Disqus - Latest Comments for Max Gladwell

Re: I made my own list and you might be on it, I am!

Max Gladwell — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:39:31 -0000

Yeah top 10! Great list. I will bookmark this and use it as a reference. I'll add many to my Google Reader. Thanks for pulling all of these together in one place.

Max Gladwells last blog post..The Universal Message and Animation of 350.org

Re: The Green Religion Debate

Max Gladwell — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:31:28 -0000

I would add to that that fundamentalists tend to be the greatest hypocrites. Look at the 9/11 hijackers who spent their last days in Vegas strip clubs. Look at the priests and all of the child abuse scandals. Look at the family values Republicans getting outed in men's bathrooms and caught in extra-marital sex scandals. Is this who environmentalists want to be associated with? It sets people like Gore and other celebs up for criticism that they're advocating for green and yet lead these carbon-heavy lives. The point is that they are aware, that they are doing what they can, and that they are spreading that awareness.

The reality, like or not, is that rich people pollute more than poor people. Billionaires are worse than millionaires. The average American is worse than the average Mexican. And the average Mexican is worse than the average Nigerian. Do you celebrate abject poverty because it's more green? "Good for them. They can't afford to eat, but they're carbon neutral!"

It's about being healthy and responsible. It's about being conscious. It's about doing what you can and want to do without standing in judgment of others, especially not those who are on your side.

Re: So I’m a green washin’ mama, eh?

Max Gladwell — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 02:48:21 -0000

Way to spark the debate Sommer. Glad to see all of the thoughtful and reasonable comments. I've been wanting to write a post about green fundamentalism. This is a great motivator.

Re: So I’m a green washin’ mama, eh?

Max Gladwell — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 15:18:17 -0000

GGM: I'm with you. I drive an SUV, too. This is because I have kids and need the utility of my SUV for outdoor activities...not that I need an excuse. I use my SUV responsibly. I work in walking distance and always walk to work. So does my wife. I live in an urban environment that allows me to bike to the market. I guarantee that our carbon footprint from driving our SUV is smaller than any Prius driver who commutes everyday. So by their reasoning, anyone who commutes cannot be green. We also live in a climate (by choice) where we need very little to no artificial cooling or heating. That's why LA is the greenest city in the continental US.. Again, by their reasoning, living in Phoenix or Anchorage makes you a greenwasher.

When people get all high and mighty about their greenness, it starts to feel like a religion. I have little tolerance for judgmental zealots and fundamentalists of any stripe, whether it's Christian, Muslim, Alcoholics Anonymous, or Environmentalists. Call it a flaw of human nature, but some people just need to feel like they're better than others...that they are among the "saved" or "chosen" or "enlightened" ones. That's precisely what this is, and I want no part of it.

Keep up the good blogging.

Re: Thanks, but No Thanks, Chevy

Max Gladwell — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 13:00:00 -0000

A man of principles. Well done. Politely, too.

Re: Why Palin should be taken seriously (Scripting News)

Max Gladwell — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 14:54:16 -0000

Palin is a sacrificial lamb just as Ferraro was in '84. Sad but true. There are many more highly qualified GOP women who would have accomplished all of those same objectives w/o the inexperience and baggage. The GOP has given up. They are looking to 2012 and saving their best women for then. For deeper analysis, see http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/09/indecision-2...

Re: Why Palin should be taken seriously (Scripting News)

Max Gladwell — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:24:10 -0000

Mondale-Ferraro fought very hard, too. So did Dole in '96. It will certainly appear that they are fighting. They have to go thru the motions, and no one...not even the media...will admit or even float the idea that McCain-Palin are predestined to be road kill in the annals of American political history. This is precisely why you don't have a more qualified VP candidate. Palin doesn't mind losing b/c she's raising her national profile. The qualified GOP women and most GOP men wouldn't touch it b/c they don't need the brutal loss that the American people will deliver to the GOP come November.

And while this has something to do with the candidates, it's more of an historical truth. Every time there's an election during an economic crisis, the incumbent party loses. Hoover, Carter, Bush 41, and now Bush 43/McCain. This political truth plays no partisan favorites. Economics is brutal that way.

Re: Why Palin should be taken seriously (Scripting News)

Max Gladwell — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:31:24 -0000

The GOP is looking to 2012, as are the candidates who may run. Hillary is even looking to 2012. These things are in motion. Most in the GOP see the writing on the wall. The question on everyone's minds is how to take back the White House in 2012. You won't see any of that b/c it has to play out like they think they can win in Nov. No one wants to be seen as giving up. But politics is a long-term game. The goal now is to minimize the damage done by Bush-Cheney and run as best they can in Nov w/o having to sacrifice anyone who can help in 2012.

Re: Why Palin should be taken seriously (Scripting News)

Max Gladwell — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:07:55 -0000

I'm not a partisan and take no pride in these predictions. I look at this election as any objective observer would. You're pinning your predictions on hope. I'm making mine based on historical consistencies. It's not a partisan thing. It's the facts as they are.

I don't buy into the GOP boogyman that liberals see as why the Dems lost in 2004. Kerry was a bad candidate, and it takes a far superior candidate to unseat an incumbent...or and economic crisis. Neither was the case.

And I'm not even saying that the economic crisis was the GOP's fault. That's another discussion. I'm simply pointing out that incumbents always lose when there's an economic crisis. It's a rule. The Dems know it. The GOP knows it. But no one will talk about it. The only manifestation I've seen is Palin. If the GOP thought they'd win, they'd have picked a better candidate, woman or man.

The only question is how bad the defeat will be. I'm leaning toward a landslide where the Dems take states they haven't had in decades, especially once the candidates have had a chance to debate.

But I do find it ironic that evangelicals were literally praying for it to rain on Obama's acceptance speech and then a hurricane ends up delaying the RNC. If there's a God, I don't think you can confuse His message. Unless He put the wrong date on his calendar.

Re: Is Viral Video an Effective Marketing Strategy?

Max Gladwell — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 20:50:16 -0000

Viral isn't a strategy. It's an outcome. Those DirecTV commercials poked fun at this distinction. "We go viral. We're gonna blog it out."

Re: What’s Your One Social Media Best Practice?

Max Gladwell — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:28:56 -0000

We responded with Discovery Marketing: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/09/discovery-ma...

Our social media best practice is the fundamental of making your brand more discoverable. It's integral to our "beacon approach" philosophy.

Re: People - Part 1

Max Gladwell — Wed, 14 May 2008 14:01:48 -0000

Thanks Loki! We appreciate the shout out.

Re: 2008/04/06/brand-name-social-networks/

Max Gladwell — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:57:18 -0000

This is truly pushing the limits of the long tail of social networks. They can work b/c there are plenty of Prius owners and Starbucks fanatics to support these micro niches. However, it makes much more sense for companies to have branded environments within a Facebook, MySpace, or (better yet) a social network that focuses on their vertical...such as a Prius environment within an automotive network like www.carspace.com. Companies may have to have multiple branded environments. Pepsi might have one in www.blocksavvy.com for the urban market and another with MySpace that associates the brand with music and entertainment.

These new vertical social networks, as well as the big horizontals, need to start designing & offering environments with all of the tools and features that companies like Toyota and Pepsi need to build two-way communities. They'll want a certain level of customization and control. Neither MySpace nor Facebook currently offer enough of either...which is why companies start their own.

www.maxgladwell.com

Re: 2008/04/06/brand-name-social-networks/

Max Gladwell — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:14:35 -0000

Good point. In my view, social networks imply the basic features of friending, photo sharing, blogging, and such. They don't rely on any other content than the UGC provided by the members of the network. E-communities imply that the primary reason for existence is content that attracts people with in a common interest and may include forums to discuss. iVillage is a classic e-community. An e-community adds a social network when it adds the features of a social network.

But the lines between network and e-community are blurring as they both evolve.

Max Gladwell

Re: 2008/04/06/brand-name-social-networks/

Max Gladwell — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:55:35 -0000

Alex: Looks like a great solution. My point is that companies would be better served in building a branded network environment within, say, the Martha Stewart social network as opposed to a standalone one. Unlike Pepsi and Toyota, Martha sells advertising as a big part of its business model. They'd do well to offer (with your platform, of course) advertisers the added value of building a community (w/social networking features) within the Martha community, complete with a set of tools for control, customization, management, and a means of promoting it i.e. advertising. It's like an affinity group but much more robust.

Re: 2008/04/08/twitpic-upgrade/

Max Gladwell — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 16:27:08 -0000

Just sent my first twitpic. Very cool.

Re: 2008/04/26/aegis-facebook-google/

Max Gladwell — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 21:24:04 -0000

This is where the social web will truly earn its place in history. Making individual rich is nice, especially for them. Making the world a better place is good for everyone.

Re: 2008/04/30/are-you-frustrated-with-firefox/

Max Gladwell — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:49:03 -0000

I try to spread the load between FF and Safari when I can. But I do rely on FF for a lot.

Re: 2008/04/30/google-said-to-be-building-interactive-map-of-earths-oceans/

Max Gladwell — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:24:50 -0000

Perhaps it will be a mapping system for sunken treasure hunters? Huge sums of dough sitting on the bottom of the ocean. Plenty of good technology to map it out and flag anomalies. And it's getting more and more efficient to recover. I can see Richard Branson and Sergy in the subs now...

Re: 2008/05/02/dogood-channel-launches-with-grand-ambitions/

Max Gladwell — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:10:10 -0000

It's a sign of the times.

Re: 2008/05/06/rmbrme/

Max Gladwell — Tue, 06 May 2008 15:48:59 -0000

I'm going to a green business networking event tonight in LA (http://room367.eventbrite.com). I'll see how many people I can meet and who will rmbrME. Then I'll blog all about it.

Re: 2008/05/10/20-tools-for-the-best-mothers-day-ever/

Max Gladwell — Sat, 10 May 2008 13:14:52 -0000

For a more lighthearted approach: http://www.jibjab.com/

Re: 2008/05/12/friend-connect-and-the-end-of-the-fragmentation-era/

Max Gladwell — Mon, 12 May 2008 15:51:56 -0000

I can see this on a micro level but having a hard time pulling back to see the big picture. Seems like a lot of ripple effects. How much more control over our data did Google just pick up? Is Google gaining leverage over MySpace and Facebook? How does Yahoo's new social platform figure into it?

Re: 2008/05/15/facebook-blocks-friend-connec/

Max Gladwell — Thu, 15 May 2008 19:59:53 -0000

This was inevitable.

Facebook is like Anakin Skywalker. Itâ€™s got the potential for evil and itâ€™s inevitable that it will join the dark side aka Microsoft. Facebook canâ€™t monetize its audience and will never be able to. Social networking is a feature not a product. The only way anyone is getting their money out it is from an acquisition b/c the markets will never justify anything close to their valuation. And only Microsoft will be dumb enough to pay $15 billion for it, though theyâ€™ll probably negotiate a much smaller number as developers and others defect for OpenSocial et. al. Meanwhile, MySpace will become a music store and Google/Yahoo will offer social networking as a feature for all of their other productsâ€¦as well as yours and mine via FriendConnect. Facebook will eventually go the way of Netscape.

So who is Luke Skywalker to Facebook's Anakin? Twitter?

Re: 2008/05/18/google-friend-connect-2/

Max Gladwell — Sun, 18 May 2008 17:31:48 -0000

Facebook is in a very difficult position, one they've entirely created for themselves. Much of this has to do with getting into bed with Microsoft, though they didn't have a lot of choice. There's also the simple reality that social networking is not a business. It's a feature, and while it's been open to everyone as a feature for some time by way of platforms like Ning and other white label solutions, FriendConnect socialized the web for the masses by delivering both technology and audience with the flick of a switch. In this scenario, Facebook becomes just a place to store your data and socialized, neither of which constitutes a business.

The endgame for all of this feels quite familiar in a Netscape sort of way. You have a dominant player in a space (social networking and browser) that's not really a business model. You have emerging competition from large successful companies. For Facebook, it's Google and Yahoo; for Netscape it was Microsoft (IE). Just as AOL bought Netscape, Microsoft will buy Facebook for what will be a lot of dough but nowhere near $15B. We'll est $3B tops. Just as Andreesen cashed out big, so will Zuckerberg and friends. And that will mark the beginning of the end for Facebook. Microsoft will no more be able to monetize Facebook than Facebook. There will be a mass exodus of talent, developers, and users to OpenSocial. And social networking will finally be seen for what it is: a feature, one that we use every day on ever website w/o thinking of it as such. Even the term "social networking" will fade into the background as a standard part of using the web, no matter where you happen to be.

That said, if Facebook were the one to have introduced FriendConnect in the way Google has (if they truly had enough vision), things would be much different.

Re: 2008/05/20/facebook-traffic-decline/

Max Gladwell — Tue, 20 May 2008 18:05:22 -0000

This is indicative of two things: first, people are waking up to the reality of Facebook as a walled garden that's going in the opposite direction of utility. And now that Microsoft is calling the shots, the exodus will continue.

But the bigger issue is that pure social networking is not a business model. That's why LinkedIn is cranking. Everyone is there for a purpose other than to socialize. And they've leveraged that into a multiple revenue streams.

Facebook will be lucky if MS offers them $3B, and even that is ridiculous. YouTube was overpriced at $1.65B, and they still haven't figured out how to make money on it. Though it has a lot more promise than Facebook.

Re: 2008/06/10/plurk-api/

Max Gladwell — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 00:59:18 -0000

First, is was a beer funnel, not a whiskey shot, that lead Frank the Tank to go streaking. We assume he did not have time to make it to Bed Bath & Beyond.

I'm hedging my bets with Plurk, but it just doesn't feel right. I'm guessing a third-party developer will be able to do a better job of organizing it and making a new interface.

Re: 2008/06/11/celebrity-social-networks/

Max Gladwell — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:07:58 -0000

The Jack Johnson network (http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/04/the-jack-net...) also raises donations for environmental charities, and members get exclusive access to tracks. Very cool.

Re: 2008/06/16/changents/

Max Gladwell — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 02:17:49 -0000

They're doing some cool stuff with Timberland, as well: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/06/timberland-p...

Re: 2008/07/18/building-your-online-brand/

Max Gladwell — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:32:39 -0000

Chris: Great starter kit, indeed. Max Gladwell used all of those tactics and more, and in less than four months we've had a fair bit of success.

We took it a step further in "Be a Beacon" (http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/06/be-a-beacon-...), and attempted to analogize and try to explain why we do all of these things. We think it's best described as (a) first making yourself discoverable by those who are looking for you and (b) sending enough signals so they cross paths with those who might not be actively looking for you, but would happy to follow that signal back to its source and find you.

Love your work, btw.

Re: 2008/07/18/building-your-online-brand/

Max Gladwell — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 16:18:51 -0000

James: Your point is well taken about how the tech world often mistakes itself for the whole world. It's akin to believing that the sun revolves around the earth. That became all too clear in Calacanis' claim that blogging was dead.

But social media marketing tactics, as Chris outlines in this starter kit, can be utilized and replicated in pretty much any industry, regardless of whether you're an established brand or startup. There are exceptions, but by and large your customers are on the web. A vast majority are also on the social web. It's just a matter of (a) making yourself findable (discoverable) and (b) going about finding them. Chris glances over the blog tactic in the intro, but we feel it's absolutely essential. Start a good blog should be first. Then do all of these other things to promote it.

In "Can a Blog Lead Your Business Strategy?" (http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/07/can-a-blog-l...), we look at this as the hub of any brand building or social media strategy. Whether you're a clothing designer or local bakery, a blog can be the primary source of your brand signal. So all of these other tactics revolve around your blog. I'd argue the resources that you'll put into a blog will earn far better returns than any type of online ad, SEO or spam campaign. It's sustainable.

Example: Here's a company that sells eco-friendly mattresses (http://keetsa.com/blog). Hardly a tech company. And yet their blog is one of their primary means of traffic, customer acquisition, and branding. Note their dedication and blog frequency and topic range. This could stand on its own as a green blog. And what are the costs? These people are clearly experts in their field, so they're just sharing knowledge and experience.

Anyone can do this. It's sincere. It's authentic. It's cost effective. And it works. Plus, as an authentic blogger, you transcend PR in the eyes of other bloggers in your space and open yourself up to coverage that you don't even have to ask for. Because you are making a valuable contribution to the conversation. You have a product or a brand, but you are also providing value for its own sake.

No social media marketing starter kit should be without "start a blog" as the first step. Even if you have to pay a consultant (like us) to set it up and help you maintain it, the ROI beats any type of online advertising (CPM, CPA, PPC, lead gen, email), SEO, traditional advertising (print, radio, TV, outdoor, event), or paid public/media relations. It's not an all-encompassing solution, and these others can complement it. It's just the single best and most cost effective one. Because we've done all of the above and have never experienced ROI results like this.

Re: 2008/07/18/building-your-online-brand/

Max Gladwell — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:27:19 -0000

James/CaseyP: It's certainly not one or the other. Look at http://www.pickensplan.com. Unlimited budget. Tons of TV ads and PR. Scroll to the bottom of the page and see all of the social media links. And he's not actually selling anything. No consumer product. It's new brand, if you will, launched on July 8th. Heavily focused on public policy, actually, so they're taking a page from Obama. It translates into any type of marketing. With limited budgets, social media makes sense in terms of ROI.

With bigger budgets, that just means you can get more creative and guide customers from TV, print, outdoor, and radio to social media in order to engender the two-way conversation and viral spread of the message. It's an accelerator for traditional/email marketing, as well as an end of its own. You're only limited by your ability to think up new ways to mash up old and new media and leverage the most from them.

Re: 2008/08/18/postsecret-generating-positive-change/

Max Gladwell — Tue, 19 Aug 2008 01:57:38 -0000

Another way bloggers can unite for change and support finding a cure for cancer: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/08/socialvibe-r...

Re: 2008/10/04/100-sites-for-green-living/

Max Gladwell — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 02:21:02 -0000

Pretty extensive list. There are a few that should have been excluded. Ecocho and Ripple are pretty weak. Seems like Kiva was the biggest omission under charitable giving. We'd also recommend looking at http://www.ecoperks.com, a green rewards program.

Re: Beyond #FollowFriday: 24 Daily Twitter Memes

Max Gladwell — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 19:58:07 -0000

This post inspired the #ecomonday meme, which has taken off. Thanks Brian!

Re: 10 Ways to Change the World Through Social Media

Max Gladwell — Wed, 13 May 2009 00:56:07 -0000

workingman: now that you mention it, the libertarians are ideally positioned to usurp the republicans as the opposition party to the democrats. ron paul made some great progress, but he's just not a viable candidate. and his platform needs a lot of work to make it palatable to a majority. and social media will clearly be the way.

Re: Green Tweets: 75+ Environmentalists to Follow on Twitter

Max Gladwell — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:08:13 -0000

Thanks for including Max Gladwell and doing it on an #EcoMonday! Lots of familiar avatars in there. The Green Force on Twitter is strong.

Re: Using Social Media for Change | danny brown

Max Gladwell — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 11:15:37 -0000

Great post. Thanks for the shout out. You should also check out http://www.KivaB4B.org and the branded credit card. It doubles your loaning power through Kiva.org, and every new card holder means a $25 donation to Kiva.org.

<abbr>Max Gladwell´s last blog post..The New Media Landscape: Mass Profesionalization</abbr>

Re: Using Social Media for Change | danny brown

Max Gladwell — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:25:13 -0000

We certainly need to call out greenwashing and "causewashing" when we see it. But we also can't send the message to companies that if you want to contribute and become a part of the solution, you better do it right, or else we'll crush you.

If we make it too risky for companies to take action and try to make a difference, they just won't. So you'll have a lot of well-intentioned people at the low and mid-level of a company lobbying for the benefits of a cause marketing program that can make a difference while building brand equity or achieving some other business objective. But the higher-ups might see how their other companies got crushed just for trying and say no. Then nothing happens.

<abbr>Max Gladwell´s last blog post..The New Media Landscape: Mass Profesionalization</abbr>

Re: Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and truly clean energy

Max Gladwell — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 19:37:06 -0000

Framing the climate change/global warming debate as a fundamental health issue that affects all of us and future generations is the only way we'll get consensus on taking the necessary action. Polar bears and sea levels rising and forests are not palpable enough for most people.

Re: Growing Your Audience- Some Basics

Max Gladwell — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 01:21:27 -0000

Thanks for the great tips. Nothing beats quality content (like this). It attracts readers and keeps them coming back.

Re: Do What Works for You

Max Gladwell — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 02:07:27 -0000

OK, I'll play contrarian. It's easy to say everything is subjective and relative. But is anything universally good on the social web? I mean, we're not talking about Luddites who don't do email. These are people on the social web already. You can't compare a social media devotee who likes Plurk over Twitter to someone who thinks blogs are useless. These are two different types of people.

When it comes to social media types, we can easily disagree about Plurk vs. Twitter and Facebook vs. MySpace. But a few of the platforms and tools just nail it in an objective sense. RSS is beautiful. What's the alternative? What's not to like? And StumbleUpon is one of a kind.

To each their own and live and let live, for sure. But it's possible that social media truths exist beyond our whimsical opinions.

Re: Did Andreessen miss the point of Google’s Friend Connect?

Max Gladwell — Wed, 14 May 2008 20:24:43 -0000

I agree with your first position, that Friend Connect and Ning will go head to head.

FC is not just for enterprise. It's for anyone who has a website. So you have a choice now: do you (a) build a Ning network and link off of your site to it, (b) redesign your whole site on the Ning platform, or (c) add FC to your website. The last option seems like the easiest. You give up some control because you don't have the audience on your servers, but you get a functionality as if you do. And unless your online network is a huge part of your company's value, then the FC tools are a simple value add to your website. It makes your site more sticky and attracts more traffic.

That said, there is plenty of room for both b/c they are different enough (until Google decides to offer a full-featured platform, which would be quite easy for them). The big losers in this are the companies who are providing white label solutions to enterprise customers. Google just did a huge end run around them.

Re: Mike Arrington is Right, Facebook is Wrong

Max Gladwell — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:20:39 -0000

Agreed. http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/05/facebook-sta...

Re: Mike Arrington is Right, Facebook is Wrong

Max Gladwell — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:40:19 -0000

Microsoft will own Facebook before the year is out. Does that help to explain this move?

Re: Mike Arrington is Right, Facebook is Wrong

Max Gladwell — Fri, 16 May 2008 19:43:25 -0000

If Umair Haque were here, he'd say this:

It’s stark evidence that evil is both real in a strategic sense, and it’s a stark demonstration why evil is such a useful concept from an economic perspective. It allowed us to predict, for example, Facebook’s behaviour pretty nicely.

Now, there’s a big problem with Facebook’s move. The endgame of competitive dynamics in this space is straightforward: the least evil, most open platform - by necessity - wins. Walled gardens lose - hard, fast, and decisively. That’s a simple, inevitable outcome of network economics - and no amount of artificial competition, a la blocking tactics, can change it.

That’s why Google’s built an open platform on open standards: because it can explode the value of network effects in this space. From a strategic point of view, Facebook’s already lost this war (hard) - it’s just a matter of time until the dynamics inevitably play out.

Re: Why Microsoft will buy Facebook and keep it closed

Max Gladwell — Mon, 19 May 2008 13:22:16 -0000

This is a foregone conclusion. I commented on it in your post about FriendConnect and wrote about it the other day: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/05/facebook-sta...

I'd be very surprised to see FB get anywhere near $15B, but stranger things have happened. The problem is that Facebook loses tremendous good will in the hands of Microsoft. It's already bleeding brand equity in the wake of FriendConnect and emergence of OpenSocial.

But I see history repeating: just as Netscape was destroyed by Microsoft after it exited to AOL, the same will happen here. Only it will be Google who kills Facebook by making social networking obsolete as a business. It never was a business. And there are more lessons to be learned in the amount of market share Firefox has taken from Microsoft. Open is more competitive and better for everyone. The evil empire will fall. They always do.

Re: Domain Name Classes – The Types Of Domain Names You Can Choose From

Max Gladwell — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:45:58 -0000

Thanks for the mention. Will be posting more about our branding strategy in the near future.

Re: Around The Green Blog O Sphere For June 20

Max Gladwell — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 17:13:19 -0000

Great list! Would love to be considered for next week. Don't know what we'll be writing about, but each post is sent over Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/maxgladwell. Thanks.

Re: Keetsa Blog Featured on Max Gladwell.com

Max Gladwell — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 20:43:32 -0000

Max Gladwell is a blog. It's a brand that happens to take the form of a name.

At the same time, there is a double or triple entendre: maximum gladness (happiness) and wellness. Or however you like to see it. The full name would actually be Maxwell Gladwell. We just liked how it sounded. We liked how it fit with social media and how we could build a unique mission and POV...the belief that the world's problems can be solved, that social media and sustainability will be central to those solutions, and that entrepreneurs will ultimately lead the change.

So it's not a pen name. Rob Reed is not Max Gladwell, nor vice versa. Rob's name and byline have been in National Geographic Adventure, Outside, Men's Journal, and other magazines, as well as on his book. He's the founder of Max Gladwell as well as Max School Bus (http://www.maxschoolbus.com), which recently launched. So there is some method to the madness.

We were happy to feature Keetsa as the first "Better Know a Blogger" because you've done something really special with this and the eco mattress business. It's something we advocate with many of our consulting clients, especially startups: lead with the blog. You can't go wrong. So we'll be using it as a reference.

P.S. Would love a spot on your blogroll :-)

Re: Is the “Personal Brand” a myth?

Max Gladwell — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 03:15:00 -0000

Interesting post. We turned this concept around and crafted a brand based on a name...a made-up name. We weren't necessarily the first to do it. Perez Hilton pioneered it in many ways, though our approach is different in that no one "is" Max Gladwell. I think Mario from PH fancies himself as Perez Hilton.

Re: Playing Social Media Tag

Max Gladwell — Tue, 16 Sep 2008 23:47:50 -0000

David: This is my response to Ari's call to action: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/09/discovery-ma...

Re: Can a Snowboard be Green?

Max Gladwell — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:58:04 -0000

Lloyd: Thanks for the plug (sort of) yesterday. ;-)

Nice to hear you're a snowboarder. Max Gladwell founder Rob Reed wrote a book on the topic some years ago: http://www.amazon.com/Way-Snowboarder-Rob-Reed/dp/0810959399/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1230918909&sr=8-1

Happy New Year!

Re: Read Online or In Print: What’s the Greener Way to Get Your News?

Max Gladwell — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 17:39:28 -0000

I haven't dug too deeply into the report, so I'm just shooting from the intuitive hip. What about the ability for those trees that went to paper to capture and store CO2? I agree with other comments that it doesn't appear that the full lifecycle of paper news production is fully taken into account.

Reading news on computers is a small fraction of what they are used for. If news was not available on computers, we would all still have them as productivity and communications tools. There's somewhat of an "additionality" problem in this data, it would seem.

The question seems rather simple: What would have more impact?

A. If news suddenly disappeared from the Internet and could only be accessed on paper.

B. If news suddenly disappeared from paper and could only be accessed via the Internet

We're already using computers and the Internet. That's not going anywhere, regardless of newspapers. We might use them more if we didn't have the paper option, but that seems like nothing compared to the total elimination of all paper-based news, complete with the total lifecycle of production, distribution, and disposal.

Re: Book Review: Earth: The Sequel

Max Gladwell — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:35:02 -0000

I'm still not convinced that a carbon tax would not be more effective and efficient than cap and trade. There are just so many ways to game the cap and trade system. Additionality needs to be strict and air tight. And I have my doubts about whether that's possible. Granted, a tax is not politically tenable, but that doesn't mean it isn't superior.

Re: Book Review: Earth: The Sequel

Max Gladwell — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 00:36:10 -0000

Re: It's Official: Green is Sexy

Max Gladwell — Thu, 29 May 2008 16:55:54 -0000

Is it the green-ness or the technology of green that excites people and (evidently) stirs their loins? I think people are digging the technology, which happens to be green.

Re: Wired On The Environment: PASS or FAIL?

Max Gladwell — Thu, 29 May 2008 20:31:14 -0000

Yep, we weighed in on this right quick: http://www.maxgladwell.com/2008/05/wired-poses-... />

Re: Five Reasons Why Environmentalists Aren't Blaming Global Warming For Recent Weather

Max Gladwell — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:07:43 -0000

This is a good list. Our best reason would be a combination of them all. As you say, we can't point to a single weather event and say, "Aha! It was caused by global warming." The facts just aren't there. You can certainly speculate...warmer water makes stronger hurricanes...but it's not scientifically sufficient. Instead, we rely on the science to make the case that global warming is real, and we stick to what we know based on empirical evidence and hard data.

And though we can't make a scientific connection from global warming to individual weather events, there is still that logical connection. And making that connection on one's will come about organically, which is to say people will discover it for themselves. So this is the best reason in our opinion. Because discovering the truth--those personal, aha moments--is much more powerful and lasting than being told the truth.

MaxGladwell.com

Re: Apple's Mac Brick Rumors and the Environmental Impact

Max Gladwell — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 13:37:32 -0000

While I hope this isn't true and that Apple approaches this as responsibly as possible, what are the alternatives for the consumer? Dell? Windows? Please. There are none.

You can't sacrifice quality and performance for some small measure of environmental impact. We have to put pressure on Apple and do what we can to influence their CSR. But until a greener product comes along that can compete with Apple, the consumer is left with no choice.

We all make these compromises every day. Most of us could take the bus, but we need the convenience of driving. Until taking public transit becomes a viable alternative in certain urban areas or driving becomes prohibitively expensive, we'll continue to drive and choose the less-green option. Same with choosing Apple products over the alternatives.

Re: The 2008 Eco-Matrix: Who's Hot, Who's Not in the World of Green

Max Gladwell — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 13:08:52 -0000

Looks like Max Gladwell (http://www.maxgladwell.com) is pretty cutting edge and fairly dark green, seeing how it's the nexus of social media and green living.

Nice graphic. We Dugg the story. ;-)

Re: Can a Snowboard be Green?

Max Gladwell — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:58:04 -0000

Lloyd: Thanks for the plug (sort of) yesterday. ;-)

Nice to hear you're a snowboarder. Max Gladwell founder Rob Reed wrote a book on the topic some years ago: http://www.amazon.com/Way-Snowboarder-Rob-Reed/...>

Happy New Year!

Re: Read Online or In Print: What’s the Greener Way to Get Your News?

Max Gladwell — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 14:39:28 -0000

The question seems rather simple: What would have more impact?

A. If news suddenly disappeared from the Internet and could only be accessed on paper.

B. If news suddenly disappeared from paper and could only be accessed via the Internet