The great promise of the Web, which was finally fulfilled by the pervasive existence of blogs, was that everyone would be a publisher. With cheap, easy tools, anyone can publish work that is immediately accessible across the globe.There is literally no fundamental barrier to the creation and distribution of your work.
There is a new epochal shift whose effects are only now beginning to be felt. While everyone can be a publisher — more people are also programmers.
I don’t mean people who write computer code — which a lot of people can do — but I mean programmer in the sense of a TV or radio programmer.
What’s driving this is the pervasiveness of the Stream. More and more people interact using status updates and other ephemeral, time-limited messages: Twitter updates, Facebook status updates, TXT messages, Media posting on YouTube, Vimeo, Posterous, and similar sites. All of these add up to a Stream of output.
What differentiates the Stream from my blog posts or from email messages is that, at any given time, some people will see parts of this Stream and others will miss it.
And those who miss it won’t come back to it unless they are highly motivated. There is an inherent time component that I have to take into account.
In other words, as a person who creates content, I’ve got to think like a programmer, keeping in mind not only what content I am creating, but also when I push it out, how I push it out, and how often I do that.
Here are five tips to thinking like a TV programmer when it comes to linking your blog with social media:
Tip #1: Schedule reruns.
Ever watch C-SPAN? Have you ever noticed that they will rerun certain shows? That’s not just to fill time. It’s to give more people a chance to see the show. Use this idea by repeating yourself if you have something important to let people know about. There is no perfect time to add your link into the stream. There are a number of good times. Add a link to your new blog post on Twitter right when you’ve posted it. Then come back around in 4-6 hours and repeat the update. The maybe once or twice more, with sufficient time in between that you can be sure you’re catching different people. Do NOT go overboard with this because people will just tune you out and it’s rude. But a bit of “twepeating” is useful.
Watch your own behavior and experiment with different times. You’ll find a good mix. For me, I’ve found that some of my friends are reading in the early morning (eastern), but there’s another big block that is reading in the late afternoon (eastern). And, while Sunday afternoon is death for news, it’s great for social media interactions!
Tip #2: Tease different.
Lots of people, when they complete a blog post, will paste the title into their Twitter client, add a link, and just go with that. If you’ve written a decent title that should work OK. But you might also want to think about varying your language, even highlighting different things. For instance, if there’s a key question or insight in your blog post, try repeating that question along with the link.
The same goes for sharing the link in Facebook, too. As you repeat, try different teases, calling out different aspects of your post.
Tip #3: Interact with commenters.
The vast majority of blog posts garner few to no comments. If you are lucky enough to generate comment activity, mention that in social media streams! “Great conversation in the comments at this post about widgets. http://xx.xx/xxxx.” People like to go see what other people are talking about.
If you don’t have a plug-in on your blog that lets people follow the comments on a particular post, get one. Then make sure you respond to people when they comment on your blog. They will feel a greater connection and will start to come back more and more. If you “know” them on Twitter, consider sending them an “@” message after you comment, with a shortened link to your blog post. “@blahblah Great comment, thanks! I have some thoughts about that which I added in the comments. http://xx.xx/xxxx”. This may intrigue others to take a peek.
Tip #4: Syndicate to Facebook.
Lots of people will read my blog at my website, but there are some eople in my audience who seem to live their entire online lives in Facebook. I’ve found that if I repost the articles on Facebook, I am likely to get comments and interactions from people who never post on my blog. (You do this by writing a “note” in Facebook — make sure you set it so “everyone” can read it unless for some reason it’s top secret.) It’s like I’m “synidcating” my show to another outlet. If I have the energy, I’ll mention comments in one sphere in the other (e.g., “great conversation going on at Facebook on this post, too. <link>”.
You can set up your Notes in Facebook to automatically import your blog, so that each time that blog is updated a Note is generated. (This typically happens within an hour or so of the original posting and sometimes it is a bit flaky but it beats doing it manually.)
Tip #5: Maintain flow and mix it up.
With a few exceptions, the stream approach is not very compatible with a “news bureau” mindset where you just broadcast your own content. For one thing, just issuing social media updates about your own content is seen as overly self-promotional. For another thing, unless you are in the breaking news business, you will have long stretches of no updates. In an environment with constantly-flowing streams of information, you want to be a presence throughout the day.
So don’t just post links to your blogs, but link to other interesting things — friends’ blogs, useful articles, good videos. Do this regularly, so there is a constant (not overbearing) flow.
Remember, with all these tips, I am not advocating spamming your Stream wantonly. You’ve got to be providing useful content. Some of your posts might be throwaways that you don’t necessarily need to go hammering on — it happens to everyone. But for the blog posts, questions, or other information that you want to get out, you need to have an approach that recognizes the time element and allows more people to see your material.
There have been long dry stretches, where I could barely get anything written. I didn’t know what to write, I didn’t want to write anything, I could not motivate myself.
Other times I had too much — three, four posts per day which for some people is just right but for me is overwhelming.
Right now I am in a groove, though. I thought I would share the four main tips that have made this current state possible:
Tip #1: Dig a hole.This is the biggest single piece of advice I can give. You need a news hole.
There was a long time when I wrote essays “occasionally.” This was designed to let me off the hook if I just couldn’t get it together to write. Result: long stretches of bupkis. Once I committed to a regular schedule and stuck to it for long enough for that to become a habit, it’s dialed in. Now I know every weekday I need a new post. (Sometimes I think of it as “feeding the beast.”) Since I know that every day I need to write something, I can schedule ahead, putting things in the can for vacation times, or just getting next week set so I can take it easy. You might go on a weekly schedule, daily, bi-weekly, or some other schedul. But the key is to make it regular. Don’t post “occasionally” or you will not be able to sustain it. If you want to post two stories per week, decide which days you will post. That’s your news hole.
Tip #2: Limit your time. Don’t allow yourself to work too long. Stop at 30 minutes.
It’s easy to not write because I think it’ll take a whole bunch of time. So I limit myself — 30 minutes to write a post. (Your own duration may differ.) It is 100% easier to say, “I am going to bang this thing out becuase I only have 30 minutes” than it is to say “Wow, I have to write something about health care reform (or whatever).” Remember, this is blogging, not writing for print publication. It should not take a long time.
Tip #3: Lower your bar. Do not shoot perfection. Go for “good enough.”
Here is a good way to keep yourself within your time limit. Don’t pursue perfection. This is a blog, for goodness’ . Good enough is totally, completely good enough. Maybe once in a while you will want to write the definitive post — set yourself a long time and go for it. But for day-in, day-out production, just keep it simple. Four paragraphs or less. Breezy style. And don’t edit too much. Just feed the beast — who cares if it’s prime rib or hamburger?
Tip #4: Link, baby, link. Use links to help you write. Make sure you are linking.
This is a bit of a technical piece of advice but it also helps with production. Make sure you link to something, even if it’s another article you wrote. Why? Well, for one thing, this is a blog and people expect that. For another, it gives you something to hang your piece on. It gives you something you have to describe (the thing you are linking to) and that means you’ve got one paragraph down. Three to go!
These aren’t hard and fast rules, obviously, just tips. And they don’t at all cover what to blog about. These are just things to think about.
If you write a blog, how do you make sure you’re getting it done? And, if you are considering blogging, what are the things holding you back?
I can’t tell if they are mocking me, poking good-natured fun, or are serious.
Back in April, I recorded a video that outlined my note-taking strategy. Over the years, lots of people have commented on it in meetings and have been curious about how it works. I’ve got the video embedded down at the end of this article.
The basic idea is to draw a box in the upper right of your notes pages, in which you put key ideas. The important thing is to think ahead of time about your purpose for taking the notes so you know — during the meeting — what to record.
But now, three months later, Last night I noticed this odd flurry of comments on the video. They are a strange mix of praise, jest, and sarcasm:
Thank you very much! This system has really expanded my post-meeting analysis. I’ve also expanded on your technique by adding an extra box in the lower left hand corner to record random thoughts unrelated to the subject of my meetings (such as what others are wearing or the types of pens they use, etc). Though somewhat recently I’ve been considering using a rhombus because my style of note analysis may be described as oblong or semi-circular. What are your thoughts on other shapes?
And:
I think we would get along well because I use graph paper too! Do you ever doodle when you take notes? I confine myself to the lines of the paper, so my doodling comes out looking like something made on an etch a sketch.
And:
thanks! now i can tell if somebody is a virgin or not just by looking at his notes!!!
Yes, I get that they are making fun of me. It’s just the all-over-the-map tone is sort of interesting to me. I kind of like it. Lately I have been getting a bunch of quite nasty comments on Rockville Central, the local blog I run, and these comments are pretty fun and refreshing.
The thing is, if I squint a bit, I can see how that “rhombus” comment might be meant in earnest.. And if that is true, then what about the others?
Anyway, I am just glad some folks found the video again! (It’s one of my more-viewed videos; people seem to come back to it every few weeks.)
I used the occasion to make a broader point about being anonymous (which I have a bias against in most cases). But the underlying story — the battle between publius and Whelan — got a lot of blogosphere attention. By the end of the night, Whelan had apologized for disclosing publius’ identity:
I realize that, unfortunately, it is impossible for me to undo my ill-considered disclosure of his identity. For that reason, I recognize that Publius may understandably regard my apology as inadequate.
I also got a note from the author of the amusingly-named Bloggasm, who got in touch with both Whelan and publius, (on the phone no less, how groovily old-skool) and filed a useful report here.
Because I enjoy publicizing the activities of my band, The West End, here’s our most popular YouTube video, in which we perform Husker Du’s “Sorry Somehow.” I thought it apt for the moment.
There’s a controversy right now over an exchange between two notable bloggers, each from opposite sides of the liberal/conservative divide.
An author at the “moderate” liberal Obsidian Wings blog who writes under the pseudonym “publius” has long criticized conservative Ed Whelan, who writes at the National Review’s Bench Memos and is the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Whelan recently learned through what he terms a “reliable” source the true identity of publius. He asked for confirmation and received a brief email: I am not commenting on my identity. For a variety of private, family, and professional reasons, I write under a pseudonym (like many blogers). If I wanted to publicly disclose my name, I would do so. Thank you.”
It turns out that publius is a pre-tenure law professor at a Texas school. After being exposed, he wrote an article confirming his identity. He had attempted to remain anonymous, he writes, out of concern that blogging might damage him professionally, might upset some conservative people in his family, and might make conservative students who take his classes uncomfortable.
Now the controversy rages: Did Whelan do something wrong in exposing publius?
Most people agree that people who have compelling reasons to remain anonymous ought to have their identities protected. I happen to believe that publius’ reasons are not compelling. It is uncomfortable, but not dangerous that he is now exposed.
I’m not naming him here because I have no reason to do so. But the exchange illustrates an interesting point in digital public life.
I have long been opposed to anonymous blogging, and commenting on other blogs. At the local blog I run called Rockville Central, I’ve tried on occasion to disallow anonymous commenting, but the stream dried up whenever I did that. (In large part, I believe that is because people found it difficult to register.) Our current policy is to make a simple request of commenters: Think about whether you really need to be anonymous to make this comment and, if not, use your real name.
While I am not revealing publius’ name here, I don’t think Whelan did anything wring in revealing the identity of his critic. I likewise don’t think publius did anything wrong in writing under a pseudonym — but I wish he had not.
To write under a pseudonym simply because it is more comfortable diminishes the public value of anonymity, which is to protect those voices that need protection and need to be heard.
The Internet’s provisions of anonymity bring with them formidable powers to blow whistles and fight large powers from small platforms. But being anonymous can also untether writers from accountability — which is a key element in a healthy public square.
A town meeting can be a difficult place, as we argue and disagree. But because I can see your face, and you mine, we keep our remarks within the bounds of civility. Anonymous comments and blog postings remove this built-in control.
My friend Mike Weiksner pointed out an interesting set of observations about the important role that “shared links” are increasingly having. More and more, people come across links to information not because they searched for it, but because someone shared it with them.
The article is by Fred Wilson, a New York City-based venture capitalist. Embedded in a series of points is this observation:
When I take a step back and look at my own behavior, I also have a hard time denying the fact that my media consumption habits and behaviors have changed in the last 18-24 months. I’m getting more and more of my information from the people I’m connected to through email, IM, RSS, Facebook, and Twitter. Also, the nature of the searching I’m doing now is much more targeted and specific. I won’t search as much for content or something that’s happening now because I’ve probably already received the link from someone I know or follow. The links that are relevant to me and timely find their way to me these days with remarkable efficiency.
"Oscar Is Sharing Snack With Lily" by Flickr user Phil Scoville
(The italics are mine.) That observation seems right on, if I look at my own behavior too. I have long been an inveterate news-and-information consumer. I had a short list of sites that I was almost constantly reviewing. I go to them with little frequency these days, instead relying on a network of people I know to pass things along to me. This “corwd-sourced” early warning system by and large keeps me ahead of the curve. It’s uncanny.
What does this mean for a nonprofit or community based organization? You need a strategy to get this link-sharing to happen in order to spread your messages. There appears to be a sea change beginning (especially if you add in demographic analyses), where people rely more and more on information coming to them from trusted connections — not because they read it in a newspaper.
Of interest in the article is that 25% of the sharing that this VC’s company is watching (which is not the whole Web) gets shared by e-mail, a very old school means of sharing. Twitter and other social media account for just 9% of link sharing. So we’re not talking a Twitter or Facebook strategy here, we’re talking email and blogs.
I’ve been posting to this blog daily for some time now. I am doing it to keep a rhythm, but sometimes it’s rough finding material.
Yesterday I saw a perfect item for days when the Muse isn’t striking. It’s from Seth Godin:
I had, as I do every year, [an April Fool's] post written and queued up. (It was about JD Salinger and the Dalai Lama as twitter users.) It was good, not great.
So I posted nothing.
I couldn’t exceed my (or your) expectations, so I posted nothing.
Last week, Lisa Hickey wrote a piece in which she mused on some of the societal effects of social media. She makes a number of good points, but one in particular stood out for me — the relationship between online and in-person conversations when it comes to trust.
Think about all the times you’ve had a conversation with someone, who later asks you, “you’re not going to post this on Facebook, are you?” They’re anxious that something they see as private and personal (a face-to-face conversation with you) will become public. That’s a fair concern, and sensitive people who are devotees of social media need to be mindful of it.
However, I see a divide between the assumptions of people who are users of social media and those who are not. They are in conflict — most social media types assume that conversations are open for sharing unless they are specifically asked not to. But most people who do not use social media see it the opposite way.
As I have been experimenting with video lately, I started a thread on the issue at the video-conversation site Seesmic. Here it is (though I had to shift the video to YouTube for technical reasons):
Brian Solis of TechCrunch wrote an important review of an interesting trend in today’s social media world.
We are learning to publish and react to content in “Twitter time” and I’d argue that many of us are spending less time blogging, commenting directly on blogs, or writing blogs in response to blog sources because of our active participation in micro communities.
With the popularity and pervasiveness of microblogging (a.k.a. micromedia) and activity streams and timelines, Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed and the like are competing for your attention and building a community around the statusphere – the state of publishing, reading, responding to, and sharing micro-sized updates.
This new genre of rapid-fire interaction is further distributing the proverbial conversation and is evolving online interaction beyond the host site through syndication to other relevant networks and communities.
In most cases attention for commenters at the source post are competing against the commenters within other communities. Those who might typically respond with a formal blog post may now choose to respond with a tweet or a status update.
Result: The “traditional” venue of blogs-and-comments has been disrupted and faces challenges. Just as deadtree news laments its disappearing readership (and hence business model) — blogs face the very same disruptive situation.
This is an interesting conundrum for content-creators. On the one hand, you want to get your stuff out there is widely as possible. So you write a blog post, Tweet it, status it, and import it as a note in Facebook. Oh, and of course you syndicate it. So far, so good. But, that gives multiple access points to your readers, which means that any discussion sparked by your ideas is going to be diffused. For some people, this is not a problem — they generate long comment tails. For others, this is indeed a problem. If, for example, a “hot” post of mine generates, say, five responses, when you spread them across all of my platforms no one is talking to one another.
So that’s one problem.
Another problem, for those who are trying to monetize their work, is how to do this? How, for instance, do you monetize someone “retweeting” your work?
I don’t have answers, just the questions. And I am very certain these are not the only ones.
Finally, the irony is not lost on me that one way of looking at this is that the immediate (twittering, statusing) is once again pushing out the slower (in this case blogs) — and this is exactly what blogging did to print and other one-way media.
My friend Adam Pagnucco, who writes a blog on Maryland Politics called, natch, Maryland Politics Watch, had a fascinating post just the other day.
Actually, it wasn’t by him — it was by his wife, Holly Olson. In it, she chronicles the history of her husband’s involvement with MPW and blogging, and announces there are going to be a few changes. Seems the two have a bun in the oven, and Adam’s been asked to scale back a few of his bloggiest traits.
Holly ends the post with this: “[T]his would be a great time for all of you wanna-be bloggers to step up to the plate and start providing guest posts. There are plenty of insightful, witty, and thoughtful readers out there who could offer a post or two a month. So let’s keep MPW alive and active — but let’s do so as a community endeavor. After all, I know that you all will continue to need your political fix — baby or no baby.”
This struck me because in mid-2007 I started a blog about my town called Rockville Central. It’s a sort of civic experiment, trying to open up new spaces for people to communicate on local public issues. It’s been successful (at least along most of the the measurements I care about) but it has fallen short in one aspect: not as many other people have followed suit as I suspected might. There was one other Rockville-based online information source called Rockville Living when I started (a very good site by the way). There are other info sources for the county, and some arts-related things, but not many new sites have cropped up that are just centered on the city.
I think there should be more and I have hoped that folks would emerge with their own blogs, looking at various aspects of what’s going on. But it hasn’t happened to the extent I’d like to see. At least not yet.
Now, to be fair, I have not been explicit about that hope the way Holly is in her post. I will be watching to see how other individuals respond to her call. So far, though, I have seen a small uptick in “outside contributions,” but it doesn’t look like Adam is working any less hard.
Maybe, over at my end, it’s time to start suggesting the idea to certain people directly!
This form needs Javascript to display, which your browser doesn't support. Sign up here instead
Recent Comments
Betty Steven: The blog was absolutely fantastic! Lots of great information and inspiration, both...
: I see this in email a lot: "do to the fact that..."...
Pete Vandenbosch: Forte (meaning strength) and forte (meaning loud) aren't the same word. They...
Wordnymph: My peeves are detailed in http://wordnymph.com/2010/04/29/lay-down-your-peeves/ and http://wordnymph.com/2010/09/01/word-mixer/ and in other posts under...
Wordnymph: "Home in on" is correct. The only reason "hone in on" is...
Rachel Casebolt: Me too, actually. I also thought it was "hone in". I found...
Brad Rourke: Oh, my, Rachel, I had no idea you are right!
http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2009/09/home-truths-2.html "Hone in" is...
Libi Prince: I read yesterday in a book where they used "home in" and...
Rachel Casebolt: I've been hearing a lot of "far and few between". :(
Also, the...
Cayaface: not exactly what you are referring to but it irks me just...
Recent Comments