost-efficient. This will see smaller newsrooms staffed with tech-savvy reporters capable of writing, blogging, podcasting and video. It will also see fewer paper-based newspapers in an effort to chop away at a huge expense.

2. The amount of free content will have to shrink. If there isn’t going to be enough advertising to completely support the online operations of newspapers, then all free, all the time is a recipe for financial suicide.

Instead, newspapers will have to take another hack at a free/premium offering. Sure, it’s been tried before but the flaw has been that if someone charged for content, someone else would offer the same kind of content at no cost. Sooner or later, there’s going to be enough newspaper owners who will collectively realize this is a no-win situation.

My bet is Rupert Murdoch, who newspaper empire includes the New York Post, Wall St. Journal and The Times, will lead the charge to a free/premium model, and, along the way, convince other major newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post and Financial Post to climb on the bandwagon.

If you’re looking for a sign of things to come, check out the Financial Times registration form below. There are free unregistered and registered versions available that provide access to content, as well as premium subscriptions providing archived stories, corporate financials, access to premium content, and a mobile news reader.

I expect newspapers to become even more creative in terms of free/premium offerings that will make previous efforts pale in comparison. The newspaper industry is a financial disaster so it either needs to explore new and different ways to generate revenue, or its alarming demise will continue to unfold.

Without going on too much of a tangent, one idea newspaper should consider is embracing mobile devices as the distribution vehicle to replace paper. Whether it’s the Kindle, Mike Arrington’s new CrunchPad or electronic-paper, newspapers should be aggressively looking to strike deals with players who can provide consumers with a more user-friendly and cost-effective way to consume content.

For more on the free vs. paid newspaper battle, check out the New York Times’ Opinionator, which reported on discussions at the recent Aspen Ideas Festival. There’s also been a healthy and active discussion about Chris Anderson’s new book “Free” – here’s a blog post by Fred Wilson and a review from the Guardian.

Financial Times

Technorati Tags:

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
1 2 3 4 5