DISQUS

Let the market decide. If YouTube becomes vanilla (or, like mainstream media, safely blood red), that's a market opportunity for an ACTUAL "freedom of speech" site.

Keep in mind that YouTube was valued at so many billions of dollars because of the likelihood of working with advertisers. Advertisers don't like unsafe, unpredictable entities. The more "free" the service, the less valuable it is to big business.

What's the end goal? What gets you there directly, and what's the scenic route? It's all part of the same composite ROI, but the ROI for the individual pieces has to be defined. And a Facebook page isn't likely to sell 3 million units of Product X all by itself; everything's relative.

Some journalists are more opinionated than others. Some social media creators are more transparent than others. In all media, there will be straight-shooters and there will be shills. In each person, there is the capacity to be both.

The trick is in figuring out who's being what when, and then deciding what you think about that. And then checking back a few days / weeks / months later, because this is the 21st Century, and who we are changes daily.

Chris - thanks for mentioning our video on your blog! (And thanks to everyone else for the feedback!) We weren't quite sure how the video would turn out when we first started, but we knew it was important to NOT imply that *everyone* knew what Bigelow Tea was. (In a city the size of New York, that would never be accurate.) Instead, it made more sense for us to show the way Cindi is able to interact with everyone and put a face to the brand, which I think helps support Bigelow's history as a family company that's achieved their success without losing sight of who they are as individuals.

By the way, if you're on Twitter, feel free to follow Bigelow Tea for more tea-related tweets, recipes and videos.

And yes, Alex, that *is* the same camerawork -- and camera -- I use on Something to Be Desired. Thanks for noticing. :)

Fictional programs have an easier natural hook to unite viewers than news shows do, because news is partisan and divisive by nature, whereas fiction tends to be uniting. (If you don't like a show, you don't watch it; if you're watching it, then you already have at least one thing in common with everyone else who watches it.)

News programs that don't hide their bias have a much easier path toward rallying a community around their POV (think Rush, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, etc.). News that purports to be unbiased almost can't generate a community on principle alone, because to do so would somehow be seen as sensationalistic or manipulative. It's not the news itself that people would be expected to rally around; it's the causes and actions that the news sheds light on that should be the rallying point.

In my opinion, CNN's i-reporters are a great example of mainstream media being dragged down by low-quality social media empowerment. I never click on an i-reporter story because I rarely think they're of value; they immediately strike me as someone's amateur hour news report, tailor-made for 15 seconds of CNN pseudo-fame. On the other hand, I fully support something like Alive in Baghdad because they produce their news under their own umbrella, apart from the presumed criteria of someone else's business model.

I think mainstream news agencies who expect to revolutionize the news via social media may be misunderstanding both their own role and the role of social media. When it comes to news, people want to rely on trusted sources. (Not that there really ARE that many anymore, but I digress.) I don't care about individual POVs on the news (which is what social media would provide); I care about accurate facts being delivered quickly and coherently, and I care about hard questions being asked immediately, rather than from the safe distance of historical evaluation. The mainstream news should focus on strengthening their own trustworthiness and accuracy, while using their financial might to force open the doors that independent journalists can't get behind.

Meanwhile, the MSM should be scouring the independent news ranks for hotbeds of social interest, budding journalism stars and independent facts that can be corroborated and compiled into a larger story. They can use social media as a way to connect with the people who are passionate about news, while also considering the social media news outlets to be a feeder system toward a mainstream media that's worth aspiring to join. Otherwise, they run the risk of becoming as irrelevant as the i-reporters they cater to, and that destroys two systems at once.

Which fictional TV shows have amassed a fan following? In recent memory, I think of things like LOST, ALIAS, Battlestar Galactica and The Office.

How did they do it?

The first 3 are mystery / sci-fi shows, which translate naturally to the "cult undercurrent" that propagates on the web. They also encouraged their fans to search for clues, solve puzzles and try to outwit the writers at their own game -- all of which is empowering and makes a casual fan feel like he / she is part of the larger creative process.

And The Office is probably a mirror image of what a lot of these same fans live through every day in their real lives. But being early adopters of web tools like MySpace and iTunes didn't hurt, either -- especially when those channels were used to offer supplementary material that added depth to the overall viewing experience.

Any new show that's looking to build a similar following would be smart to:

* Both engage and empower its audience

* Not take the intelligence of its audience for granted

* Allow its audience to watch the show whenever and wherever it wants

* Provide supplemental content that adds depth and insight for the dedicated fans who want more than just a casual viewing experience.

Also, keep in mind that there are numerous variables involved in any show's cancellation:

* Did the program run its course?
* Were the creators (or distributor) burned out?
* Did the subject matter dry up?
* Did someone get a better deal elsewhere?
* Were there politics involved?

One example isn't enough to judge an entire medium by, but if there's a rash of well-produced shows getting expunged, then we can say there's a trend.

Juke joint this place up. Nothing beats the winter blahs like some rollicking Squirrel Nut Zippers-type shenanigans.

If there's one thing social media COMMENTS have taught me, it's that we should always listen to authority.

When Brian Conley protested Tibet in China and got arrested, the commentsphere decided that he got what he deserved -- you don't protest China *in* China.

When "Bob" tried to improve his company's standing among their existing customer bases, he got reprimanded -- you don't defy your bosses in order to improve the company.

When Hitler told people to gas the -- wait, where was I?

Oh yes: authority is always right. And if you don't like it, move to Canada. (They don't have any authority there, and everyone is always equally right.)

That's the key: Obama is the kind of figure who makes me want to be a better person in emulation of him. And when enough of my fellow Americans think enough of him to elect him our president, that makes me want to work even harder with them to improve this country.

For the first time in 8 years, I can say America isn't getting the president it deserves, but the promise it aspires to deserve.

It's an interesting title, "trust agent," because the "agent" part implies that someone is purposely acting on behalf of another person's / company's interests. And we all know that "agents" often have reason to be diplomatic, vague or untruthful, so adding "trust" to the mix also feels like it should come with permanent quotes.

Random thoughts:

* People only trust you until you display more flaws than they feel comfortable with you having

* Are there trust agents in politics? Does anyone actually believe a word out of the White House spokesperson's mouth?

* For that matter, does anyone believe any news anchors, reporters or columnists?

* How important IS trust in business? In politics? If it's not, what replaces it? Self-interest?

* Can trust agents exist outside of an echo chamber?

* Can a person trust someone whose ideology is drastically different from their own? (For example: is there a PC user who reliably trusts a MAC agent? Or a Republican who can cite a credible Democratic source?)

* Is a trust agent just a different flavor of propaganda - a newspeak version of a pandering marketer, using the concept of "trust" as an economic bartering chip?

* What's the average person's price for trust? Can it be bought and sold?

Amateurs can't compete in terms of production value or paid promotion, so they have to make it up in other areas, like innovation, interaction and relevance. Big studios will always be around, but they'll need to produce the types of stories that can't be told on minimal budgets in order to maintain a traditional theatergoing audience. Comedy and drama are universal draws, regardless of budget, but genre spectacles (horror, sci-fi, musicals, history, war) are much harder to produce in your backyard / cubicle.

Makes you wonder what'll happen at this year's event, doesn't it?...

Don't confuse "risk" with "calculated risk." Using existing assets to enter a new market, or starting a side job that utilizing some of your existing equipment / experience, is a calculated risk. Deciding you're going to burrow to the center of the earth is not. It's all a difference of degree, and of having access to resources that will likely help you accomplish your goals.

It's also about being able to learn from feedback and adapt to situations as they arise. Can you start a successful business with no experience, contacts or resources? Sure, but your odds are infinitely small. Of course, when 1% of those "renegades" succeeds, the media trumpets their success story in a way that makes taking a more conventional approach seem less sexy and, therefore, uncool -- which leads to even more failure from people who ignore conventional wisdom and at-hand resources in favor of wanting to be The Next Big Success Story That Defied the Odds.

Being the lunatic who survived the bad idea gets you a lot more free press than being the person who leveraged their assets does.

Startups need to run on the blood of workaholics, 'tis true, but you're right to classify the breed of workaholic necessary -- a dedicated, passionate, motivated and level-headed one. People who LIKE staying late, working weekends and sacrificing personal relaxation for fame, fortune, or at least the promise of being able to pay the bills in the very near future.

However, there's a proper way to phrase everything, and coming across like The Guy Who Finds Nothing Wrong With the Puritans isn't going to ingratiate Calacanis with the denizens of the real world, who DO value balance in their lives and (perhaps correctly) perceive the startup space as a place where antisocial people with self-worth issues go to get rich and die young.

To each, his own. And to the man making a fortune off the blood of the workaholics? The universe has a better understanding of "balance" than you do, so listen when it starts talking.

But how much of a guarantee is FDIC insurance? If all aspects continue to head south, what requires these accounts to live up to their end of the bargain? Would the cash reserves even BE there for people when the bottom drops out?

I think of "viral" as word-of-mouth on steroids. It's more than something interesting that I *might* pass along to a friend; it's almost compulsory. It has less to do with permission and more to do with the un-keep-down-ability of the message.

As such, it's as hard to create as it should be.

Life is full of asterisks. For example: Treat independent producers WHO ACT LIKE PROFESSIONALS like professionals.

The act of picking up a microphone or a video camera does not automatically earn you the respect of the populace, nor should it. If you want to work with professionals, you should BE professional. That means taking your work seriously, producing quality content, and engaging others civilly.

People lip syncing on YouTube? Not professional, sorry.

The "rules" of online storytelling will be defined by the successful storytellers. They will also likely be variations on the "rules" that have worked in previous media.



I think the key rule is immediate audience engagement. A web viewer isn't seated in a theater, subject to the pacing of the writer / director for 90 minutes. He or she is also not watching TV, where the act of changing the channel still requires the act of finding and clicking a remote control. On the web, sitting still long enough to watch a 5 minute video IS the anomaly of "standard" behavior, so to engage that viewer, a video must be immediately interesting.



After that, anything goes... for five minutes. (And yes, that includes references to unseen / offline characters. It worked in "Cheers" as well -- we never see Norm's wife Vera in the entirety of the TV series' run, though she's referenced in nearly every episode.)

Starbucks provides a "third place" that's a hybrid between home (minus the family drama and ennui) and work (minus the stress and deadlines).

To find that "third place" online, you'd need to first know:

* Where is your HOME on the web, and
* Where is your WORK on the web?

From there, you can identify what experiential aspects a person would need to consider that "third place" essential to their daily routine but not so mundane as to be taken for granted.

The "third place" has to be a treat.

I think everyone benefits from re-evaluating WHY they do what they do, and checking their gut to be sure it's what they still WANT to be doing.

There's nothing wrong with saying, "No, what I'm doing ISN'T what I want to be doing," and then changing your life.

There IS something wrong with never asking yourself, or worse, asking yourself and then ignoring the answer because "maintaining" is easier.

I think seeing Mr. and Mrs. Brogan sending their love here really puts Chris's impact on the community into perspective: we're all one big (sometimes) happy family.

And, anyone who can teach his parents to comment on blogs is the kind of guy people should be overjoyed to be employing.

Best wishes, Chris.

Aaron's point is valid: what IS PodCamp?

I think the name, like all things "pod," was obsolete the moment it was created - but, as a brand, it now has traction.

I don't think PodCamp is meant to be ONLY about podcasting (and, as Aaron's comment shows, there's still confusion as to what podcasting itself means, since video IS "podcasting"). I think PodCamp is meant to be a conversation about all things related to social media.

That's a gigantic playing field. If PodCamp wants to have a hand in all of it, perhaps a name change IS in order.

(Bottom line: I agree with diversifying, specializing AND swirling it all together. We just need to be clear about what PodCamp IS, and therefore what each variation is ABOUT.)

Congratulations on a new direction. Remember, the one who dies with the most interesting experiences wins.

(The one who dies with his mortgage paid off comes in second, which is still pretty decent...)

No one defines their goals in this space.

No one defines what success means for them.

No one outlines what's important to them.

Thus, it's a giant swirl of "let's get together and see what happens." Occasionally, great ideas come from that approach. More often, people are left feeling unsatisfied. Especially "professionals" who look into the space, see a bunch of people either half-assedly taking part or rushing to market with substandard content and bemoaning the lack of attention / investors, and they tune the entire medium out as the playground of the mediocre.

Be a business.

Be an artist.

Be both.

Be neither.

Those are everyone's options.

Not defining yourself? That's not a viable option if you want to move forward.