Disqus - Latest Comments for Stuart MacDonald

Re: BarCampTdot – Thank You

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 17 May 2006 15:59:37 -0000

David: you, Jay, Tara, Chris, Boris, Roland and Richard are the ones who should be being thanked. We all keep this up, and TDot is destined to be a real bright spot on the tech map.

I'm just happy to be able to help.

Re: BarCampER

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 05 Jun 2006 11:31:17 -0000

Dude! I was wondering what was up with your 'angioplasty' snippet in gtalk. That's nuts! Get well soon.

& Stuart

Re: » StartupCampToronto is tomorrow - open to all (8:30pm) | StartupNorth

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:48:10 -0000

Nice work Jevon and Jonas. Kudos!

Re: Content creator or slave?

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 00:22:22 -0000

Doesn't Henry Blodgett sound like the name of someone who should be living in The Shire in Middle Earth? Don't know what that says about Mary Meeker...

Maybe they are both 4 feet tall?

(Henry, dude, '99 was great. Let it go...)

- Stuart

Re: Content creator or slave?

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:03:08 -0000

Nice. My girls are 5 and 2...we are more Wiggles than Quidditch ;)

- Stuart

Re: Hey Google — You’ve got AOL!

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 13:27:48 -0000

Regardless of the competitive blocking, revenue protecting, MS losing etc. funsy aspects of this still-not-done deal, I soooo agree with John on the real spectre here. Preferencing aol, no matter how they do it, would put a bullet through their brand promise and call their worthiness as the repository of everything into serious question. The $1b is relative chump change; agreeing to an Indecent Proposal would be a colossal price to pay.

Let's hope it's not true.

- Stuart

Re: Hey Google — You’ve got AOL!

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:03:11 -0000

Execution will be everything. A side box, clearly outlined like AdWords results are -- and just as relevant -- should pass muster. But, if they put a special dog team of Maximizer folks inside AOL's offices to sprinkle bonus pixie dust that magically moves their unpaid placement from Number 1.752 million to Number 7 -- ya, baby, that's a Big Deal.

- Stuart

Re: Hey Google — You’ve got AOL!

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:45:20 -0000

Now now... they must have something to offer :)

In fact, did you know that AOL.ca has climbed to Number Two in terms of reach on the Canadian web, per ComScore? I just learned that last Wednesday and was super surprised. 14 million monthly uniques to MSN-Sympatico's 17 million (all numbers on a roll-up basis). With essentially no homepage-preset user base and a relatively recent open-doors content approach in Canada, this is darn impressive results, even allowing for the usual +/- 20% ComScore wobble. AOL US should be paying attention...

- Stuart

Re: Hey Google — You’ve got AOL!

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:09:11 -0000

I was blown away when I learned it. They have apparently acquired some sites with strong traffic in specific verticals. I'd need to dig into the ComScore data to better understand it (and I don't have a subscription anymore - how about a comp, Brent? ;)) and it is not impossible that this is a one-month-wonder (you used to be able to pop your MediaMetrix reach numbers for a one-time gain big time via pop-unders, promos etc. back in the day -- less so now). But still noteworthy.

Gifts to wrap.

- Stuart

Re: Image-based ads on Google? The horror…

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 13:33:47 -0000

Mathew, they are in fact already distributing what they call "display ads" across their AdSense network. I am seeing them all the time. Moving them on to their main site is just a logical evolution.

This has *everything* to do with the continuing implosion of traditional media and a desire for GOOG to move up from the "intent required" part of the consumer purchase funnel (e.g. you can't search for what you aren't aware of) to the early-stage brand building part that TV has historically done so well. It's what I said on John's site when the GoogAOL announcement came down on Friday. So yes, video is likely coming at some point, too.

This is all just the logical next phase of this thing...and as soon as the oh-so-many-wrinkles are worked out and folks know how to use this stuff for pure brand building and not just "punch the monkey" cr...eative, this will further grease the skids to further reductions in traditional media ad spend. It's gravity at this point.

- Stuart

Re: Image-based ads on Google? The horror…

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 20 Dec 2005 15:47:31 -0000

Well, here's what I believe. I believe that we are in the early stages of a media shake-up of tectonic proportions, being driven by a bunch of things but in dollar terms ("follow the money" always being a handy way to look at complex issues) *flat ad budgets being rapidly re-distributed into non-traditional media*. To-date, the big winner has been paid-search, which works at the "intent required" part of the consumer purchase funnel. That is not going to be good enough: marketers (heck, the economy) needs to develop awareness and brand meaning at a higher point in the process than that (I call it "top of the funnel") and as traditional media gets harder/pricier to work with to get that done (splintered markets, reduced print circulation, TiVo etc.) online is increasingly going to get the call. Hence the re-hottness of portals, moves to create blog networks etc. These are new markets for new media players for the most part (though some half-decent work is being done in the area) and GoogAOL would be foolish to let this next wave pass them by.

Said another way, ya, there will well be backlash and gnashing of teeth etc., but there is little doubt that this *has* to be the future. There's an emerging, un-met, multi-billion-dollar need, brought on by the fact that the old ways are harder to use than they used to be and marketers still have a job to do. The challenge for all -- GYM+aol, traditional media players trying to keep up, advertisers and agencies alike -- is to negotiate the next few years as these changes really take hold.

- Stuart

Re: Image-based ads on Google? The horror…

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:23:14 -0000

I actually mostly agree with you, Mr. um, SphereMonk. I think that this deal is going to shovel a boatload of eyeballs at AOL, and that is going to be great for AOL's biz as they move away from being an ISP in the US. Also, there simply has to be a receptor for the jillions of dollars that advertisers will be moving out of traditional media in pursuit of something better. That said, I really, really disagree with your comment that only geeks like me think it's an issue (though thanks for the Geek props ;)). Here's the thing: GOOG is big because it works, is easy, makes people's live's better and (wait for it...) folks trust it to give them the *best answers*. Now, is it possible that AOL's content might be the Best Answer? Sure, I guess, some of the time, for their open web content. But if they really were the Best Answer, they'd show up on Page One now wouldn't they? And that's what folks expect. That's the promise of the Google brand, and the technology backs it up fully. Yes, paid search sullies the purity of algorithmic results, but ya know what? The AdWords responses are still among the Best Answers, they are called out clearly and folks will abide them if they answer their question.

But as soon as they start doing stuff that undermines that trust, I swear to you they will pay a price, and it won't just be Geeks pointing their fingers. Skewering your brand is just never a good call.

- Stuart

Re: Image-based ads on Google? The horror…

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 11:48:15 -0000

Ummm, let's hope that the answer to what builds brands online isn't that, shall we?

- Stuart

Re: Image-based ads on Google? The horror…

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 23 Dec 2005 14:39:09 -0000

Oh, I'm fine with paid ads before free video (um, methinks it's called T e l e v s i o n)...it was just the mental image of the Dancing Reuptake Inhibitor Chorus that sent me into TILT land. But then, advertising creative is always a question of individual sensibility;)

Ho ho ho...

- Stuart

Re: Happy Festivus to all!

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:30:08 -0000

Classic :)

Re: Google changes the RSS landscape

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 15:27:57 -0000

Wow, I am chiming in a lot. Sorry, Mathew -- you are just putting up some interesting topics and my semi-retirement-addled brain likes the chance to talk about them...and then there's the egg nog ;-). Anyhoo...

If the question is "will Readers disappear?" then the answer is "of course they will." Why? Because this functionality is best described as a feature, and a feature's natural home is as a part of another thing (and, of course, the dotcom bust was riddled with the remnants of "features" masquerading as companies. I rest my case). From the user's perspective, RSS is just another way to get information -- what, where and when they choose. In that context, you can see that the natural home for this functionality is inside places where people can see the output of their feed selections as well as other things of self-selected interest to them. The self-created, uber home page if you will. Yes, this basic concept has been around forEVER, but they haven't really been user created. You sorta had to pick and choose from what the portal had on offer (thanks to content and eComm distribution deals) but, as you are starting to see with GOOG's /ig for instance, RSS and ATOM feeds are becoming more commonplace in this type of environment. Said another way, something like this will have to happen for this type of syndication to become "mass market" so it likely will.

- Stuart

Re: Google changes the RSS landscape

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 20:17:18 -0000

Thanks :-)

Netvibes is cool. Now, imagine that sort of functionality in a place with 60 million uniques a month or what-have-you and you can get a sense of what's likely, I'd say. This is why GOOG's /ig has potential to bust this open as it gets better, as do MSN or YHOO if they can wrap their heads around/figure out how to make money off of allowing users to do their own thing. At that point, RSS (or Son Of, whatever that might be) becomes true must-have plumbing, likely with a strong just-in-time, opt-in advertising-esque business model associated with it. And, guess what? Opt-in direct mail email becomes yesterday's news because folks are getting news about stuff they are interested in, in front of them as it happens. Something like that feels likely to me, anyway.

And on the topic of way-back-when, I remember dialling-up to use eAAsy SABRE at 2400 baud or whatever to check flights in 1992, maybe? And being dazzled. :-)

- Stuart

Re: Google changes the RSS landscape

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 28 Dec 2005 23:08:10 -0000

I hadn't even looked at live (poor form for a former MS badge owner, even a transient one like myself). Taking a peek, it smells a lot like my l'il description, though. Sigh. So much for me having an original idea.

And on the GYM membership (I just thought of that...:-)) -- seems unlikely for Netvibes, I'd have to say, for the reasons you point to.

- Stuart

Re: Jason McCabe Calacanis = Bubble 2.0

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 31 Dec 2005 15:21:08 -0000

Nice. Note to self:Jason Calcanis likely a lousy dinner guest.

Happy New Year, Mathew.

- Stuart

Re: Vongo to Canada: get lost (updated)

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 16:11:12 -0000

"GEOGRAPHIC FAILURE"

I LOVE IT! What a perfect, succint, profoundly American "Up Yours". And what a great example of why US businesses operating internationally via remote control from the States tend to fail so dismally. Travelocity is still on my Christmas card list for that one...

I totally get the clearances or licensing issue (which this must be), but MAN. And Maffei should know better too, to boot. Tsk tsk.

But good on Liberty's PR department / agency for tracking this and posting. Now, just get the copy fixed, kids. Pronto. Serves you right for writing a spec that left the developers to come up with something themselves :-)

Thanks for sharing, Mathew!

- Stuart

Re: Wi-Fi shouldn’t be a toll road

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 17:10:26 -0000

I have to disagree with you on this one, to a point. WiFi isn't infrastructure like roads or bridges that should be paid for by our taxes -- it is a communications service that should either be charged for or included, like salt when you buy a meal. If an airport authority wants to give it away, then good for them. Travellers rejoice. But what's irksome about this one is that it's a case of MASSport simply being a lousy landlord. The airlines want to include this service as a value-add (or, presumably, have be able to designate a preferred for-fee access provider in their lounge as is the case for most of the US carriers). It would be like MASSport telling Marriott or whoever has the contract to run their in-airport food service locations that they have to use a specific type of ketchup, or that a 2-for-1 burger deal is off-limits. Silly, no?

As an aside, I was last at Logan in the Fall, and in the Lufthansa lounge (I was off to Germany) there was only MASSport WiFi. I didn't know about this issue, but did find it odd at the time because LH has comp WiFi everywhere, and even for-fee WiFi on many of their aircraft (though not from Canada - go figure). I chose *not* to spring for MASSport's daily fee, but did avail myself of their comp webcast of the CNN Airport Channel to watch some Sunday afternoon football. My little effort at fighting Da Man.

- Stuart

Re: Vongo to Canada: get lost (updated)

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 21:31:16 -0000

Looks like they've killed the offending page, too. When you enter Vongo.com, it seems they've redirected inbound Canadian IPs to the Starz homepage. I can't seem to go any further, but still better and done quickly, too. Nice work, Alesya...if you were in my PR department you'd be getting an "atta boy" for sure.

- Stuart

Re: Why on earth would Google do a PC?

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 23:38:24 -0000

GOOG PC thing: two words -- sil-ly.

Skype at $2b thing: two words -- sil-ly.

- Stuart

Re: Google Pack — colour me confused

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 11:41:57 -0000

I said my piece over on Mark's blog (which I am not sure how the link to -- the link isn't showing up, but in any case I won't restate it here). Basic gist is that this is all super-dee-duper, but when all is said and done GYM+aol's future share price has everything to do with how well they are positioned to soak up the future wave of re-directed ad spend (which just better show up, too), and this stuff is just noise.

I also agree with Rod's comment above: GOOG is going through what all companies who have had that trajectory go through eventually (I've lived it myself). Massive growth leads to massive hiring, massive success leads to massive expectations, all set against the backdrop of an organization dealing with cultural and organizational maturation. It is tremendously hard to do. Maybe they are avoiding that pain, and if so great, but it's a huge challenge for any organization.

- Stuart

Re: Is DRM evil — and does that make Google evil?

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 06 Jan 2006 23:27:50 -0000

I have observed hundreds of focus groups over the years and I can tell you that regardless of the category what most people want is choice, easy, value and legal. It's absolutely that simple. Sure, we all know stories of some 13 year old kid who can crack any DRM code in 9 seconds or use BitTorrent to download 13 seasons of "Bonanza", but these really are outliers. For the millions of people who buy off of iTunes for instance, it's because they get choice, easy, value and legal. I am willing to bet that 99% of those people don't have a clue about any of this DRM hullaballoo, or even that their content is protected somehow. So as long at GOOG nails choice, easy, value and legal, whatever format they propose will likely work just fine and the rat's behind will win.

And to date, I'd say them GOOG kids do choice, easy and legal pretty darn well.

- Stuart

Re: Google tiptoes into the homepage game

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 07 Jan 2006 19:50:35 -0000

Super bright of you to call this out, Mathew. The "Pack" is noise, but /ig and OEM browser deals are the start of GOOG's real next wave and foothold in prepping for coming ad revenue.

/ig has been my homepage for awhile now and while it's feeds conk from time to time, it is the future.

- Stuart

Re: Newspapers: Dead, or just evolving?

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 12:59:19 -0000

After he wrote a column on the future of newspapers (which, ironically I read online), I had a brief exchange with David Olive at The Star on the topic (you might say, "gee, Stuie, you must have a lot of time on your hands" to which I would have to say "uh huh"). Let me just quote from what I wrote to him:

"...the change to digital, anywhere, anytime publishing can mean a very bright future for those publishers who choose to really work at it and adapt. The combination of editorial oversight, quality writing and depth of coverage, wrapped in a brand name people know and trust, should be a recipe for success.

That is, if the publishing companies are willing to make the changes necessary to make that future happen. Publishing in the future will be a very different beast than it has been historically.

The real question is whether they *will* adapt. It surely gives new meaning to the phrase â€œpublish or perishâ€?."

So will they adapt? Mathew, you'd have the insight here. I think they have their work cut out for them. From my limited knowledge on the topic, newsrooms are meant to be political, ego-driven places steeped in the gravitas that is the burden of the truth (yada yada ;-)). So Stike One is lack of organizational openness to change. Then, you have reduced ad revenue where it really counts, classifieds, kindness of Craig and Meg. Not to mention display ads and reduced paid circulation. Strike Two.

I wouldn't have to dig far to propose Strike Three (new media broadly, blogs, RSS, wireless da da da...). Am I wrong?

-- Stuart

Re: Is DRM all or nothing? (updated)

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 17:09:44 -0000

Good piece on globe.com, Mathew, and I like the "column in progress" thing. Neat idea. Do you do that all the time?

I've said my piece on DRM -- I don't know enough about copyright to have an informed position other than a broad belief that intellectual property should be protected, and that from a consumer perspective it's all about choice, easy, value and legal.

On Apple repeating their own history: really interesting. Again, I think that they are doing choice, easy, value and legal so well (though not perfectly, I know) that at this point that it really doesn't matter. But isn't it so that, eventually, all the players here will just have to stop with the "mine's bigger than yours" fun and play nice in the standards sandbox? It sure looks that way to me...

- Stuart

Re: Yes, Apple rules — but… ho hum

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 11 Jan 2006 16:08:11 -0000

You know what? I actually take a different view here. If they didn't have any big news, good on them not to spin some up. Yes, it's lousy that their big event was not loaded with apple-tastic hoop-dee-doo, but it's a rare company that will not succumb to the "BUT WE HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING" trap when faced with a media event in the offing.

It shows maturity.

-- Stuart

Re: Yes, Apple rules — but… ho hum

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 16:38:13 -0000

"Game, Set and Match...Mr. Ingram"...(polite applause). ;-)

- Stuart

Re: News flash: Yahoo acquires proto-startup

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 12:28:58 -0000

"Can I get you a little bust with your froth, Mr. Semel?"

- Stuart

Re: Google for BlackBerry — no talking

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 14 Jan 2006 09:56:28 -0000

Interesting. I've been using RIM's own 'berry-to-'berry IM thing for a few months now (pretty slick btw) and hadn't thought about the money flow. Does anybody know how it works in that case? My assumption is that, since it works PIN to PIN (I think) the airtime would fall under regular 'berry data charges from the carrier. Or does it "look" like an SMS or something?

- Stuart

Re: The Canadian copyfight debate continues

Stuart MacDonald — Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:16:53 -0000

The bad smell has seemingly escaped Ms. Bulte, at least as evidenced by how she is reacting publicly. But, her "people" sure know that the optics on it are British-cheese-stinky. My Wife and I were at the All Candidates Meeting last Wednesday (Bulte is actually our MP, and the event was held a few blocks from our house -- what are the odds?) and one of her "people" actually said that he knows it looks like "sh**" -- quite loudly, in fact.

I think what is compounding the problem for her at this stage is, given that she has gotten herself into this mess, how poorly she has been managing her response to it (and make no mistake, this is not a question of "unjust persecution" or some such rot: If she hadn't gone along with the idea of having the event, none of this thrash would be happening. Which makes it squarely a problem of her own creation). By ignoring the fact that her decision calls her judgment and character into question, she has made matters even worse. Her saying that it's all about copyright law? C'mon. Sorry, kids, I don't know enough to have an opinion on that very complex issue, but I sure know lousy decision making when I see it.

I do hope that, when it is all over and she has not been re-elected, that in her quiet moments she acknowledges to herself, anyway, what a mistake *she* made, and learns from it. And that her "people" have the common sense to give her successors better advice.

That better be one heck of a party...

-- Stuart

Re: Is blogging just writing with a cool name?

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 11:38:36 -0000

Yep, Rubel nails it. What makes blogging powerful is (a) it is a conversation and (b) it is fast. There are lots of other characteristics, too, but these are the key ones. Now each of these have drawbacks, too, but if you could meld the best of traditional news publishing (good writing, editorial oversight, depth) and the conversational, real-time idea of a blog...that's got legs.

-- Stuart

Re: How do I click an ad on the radio?

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 18 Jan 2006 00:36:33 -0000

This is a Big Deal. No, make that a Huge Deal.

-- Stuart

Re: No gatekeepers — just a bunch of turnstiles

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 20 Jan 2006 19:15:14 -0000

Here's the thing: I don't care what the category is (and from a consumer perspective, though they would never think of it that way, news and information is a "category"), people value direction. Call it a gatekeeper, or a filter, or whatever -- fact is, there is just too much "stuff" and not enough time nor deep involvement (usually) to warrant slogging through everything. It is basic consumer behaviour. Said another way, it's still all about brands and their relationships with each other. "Huh?" you say? Stay with me for a second: brands are a lot of things, but one of their big functions is as a filter of "what is for and trusted by me" and "what is not". This function is really valuable, and the only difference is that brands in the blogosphere are often just "Folks" as opposed to a venerable masthead.

You can call them gatekeepers or whatever, but at the end of the day, what I find fascinating is that even in this age of instant, individual publishing and what have you, the value of The Brand still shines through.

-- Stuart

Re: Web 2.0 is one big party — if you live in SF

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:23:57 -0000

Um, guys, doesn't all this feel ljust a little too 1998 for comfort? Is it just me?

Not that I don't like a good party jammed with smart people talking about interesting things. And beer :-)

Hey, why don't we try to fire one up here? Like First Tuesday used to be (they still around)? I'd spring for some brews if we could get some cool people out. I'm serious, btw.

-- Stuart

Re: Andrew says let’s play the election game…

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 16:04:52 -0000

Or you just call your Dad in Halifax...

Vote early, vote often.

:-)

-- Stuart

Re: Andrew says let’s play the election game…

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:38:30 -0000

The Hill and Knowlton Predictor is dang cool, if you haven't checked it out yet. It shows predictions, by various pollster, right down to the riding level. Slick.

Also shows that Ms. Bulte should go down to defeat by about 5,000, votes per yesterday's Strategic Council numbers -- a swing of about 8,500 since the last election. Shows a HUGE uptick for the NDP across urban Canada. Fun to play around with, anyway.

Check it out -- really cool (note: yes, H&K is one of the leading PR firms on the planet, but that doesn't make this any less neat).

-- Stuart

Re: No gatekeepers — just a bunch of turnstiles

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:03:32 -0000

Not ganging up, 'thew. All good :-)

And it's not like I am being inconsistent...I really do believe that the emergence of blogs and low-barrier publishing serves to further illustrate how valuable The Brand (aka the sum total of experience associated with a given "thing") is.

Great discussion.

-- Stuart

Re: Don’t bother searching for “Tianenmen Square” (updated)

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 25 Jan 2006 14:11:57 -0000

Yeah, and the Saudis and Venezuelans aren't the swellest, but they have all that oil, sooo...

C'mon guys. It ain't pretty, but you swallow hard and do what you have to do. A major online player without a .cn "on principle" makes about as much sense as Canucks enjoying mojitos in Cuba while the Yanks can only send their prisoners there.

Roll with the punches, get on with your day.

-- Stuart

Re: Venture capital didn’t create the bubble

Stuart MacDonald — Sun, 29 Jan 2006 16:38:10 -0000

People are forgetting that The Bubble was our generation's Gold Rush, with all the giddiness, hope, success, wealth, failure, desperation and heartbreak that went with the *real* Gold Rush. All was possible, basic financial reality was questioned, and there was a real sense that you had to jump in because this was a Once In A Lifetime Thing. You *had* to be in - this was your brass ring, boyo, and don't you DARE miss out.

For all its' seeming frothiness this go around doesn't feel ike that. Yes, it is minor-league frothy, but there aren't jillions of dotcom features-masquerading-as-companies, and seemingly pointless-unless-you-squint-really-hard "end-to-end-solutions" to a non-existant problem floating around. I mean let's cut to the chase: how many of these hot things of the moment *are there*, this time? Not too dang many. Nothing close to the last go around. I mean, it felt like a week didn't go by without some air-filled whozit going public to breathless acclaim and visions of dollar signs dancing in heads. If that stuff is happening weekly now, I am sure not seeing it.

The big excitement is not really broad based this time - I mean, for the most part the action is either with GYM+aol or in their immediate orbit. The outfits getting attention are - with serious respect to those who created and drove them (I've been there, I get it, you did it, nicely done) - neither numerous, nor huge.

All this to say that, for VCs, the sandbox in which they are able to play *is* smaller in many respects this go around. That said, anybody who thiks that the role of VCs is off to the dustbin doesn't get how hard it it to build a profitable, sustainable, matters-to-customers business. It is not easy, and if Big is the desired destination, *rarely* cheap. But good on anybody in VC-land who sees the emerging issue, and is thinking about how to roll with those punches.

-- Stuart

Re: Google bookmarks — is that the best they can do?

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 17:08:38 -0000

Jumpin's, *someone* hasn't let his lunch digest. But nice work with the most excellent, hellzapoppin' rant :-)

-- Stuart

Re: An expose on telecom bait-and-switch

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 31 Jan 2006 23:06:56 -0000

But, but... they seem like such nice guys, ya know? With their suits and little phones and what not?

;-)

-- Stuart

Re: Newspapers need to get a clue - quickly

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:18:36 -0000

Okay, let me make sure I understand this. The, arguably, principal source of most inbound traffic to any site on the 'net has a powerful tool that's all about delivering eyeballs to content producers *for free* and the content producers want no part of it?

What the &^$* !!! Were these people born on the sun?

Are they somehow going to be happier when they are having to pay hundreds of millions of dollars for off and online marketing, plus paid search and portal placements to pull some miniscule fraction of the traffic that they used to have handed to them on a platter?

This is a joke, right? Please tell me it's a joke, because pretty much everybody else in every other consumer category is already paying, in total (lemme check the numbers...oh ya) BILLIONS for the *exact same service*. Gimme a bloody break. These kids need to get out more.

-- Stuart

Re: Newspapers need to get a clue - quickly

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:42:52 -0000

Look, I'm not saying that I've written the How To Make Money As A Newspaper In The 21st Century book (though if anybody'd like to pay me to ;-)), but CLEARLY cutting off a valuable, free sourch of reach is not part of paving the road to success. I mean, imagine if GOOG had similar services focused on aggregating content completely relevant in other categories. Many folks would be lined up to pay to be there.

Oh, wait, that's paid search.

-- Stuart

Re: Is a blog without comments still a blog?

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 17:29:15 -0000

I guess they're all blogs, one-way or two-way, comments or no, but *not* enabling comments means you are mostly missing out on the opportunity for a conversation. Like this one, say. Sure, sometimes the comments are silly and you think "who ARE these people?" but fact is the world is made up of many voices. You still get to decide who you want to listen to.

To each their own, but "no comments" seems a bit of shame to me, at a minimum.

-- Stuart

Re: Is a blog without comments still a blog?

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 07 Feb 2006 19:44:09 -0000

Wow. You got a comment from billg!

ps: Interesting that your post about "no comments" has gotten *more* comments than any other post you've done, eh? Which is a comment in itself. Or not, depending... ;-)

Man, I'd really like a pina colada.

-- Stuart

Re: Vonage pulls the trigger - out of desperation?

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 11:17:06 -0000

Like I said on Mark's blog, the marketing spend on this puppy stinks. And it won't be getting any cheaper down the road, once the market gets even more competitive. I have seen this movie, and their marketing spend is not going down any time soon. Could adoption go into hyper-drive and they are suddenly in the money? Perhaps. But gut says unlikely that they would be the primary beneficiary from overall category growth. That's going to be the cable and phone companies. Net/net: it is no wonder they are trying to float it.

-- Stuart

Re: Vonage pulls the trigger - out of desperation?

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:29:52 -0000

I wouldn't use a TiVo analogy here - there are people who LOVE their TiVo. They are happy to shout it from the rooftops etc. Sure, they're not a mighty throng, but they are out there; for some, TiVo makes their lives better, which is just the best marketing strategy going. Near as I can figure (and yes, I am not a VoIPer) this does little to truly make my life better. All this does is allow me to do the same thing I've always done, for less. Where's the unique selling proposition in that? Smells like a fight to the price bottom against those who can always discount further, either because they are cable/phone companies who own the assets or they are portals with IM installs who have a lot of prospects "for free." Meanwhile, you have ever escalating customer acquisition costs.

Yech.

-- Stuart

Re: The blogosphere is growing up

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 13:43:07 -0000

Ya know, I can't help but go back to some of the "future of media" stuff we talked about a while back. To recap, one core value of traditional media is Editorial Oversight. Now, say what you will about how that skews voices, or how reporters have an obligation to Fight The Man, or how it slows everything down etc. but fact is, you at least get a second set of eyes and the opportunity for sobre second thought before hitting "post".

Sobre second thought isn't just fact checking -- it's also a reality check on the ethics involved, isn't it? Doesn't the lack of same reduce the ability of the medium to go mainstream?

-- Stuart

Re: The blogosphere is growing up

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 14:40:04 -0000

It's more a comment that the lack of oversight inherently means that the possibility of doing something which calls ones judgement into question is higher.There's no "second password" to enter. I think that risk is part and parcel of a blog. Heck, smaller scale, but I've sure sent out a few 3am emails that I wish had never left my Drafts, and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Same principle.

-- Stuart

Re: Vonage pulls the trigger - out of desperation?

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 15:03:34 -0000

The Pioneers get the arrows, the Settlers get the land. Even more arrows when the Pioneers are trying to build on the shaky ground the Settlers already control.

-- Stuart

Re: iStockPhoto of Calgary gets bought by Getty

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 17:49:14 -0000

Congrats, guys!

-- Stuart

Re: Thou dost protest too much, Robert

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 19:54:01 -0000

Sigh. Well, points to Scobe for being a company man, sorta. At least this time. But jeepers, the whole "MSFT gets no respect" thing is soooo old. And it's not true. Hard truth: it's not that they don't get respect. It's just that they don't get as much respect as their inward gaze would expect them to get. The good folks in Redmond live in a special, magical world called (425), much like (416) only folks in (425) have more money and apparently more attractive navels upon which to gaze. If they spent a wee bit less time locked up in analysis and politics, perhaps their actual innovative output would match their view of what it should be.

-- Stuart

Re: Thou dost protest too much, Robert

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 11 Feb 2006 21:38:35 -0000

I feel compelled to add here...you can't forget that most of the folks at MSFT are among the smartest human beings on the planet. Seriously. Scary smart, accomplished individuals, among the very best at whatever it is that they do. And for the most part, they are extremely well intentioned. It's just that, damn it, they do a remarkable lousy job of (a) getting out of their own way and (b) really comprehending and responding to what consumers (I can't speak to corporate clients) want.

The other thing worth noting? GOOG is looking down the barrel of the *exact same thing*. Maybe even worse, short term, because while they might not have bureaucracy, they are fighting the management of colossal employee growth, phenomenal expectations, and an incredible strain on their culture. No easy task.

-- Stuart

Re: Hey Doc — how about allowing comments?

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:43:24 -0000

With the greatest respect to all, this specific A-list vs. X-list and who's the gatekeeper? meme has to be one of the silliest series of inwardly focused navel gazing flying pixels I have ever seen. Who really gives a horseâ€™s pitooty? Say your piece, comment where you want to, join the conversation, lead the conversation, avoid the conversation. Whatever. But for heavenâ€™s sake, get over yourselves people.

Sorry, 'thew, it had to be said. I roll my eyes because I love :-)

â€“ Stuart

Re: GoogleBorg assimilates MeasureMap

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 22:24:58 -0000

Someone else gets a GYM membership :-)

-- Stuart

Re: Nick Carr is a smart guy - but he’s wrong

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:43:13 -0000

Okay, yes, super, fine, I read the posts and, yes, these elitist dudes do need to remove that pickle. But on the core of it, haven't people chosen their info source from Place A vs. Place B forEVER? Said another way, isn't all that is really happening here that Experts are being more broadly and cheaply distributed? It used to be that you chose your Camp by doing things like reading the Sunday Sport vs. The Economist. The same thing is happening today, it's just that the point-of-view buffet is fuller, and it's nearly free.

-- Stuart

Re: Blogs that have comments are better

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 18 Feb 2006 21:04:09 -0000

Nice, 'thewie.

-- Stuart

Re: An exercise in Journalism 2.0

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 14:17:05 -0000

Now that is fascinating. Certainly a harbinger of a new journalistic reality, for all parties.

Also a backwards reminder of how, in this day and age, Getting It Wrong can result in said wrong-ness living on and virtually irreversible on the Great Index In The Sky.

You are who Google says you are, if you will. It better be accurate.

- Stuart

Re: The blogosphere grows up, part 57…

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 08 Mar 2006 10:24:24 -0000

Great post 'thew. Agree completely, on all fronts. It's all about trust and credibility, all day, every day. Always was, always will be. The nature of the media doesn't change that.

- Stuart

Re: Okay, now Dave is starting to scare me

Stuart MacDonald — Sun, 12 Mar 2006 22:43:28 -0000

Uh, so how's that vacation goin' there, 'thewie? ;-)

Seriously, I suggest you kick back, refresh, renew - hey, you don't want to end up angry, sad, burnt out, w(h)ine-y...

- Stuart

Re: One word for Web 2.0 in Toronto: mesh

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 23 Mar 2006 08:22:35 -0000

let's mesh, baby :-)

- stuart [at] meshconference.com

Re: Competing without even trying to

Stuart MacDonald — Sun, 02 Apr 2006 22:28:11 -0000

Sigh. Reminds me of the early day of online travel. I remember sitting in industry meetings with all these Old Skool types, all of them saying to each other "this online thing's not really happening, right? Right? Heh. Heh. Right?" I would sit quietly, and stare at my hands. Sorta sad, really.

Fast forward to 2006. So when's the last time *you* booked a trip without buying at least part of it on the web?

Exactly. Wake up, media types. The train left the station in 1997.

- Stuart

Re: Should journalists be human beings?

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 06 Apr 2006 13:26:54 -0000

What, journalists are humans? Is this new?

;-)

- Stuart

Re: Is there a perfect kind of conference?

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 21 Apr 2006 16:14:19 -0000

Can't get the trackback to "take" so here's my bit: http://stuart.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/...

- Stuart

Re: Can blogs affect politics and society?

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 27 Apr 2006 10:56:13 -0000

An e-Chicken in Every Pot.com

One of the things we will be exploring at mesh is the impact that social media and the interaction that web 2.0 is enabling is having on politics and society.

In the US, for instance, political blogs have almost become mainstream, with some sporting weekly reach and unique visitors numbers which exceed all but a handful of major newspapers. The Huffington Post, Captain's Quarters...the list goes on and on, and the influence grows.

Not to mention the role that the web has played...

Re: Yes, it’s kind of a cruel joke, but…

Stuart MacDonald — Tue, 30 May 2006 09:31:04 -0000

meow!!!

BrumBrumBrummmm...
SPLAT.

Re: And the answer is…

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 06 Sep 2006 18:56:11 -0000

Well, yaaaaa...

Re: MySpace overdoing the hubris a bit?

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:43:42 -0000

MySpace: full of hubris and proud of it

;-)

Re: Did Edelman drop the ball on Wal-Mart?

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:08:08 -0000

Where is this so-called fake blog? I can't seem to find it, though there is plenty of people talking about it. Do you have the link?

Re: Warning — Second Life geek alert

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 22:39:52 -0000

Mathew, I don't think I've ever called it Get A Life. I do think that the attention it is getting in the mainstream media is more reflective of a fear of missing a story and responding to PR stuntery than the thing itself. It is *not* a huge community - something in the area of 300k users I heard last week - and it does seem to be populated to a great extent by, um, beings that don't seem to be reflective of folks I know in Real Life. It does seem to be Freak Factor High.

Now, it is true that it is effectively a real economy which is cool, and it is also likely true that adherents would accuse me of not "getting it". And in fairness, maybe I don't. But, I still think that it is overblown/overhyped in it's supposed value.

- Stuart

Re: Warning — Second Life geek alert

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 16 Nov 2006 23:08:12 -0000

Fair enough.

Re: Web 2.0 is dead — long live the Web

Stuart MacDonald — Sat, 25 Nov 2006 00:31:11 -0000

Thanks for the post, 'thewie. And for saying what I meant waaaay better than I did. You'd make a great writer ;)

- Stuie

Re: SpiralFrog caught in death spiral?

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 09:54:41 -0000

SpiralFrog, boiling-a-frog...hmmm...

Re: Can you say "Facebook bubble"?

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 12:02:43 -0000

Funny, 'thewie :)

Re: CBS inflates the bubble with Dotspotter

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:34:03 -0000

1997, 'thewie. I swear to God...

Re: Let me know what you think

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 11:41:50 -0000

What's a blog? ;)

Re: Facebook: Dave Winer brings the hate

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 12:59:41 -0000

But most importantly, 'thewie: did this post move you ahead of Winer on the Techmeme leaderboard?

;)

Re: Facebook: Dave Winer brings the hate

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 13:11:40 -0000

Had to be done :)

Re: Radiohead: comScore totally inaccurate

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 10:36:12 -0000

Hmmm. Well, this may be true - it may be that comScore got it totally wrong. But, I can tell you that in other ecomm categories with which I have had a more-than-passing involvement, the comScore sales numbers were pretty darn close to what had actually happened(call it +/- 20%). Now sure, that's quite a margin, but it's a lot better than "completely wrong." I will admit that it was typically based on much more sizable samples and over longer periods of time (e.g. their US numbers were almost always better than Canadian ones, if they even tracked Canadian sales), which could have something to do with it, but still...

Re: Google as the saviour of everything

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 09:54:48 -0000

Nailed it 'thewie.

Re: Warner Music: We’re totally screwed

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:00:08 -0000

Here's a calculation I'd like to see 'thewie: the $$$ value *protected* by the media companies over the past years by fighting the emergence of "new media." It'd would be really interesting to see what, if any, money they kept flowing into their coffers by having put so much effort into fighting the emerging onslaught. They could be staring at a black hoel now, but I wonder how much, if any, they kept flowing in the coffers in the meantime?

- Stuart

ps: I tried to login to your new comment doo-hickey but don't know if it's worked or not.

Re: Warner Music: We’re totally screwed

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:16:44 -0000

I know it's almost unknowable, but it really is the critical piece in measuring whether there was *anything* gained by the massive pushback, from a shareholder, short-term perspective.

Re: Warner Music: We’re totally screwed

Stuart MacDonald — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:47:13 -0000

I'm not supporting them. Just saying that if there is *any* positive to be seen from them having pushed back so hard, it is quantified by cash in the door as a result of so doing. And, yes, there are plenty of offsets and they have still ended up in a nasty spot, but given that I have wondered what would have happened in, say, online travel if other players and suppliers had pushed back harder early on, I think that the knowing the bottom line impact here would be a really neat thing, if we ever could.

Re: Twitter: Waste of time or social tool?

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 11:42:15 -0000

Well, I found that you put this post up via twitter, soooo...

Re: StartupCampToronto is tomorrow - open to all (8:30pm)

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:48:10 -0000

Nice work Jevon and Jonas. Kudos!

Re: Is There Hope for Content Brands?

Stuart MacDonald — Mon, 23 Jan 2006 18:56:57 -0000

You are hitting on a key thing, here, about brands in general. This is that brands are becoming more valuable now than they have ever been. Why? Well, a lot of reasons, but mostly because the ongoing decline of Old Media is making them harder to build. As TV gets harder and more expensive to use (TV being the Big Bat of Old School consumer brand creation), as well as radio and print, you start to see an interesting thing whereby existing brands are developing additional protective barriers, if you will, because it is harder for competitors to take them on using the old, tried and true methods.

This is great for existing brands, but will prove increasingly difficult for those launching competitors or trying to disrupt the status quo by changing a category fundamentally. The upshot is, I bet that 3-5 years from now, we will see even more value assigned to those brands already in the lead, today.

-- Stuart

Re: What If Media 2.0 Is Less Profitable Than Media 1.0?

Stuart MacDonald — Sun, 23 Apr 2006 21:34:18 -0000

Scott, my take on the whole MySpace challenge is this. Not only do they have a huge challenge in monetizing the traffic because they can't make money off of people "going" somewhere (they want to stay put, thank you very much) but also the talent available to deliver a monetizable message to them where they are is not widely available. The finesse and light touch necessary to make creative that will work is not likely to emerge from the traditional ad world. It's a microcosm of the broader challenge the ad and broadcast world is having with all of these changes.

Looking forward to seeing you at mesh.

Re: Live Blogging at Mesh

Stuart MacDonald — Wed, 17 May 2006 14:55:01 -0000

Scott, tremendous to have had you in town. A real pleasure, and this post is simply awe inspiring. Thanks for mesh-ing. Stay in touch.

Re: Google Reality Check

Stuart MacDonald — Fri, 02 Jun 2006 02:08:36 -0000

Scott, I'd take my GOOG ads down, but that $0.03 buys my daily gumball. And until there's a patch, I can't go without.

;-)