Disqus - Latest Comments for Jake McKee

Re: Persuasive Picks for the week of 08/02/09

Jake McKee — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:39:08 -0000

Thanks for the shout out!

Re: McDonalds Responds to the Happy Meal Hummer

Jake McKee — Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:08:58 -0000

If you're interested, I had a chance to interview Bob for the Big in Japan podcast. Check it out at: www.biggu.com/blog
It was an interesting discussion all around.

Re: People on the Move in the Social Media Industry: April 2, 2009

Jake McKee — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 09:55:12 -0000

Thanks for the shout out, Jeremiah! We're very, very happy to have Sean and Dustin both on board. We're creating a very strong team of practitioners in order to help our clients in the best ways possible - from a perspective of "been there, done that, learned how to replicate it" :)

@Mike Walsh: Thanks!

Re: Ongoing list of Social Media Efforts from Banks, Credit Card, Financial Institutions and Lenders

Jake McKee — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:46:58 -0000

Another one from Visa that I just found:

http://tinyurl.com/3lz2xt

Re: Before you hire those Social Media Services

Jake McKee — Thu, 29 May 2008 12:27:33 -0000

Good stuff, and clearly great minds think alike - I'm writing a similar post as we speak.

I'd like to add that I don't think you have to show examples of your own work to prove your abilities, necessarily. A marketing agency can pitch billboard design without having one of their own. Of course, showing your own and being able to talk about success/failures/learnings always helps.

But every agency I've ever worked for has always had the cobbler's son problem. I'm not saying that's an excuse for getting out of the hard work, just that the reality is that it's often too difficult (wrongly so) to justify investing in themselves.

And in theory, an agency large or small that understands the larger picture of "social technology" would and should be able to work on a project that they don't necessarily have experience in building because they have the larger picture experience. I help clients look at building forums around their brands, for instance, but I don't have a forum of my own. I help clients build ambassador programs, but I don't have one of my own. But I understand the larger picture enough to understand how to implement such programs. (Again experience is always better)

The problem in many agencies is that the implementation and strategy development are as far away as the two pieces can get from each other. Find out from the vendor/agency who is actually implementing what they're selling. That will speak volumes.

I've actually been pleasantly surprised lately at the number of clients and potential clients who are looking to hedge their bets by bringing in a social strategist like me to help act as a middleman between the vendor and the client business. This role is not tied to the business or the vendor (especially not the vendor) and can help the client understand when there are better solutions or when the vendor isn't quite on track. The person in this role can be highly experience because you're using them for a smaller amount of time than the agency, and the theory is that they're less tied to saying whatever the client wants in order to keep the business flowing. (Not a sales pitch, just a case study)

Re: Video: Sea World’s Social Media Program and Measurement (7:10)

Jake McKee — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 02:23:02 -0000

Just to clarify one of your points a bit - I don't think that "Design the rollercoasters" means that you turn over the engineering to the fans. Instead you bring them in to engage them in the process at the *appropriate* times when it makes *sense* to the design process.

Having a great story to tell about having fans involved is a media/PR win, a community win, and a design win.

(I mention this because one of the community myths I deal with is the assumption that "involving the fans" means "turning over the process")

Re: A Groundswell at SXSW: How The Audience Revolted and Asserted Control

Jake McKee — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 10:57:00 -0000

@brian - totally agree that it has been happening in some form for a while, but this was the first conference I've been to (and I go to quite a few) where the lines between speakers and audiences was visibly blurred. It's the first time that I've been to a conference where the bulk of the attendance seemed to wholly set aside the notion that the role of an audience member was to sit quietly.

This reminded me of the first time I heard my mom say "I've sent you an email". Sure, I'd been doing it for years, but I knew something fundamental had changed when she was doing it.

@Jeremiah - In both the panels I was a part of we used (blatantly swiped) your fantastic technique I saw you do at BWE last year of polling the audience right up front. It worked wonders to help us understand the role we were needing to play as panelists.

Far from rude, boorish, or all around assholes, I think this pushback made for a better conference, certainly in years to come. It'd gotten too easy to just "show up" to be on a panel, and I think the last few years the content had suffered a bit for it, not just at SXSW but for many conferences.

Re: Social Media Measurement Attribute: Defining Velocity

Jake McKee — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:53:05 -0000

This is great stuff. I've been talking to a lot of clients lately about the idea that community management, at least in the beginning, is not about the numbers alone. It's about the ratios - what's your growth path look like week after week?

I have one client who just soft launched a beta community to a select group of customers (i.e. it's a small group that even has access). They're really really concerned that the small number hasn't flocked yet. My point to them was to look at the overall growth curve, not the sheer number, and balance than against goals of the community at the time.

So, at launch, they may only have a handful of people participating, but so what? The real question is whether two things are happening in this VERY early stage:

1. Enough content is being generated to make the community feel alive (and a handful of people certainly have the potential to deliver that)

2. Is the use curve of growth increasing steadily over time?

If both of those things are true, you're doing good. Sit back, relax, have a cold drink.

Over time, looking at this metric is crucial too to identify the health of the community. Sure it might slow after a while, but it shouldn't dip.

Anyway, great stuff, Jeremiah!

Re: Forrester to hire a Community Manager, will you apply?

Jake McKee — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:09:15 -0000

Don't forget to post this opening on the Community Guy Job Board (www.communityguy.com/jobs).

Also cruise the people seeking employment too, maybe there's a match?

Re: The Tenacity of Jake McKee: A Social Media Case Study at Lego

Jake McKee — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 23:04:08 -0000

Thanks for the recognition! I followed-up Doc Searls. No pressure. None. Really. OK, maybe a little!

It was a great event, and huge thanks Ted Shelton at The Conversation Group for the fun.

Re: Forrester Report: Online Community Best Practices

Jake McKee — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:23:42 -0000

Thanks for the invitation to participate. I can't wait to read the report!

@24. Jeremy Toeman - while the technical and interaction dynamics of something like the Tivo forum vs. twitter vs. a blog might be different in various ways, at the core the social dynamics of people grouping up share more similarities than differences.

Re: How to Successfully Moderate a Conference Panel, A Comprehensive Guide

Jake McKee — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:59:20 -0000

Well, thank you, sir. I'm just getting started on the prep work for my panel moderation gig at SXSW!

Re: Defining the term: “Online Community”

Jake McKee — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:20:58 -0000

I think you're right - I think definition is largely unreachable because of two things:

1. Context
2. Person doing the defining

As much as I hate to say it, it seems as though there's a bit of the Supreme Court porn decision going on - "I don't how to define it, but I know it when I see it".

On top of that, there's a definition (which can likely be somewhat broad), and application (which can be different in the eye of the various beholders). I think Ray nailed it above with a couple of points:

* External catalyst
* Self-Awareness
* Shared Experience

That said, I'd still have to say that time is a crucial component. (Not necessarily a LONG amount of time, just SOME amount of time)

People can make *connections* to groups/people, this happens all the time. Sticking with Ray's point about a subway queue, an external catalyst (say of an extended delay) can *connect* people... but only after a period of time does that connection turn into something deeper, more significant - a *community*.

Re: Defining the term: “Online Community”

Jake McKee — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:34:41 -0000

"Online communities rarely offer that level of intimacy." [vs. offline community]

See, that's the problem with defining "online community" so broadly... when everything is a "community", nothing seems to be a "community". And when we define offline community and online community with two levels of requirement, we're comparing apples and oranges.

@Ray Valdes nails this point in his comment above. As he says, people standing in line for the subway aren't a community, at least not be default. So why does the online environment illicit such vastly more broad inclusions into the community definition?

(Online) Community has to mean something or else it means nothing. With an overly broad definition, it means nothing... in the same way that the way people talk about a message boards equating to "community".

Re: Defining the term: “Online Community”

Jake McKee — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 19:02:32 -0000

Jeremiah, I agree that "deep" isn't necessarily the only kind of relationship (sorry if I implied that, I certainly didn't mean to). But a relationship, thin or deep has to evolve over some amount of time.

If we are both into knitting and show up at a local knitting meetup and introduce ourselves, we haven't formed a relationship... we've made an initial connection.

People who own Apple products aren't part of a community, they're part of a crowd (nice one, Jasmin). People on Twitter aren't a "community" either. But when a group of Twitter users start to share ideas, thoughts replies, etc. that still doesn't make them a "community". It takes time for a conversation to turn into a community.

Looking at a real world example for a second, say a typical rock concert. That crowd of attendees could certainly be called a "community" if said community was defined as:

..."bodies of people joined together by a common interest"

Certainly the attendees are all there for the same reason: the band. Certainly they're joined together in the same physical setting. But did this group actually "commune" (as mentioned above) on any real amount? Other than a few people sitting next to a particular attendee, was there any relationship formed? Not at all.

Contrast this with my bro-in-law getting stuck with a specific group of people in Mexico during a hurricane a few years ago. Sure it was a large group of people, but after nearly a week of being there, there was an exchange of contact info and a reunion in person 6 months later, as well as a mailing list.

To your original question above, Jeremiah, IMHO community doesn't form without a time element. That may be a small increment or a very large one. I'm not sure what the threshold is, but there is one.

At the end of the day, I want to see a definition that specifically answers "what makes a community different than a crowd".

Re: Defining the term: “Online Community”

Jake McKee — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:39:23 -0000

Jeremiah, the issue of "time" came up back in the original days of the discussion I linked to earlier. More here:
http://tinyurl.com/2cyrsn

But yes, I think time is crucial. Saying in my definition above "relationships over time" is a bit redundant, right? Relationships, by their very nature take time to form. (I included "over time" to specifically lay out the fact that they take time). So if you agree that communities are about relationships, then you must agree that it takes some amount of time to build.

The relationship component (and thus the time component) is what, IMHO, separates a "interest group" from a "community".

Re: Defining the term: “Online Community”

Jake McKee — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 12:53:10 -0000

Personally, with the blend of online+offline that exists with "community" these days, I don't think it's worthwhile to try to define online community and offline community separately.

Back in 2002, I worked up an definition that I'm still very happy with, even if long. (One of these day I'll get around to shortening it) Original post is here: http://tinyurl.com/2unecc

"A community is a group of people who form relationships over time by interacting regularly around shared experiences, which are of interest to all of them for varying individual reasons."

Check out the full post for quite a bit of explanation that, 5 years later, I'm still quite satisfied with.

Re: Some Conversations have shifted to Twitter

Jake McKee — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:27:55 -0000

Boy, I go off and do client work for a day and miss the storm of the century!

If it's not too late, I'm at:

http://www.twitter.com/sink

Re: Weekly Digest of the Social Networking Space: Nov 21, 2007

Jake McKee — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 13:32:37 -0000

Should have done the research myself:

http://www.blogmaverick.com/2007/10/26/its-time...

Re: Weekly Digest of the Social Networking Space: Nov 21, 2007

Jake McKee — Thu, 22 Nov 2007 23:34:20 -0000

Jeremiah, have you found any validity in what we heard Mark Cuban @ BWE talking about re: YouTube monetization (or their decision NOT to monetize it)?

Re: The Challenges of Social Media in the Enterprise, why Business and IT need to align

Jake McKee — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 23:30:53 -0000

Josh, thanks for the well-reasoned comments.

Josh said: "There are IT folks who focus on “support”, there are also IT folks who focus on web design, UX, process design, strategy development, sales, R&D, business continuity, the list goes on and on."

Sure, don't disagree. My point is that lumping anything "digital" into a single "IT" category, then treating that category as a single internal unit is wrongheaded.

Re: The Challenges of Social Media in the Enterprise, why Business and IT need to align

Jake McKee — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 13:44:26 -0000

OH, one other thing I'd add in...

The core of this discussion (or at least the discussion starter) comes from a desire to have any and all project scalable, long-term, and deeply connected to all other parts of the business.

I'm not sure that always needs to be the case. In fact, I wrote about the "Disposable Camera" model being applicable to many types of social media projects.

http://tinyurl.com/23mtrm

Additionally, Enterprise 2.0 discussions tend to scrub the conversation on the Participate vs. Create issues. Someone mentions "Enterprise 2.0" and the conversation tends to turn 100% to building our own, corporate versions of social media tools, where that might not be a very good solution. The "IT" question brings the conversation to privacy, scalability, etc. as an immediate and primary discussion point.

Re: The Challenges of Social Media in the Enterprise, why Business and IT need to align

Jake McKee — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:26:29 -0000

Jeremiah said: "Why? because I was afraid they would slow and eventually stop any innovative programs I would lead on the business side."

See, that's the issue right there. IT Departments were created, trained, and staffed in a time before the Internet, or when the internet was new and IT was the only "techy" people capable of understanding the stuff.

The reason we're even having conversations like this, 15+ years after the introduction of the commercial internet is because we've not properly redefined the roles in a new world.

As mentioned above, IT (as a general "thing") is primarily responsible for infrastructure. They're the group that keeps the phones on, the internal mail servers functioning, and the firewall secure. They're not, by default, business support. The same group of people dealing with firewalls shouldn't be be designing Web sites and activities. The marketing people aren't calculating production line times in their downtime; the in-house lawyers aren't taking customers service calls between writing briefs. Why do we expect something different from IT?

Because most people in an organization don't see a distinction between firewall and web site like they do with legal brief and customer service call. The people who actually work in the IT departments look at the web work and often lust to do that rather than fix the latest Windows bug on a user's desktop. So they fight hard to create the illusion that anything geeky is their domain.

I'll be honest, I'm surprised we (the industry overall, I mean) are still having this conversation. I've been part of these discussions for 12+ years now, and I'm wondering if this is one of those perennial issues that will never go away.

All that said, I do agree that there needs to be strategy about how your web tools build up. If it's externally facing, however, a typical IT team should NOT be the group put in charge of that activity. When it comes down to priorities, keeping the Exchange server online is ALWAYS going to trump launching a new marketing-related web project. So why are choices like that even being considered?

Re: Linking Strategy and why Back Linking is OK

Jake McKee — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:46:54 -0000

By the way, one other technique is to use Ma.gnolia's Roots application.

Re: Linking Strategy and why Back Linking is OK

Jake McKee — Sun, 23 Sep 2007 16:45:47 -0000

Personally, I find it quite helpful, when done right, to see links to internal blog posts. After all, as a reader, do I have any idea if you have a body of work out there about the subject at hand if you don't link to it?

Certainly internal links can and are overused. (Search result pages are pointless links and lazy blogging) But so are off-site links. I see many forums, for instance, that link every key word to an ad or some off-site link. Many blogs do the same.

At the end of the day, I think it's about creating a fun experience based on the goals of our own blogging desires.

Re: Weekly Digest of the Social Networking Space: August 29th, 2007

Jake McKee — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 23:20:28 -0000

I may have missed this, but is there an RSS feed just for these digests? That would be invaluable!

Re: Rules of Engagement for the Web Marketing Battleground: Wikipedia

Jake McKee — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 00:34:02 -0000

I've had a number of clients asking about this issue lately. I tell them the same thing I've always said about social interaction (offline and online alike): Maintain an open and honest relationship.

The reality is that Wikipedia has a number of inherent conceptual problems (i.e. content edited by people who likely don't know the subject, certain level of error due to the open nature, etc.). We're still working through these issues as a society, yet far far too many people (and wikipedia admins) believe, IMHO, that we've already found the right answers.

I don't like biased, PR Agency driven edits any more than anyone else. But we can't say to companies that we expect them to participate on the social web, then smack their hand for doing so. If we're going to smack hands, it should be for doing stupid things, not for simply showing up like they've been asked to do.

Re: Understanding the Community/Evangelist Role, and profiles of a few of my Favorite Folks

Jake McKee — Mon, 09 Apr 2007 00:33:35 -0000

Good stuff, as always. Only thing I'd add is that the community manager is often the person who ends up educating the company, as well as the consumers, about its products.

It's always amusing to me how often consumers/fans/customers end up knowing far more about the overall product line than someone responsible for (and thus highly focused on) a single product or product line.

Re: Webinar Notes: “Web 2.0 How to Measure Social Engagement: Blogs Podcasts and RIAs”

Jake McKee — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 15:39:13 -0000

Yeah, was a good presentation. Charlene was fantastic, as always. I'm not afraid to admit that I have a geek research crush on her. It's true.

And Akin - wow, that guy can present! I couldn't see him in person, but you KNOW he must have literally been jumping up and down.

Thanks for the in-depth recap, I'm going to post a few thoughts of my own shortly.

Re: Obama makes Announcement via YouTube

Jake McKee — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 23:00:25 -0000

Kudos to Obama, and I'm crossing my fingers that this is the beginning of something bigger.

Yes, the messages are crafted. All public messages are, at least to some extent. Do you really want someone in a position of "authority" opening their mouths and just seeing what falls out? Even over beers with industry contacts, you gravitate to the people not only come across as friendly and real, but who also know what they're talking about.

Obama's speech linked above is clearly practiced and prepared, but the great thing is that it doesn't have the vibe of fake and polished. BIG difference.

Re: Want to Debate? …looking for Vista lovers to battle Mac OSX lovers

Jake McKee — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 08:57:01 -0000

Storagezilla, I'd say exactly the opposite. The MORE fighting there is, the more that there's likely something to fight about.

Jeremiah, I'll jump in. I've recently switched to a Mac full-time for work and still have my gaming rig PC at home. So I've probably got a decent perspective :)

Re: Guess who is the most pissed off about the EdelMart fiasco?

Jake McKee — Mon, 18 Dec 2006 22:04:33 -0000

Ha ha ha - yeah, that's a damn good point. I've been wondering if normal people are as mad as I am, and I certainly am. But that athlete analogy makes A TON of sense.

Re: Thanks Jake McKee!

Jake McKee — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 21:30:28 -0000

The praise is well deserved. Of course, this means the 2007 bar is set pretty high :)

Re: Out of the Page View Ashes will rise a Social Media Measurement Index

Jake McKee — Wed, 06 Dec 2006 13:11:20 -0000

I just saw this post and was intrigued by their discussion, related to this thread:

http://www.clicktracks.com/insidetrack/articles...

Re: Out of the Page View Ashes will rise a Social Media Measurement Index

Jake McKee — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 18:29:41 -0000

I think you're on the right track here. At the end of the day, "interaction" is more important than simply "touch".

The funny thing is, marketers should LOVE having a new metric that takes these things into account since the numbers would significantly increase, certainly.

The reality is that pageview is easy, and we're all mostly lazy at the end of the day. Every Web server automatically tracks page views with little additional work. But to start to track the things you mention, there's likely going to be additional upfront work to be done as projects are created.

So my questions about the "new metric" is this:

How can we take into account a range of interactions (whatever is deemed important) in a way that's as easy, or only slightly more complex as tracking page views?

Re: Google launching it’s Online Office Suite –What’s the Catch?

Jake McKee — Mon, 28 Aug 2006 12:39:42 -0000

I'm not sure I'd call going to one outlet first over another outlet "hiding".

Heck, if Google is having to choose who to release to first, then blogging has become "just another source"...which means legitimacy. That's a good thing, not a bad thing like the use of "hiding" assumes.

Re: Creating change through blogs

Jake McKee — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:36:58 -0000

Bummer - clip is set to private. Any way to turn it on?

Re: CommunityNext Components of Building a Community

Jake McKee — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 20:44:17 -0000

Thanks for the recap! Great notes!

Re: Lijit integrates Disqus into their search engine

Jake McKee — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 16:21:32 -0000

Is it tough for you guys to be so awesome?

Re: Lijit integrates Disqus into their search engine

Jake McKee — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:45:30 -0000

So....uh... how does this work? Do we need to link something in Lijit? Or does it "just work"?

Re: Lijit integrates Disqus into their search engine

Jake McKee — Sat, 31 Jan 2009 22:45:30 -0000

So....uh... how does this work? Do we need to link something in Lijit? Or does it "just work"?

Re: Only A Handful Of Blogs Actually Make Money Online

Jake McKee — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 11:46:21 -0000

So wait, I can't make money on random musings unless I'm providing very valuable content?? That's so very unlike the offline world where I constantly have people hand me money for my random chatter at cocktail parties....

Ugh, I hate this meme. As Yehuda points out, I too could say that I "make money" from my blog in form of advertising, support for pending sales leads, and credibility. I'm not sure where my biz would be without the blog, yet I rarely "make money" directly from the page views and unique user counts.

Re: The Style Council

Jake McKee — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 20:54:05 -0000

Am I the only one that sees the irony here? After all, we social media people get together A LOT in many locations, venues, event styles to help each other learn. That's really all that Blog Council is - just in a style slightly different than what we use.

If people of like mind and situation want to get together to kvetch, learn, share, and question who are we to slap their hands??

Re: 2007/08/15/fox-caught-wikipedia/

Jake McKee — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:55:44 -0000

Wait, let me get this straight - Fox wanted to downplay the lawsuit and avoid negative press? I wonder how that's going for them....

Re: 2007/12/06/blog-council-a-thinly-veiled-department-meeting/

Jake McKee — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:48:42 -0000

So wait... in your mind the people doing it right (and thus don't really need the help of others) are the ones that should make up this group, not the ones that aren't doing it right (and thus need help from others)?

Uh....

Re: BlogOrlando3 - Morning Sessions

Jake McKee — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 13:03:30 -0000

Thanks for the recap!

Re: Blog World Expo with B5

Jake McKee — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 14:03:40 -0000

Yeah! Rockin the end-of-day session, baby!

Re: User Generated Help and How-to Content Model

Jake McKee — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 23:51:56 -0000

Absolutely agree with the vacuum comment. I regularly hear/read/overhear stuff like "the blogosphere won't accept _____" or "conversation is an overused term". Fact is, within our circles these generalizations may be absolutely true. But just because *we* get it doesn't mean the rest of the world does. I'm excited that after 7+ years of doing this kind of work it's finally starting to get some traction, but it's FAR too early to call the race "finished".

Totally agree about the change in direct re: speaking. I've actually made the same point here:

http://www.communityguy.com/1243/2008-year-of-t...

Great minds and all... !

Re: Nuggets from Social Media workshops as of late…

Jake McKee — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 00:09:21 -0000

Couldn't agree more - my experience doing similar work is in near exact alignment with what you've outlined here.

Re: Great Presentations

Jake McKee — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:34:04 -0000

Yeah, agreed on Dick Hardt’s Identity 2.0. Absolutely brilliant. His was one of the first times ever that I thought "You really couldn't have done this *without* powerpoint".

One of the most moving presentations I've seen yet was another Ted Talk: Bill Clinton.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/85

Love or hate him, you can't argue with his style.

Re: Why Reinvent the Wheel

Jake McKee — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:20:17 -0000

I agree, but also to a point. Why just Google though? I wish there was an alternative link to the other big services too, since not everyone (strange as this seems) uses Google.

But.

There are cases where either the mapping is too much info for confusing intersections, or has the info wrong. My buddies at Red Knight Learning Systems have a great, reduced info map that helps clearly tell people how to get to them when the mapping might confuse or mistake:

http://www.redknightlearning.com/images/map.gif

I think the bigger point is here to

a) clearly list your address in a format that is COPY/PASTE FRIENDLY

b) double check what the major mapping systems do with your address to ensure they're helping not hindering

c) provide direct links if they are, or offer a better alternative if not

d) great your visistors with milk and warm cookies when they're actually able to find you!

Re: Cherp is a Twitter-Flavored Agency

Jake McKee — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 23:04:22 -0000

Yeah, this will last about 30 seconds.... we've seen a number of these types of efforts over the years, whether focused on Second Life or blogging.

But this is a significant step into the niche beyond those efforts. Makes me wonder what a traditional agency would be like if they only focused on print ads that measure a quarter page or less.

Re: Top 142 Social Marketing Blogs on the Web

Jake McKee — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 09:52:11 -0000

Thanks for the inclusion on the list! This is a fantastic list and I'm proud to be included in such great company.

Jake McKee's last blog post..Presenting in Dallas: How LEGO caught the Cluetrain

Re: WARNING: Do NOT load Quechup

Jake McKee — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 01:35:02 -0000

It really goes to show the value of "trust" in the Word of Mouth process. I first signed up from the earliest of early spam mails I heard/saw/received. It came from a friend of mine within the social media industry that I have 100% faith in. Getting an invite from him always (or at least used to) equate to an instant registration on that particular site.

Sadly, Quechup has committed what amounts to cyber-terrorism... making me rethink the things I once thought were safe and will likely never be able to believe are safe again. Boo on them.

Re: Will new Blog Council help big companies get small conversations?

Jake McKee — Fri, 07 Dec 2007 17:32:42 -0000

I'm more than a little disappointed in your assessment, Robert. As Kami correctly points out, this group isn't about companies trying to get started, it's a group dedicated to helping each other learn and grow in an environment that is comfortable to them.

Why is this a bad thing?

As someone who has been in a huge company doing exactly this kind of work, I'm actually pretty shocked that you have issue with this. Either you're saying that the job you did at MS wasn't that tough and you couldn't/didn't benefit from the advice of others in similar positions, or you're saying that other people in similar positions don't have anything relevant to offer anyone else.

Re: Plaxo: the social monster?

Jake McKee — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 17:23:11 -0000

OK, I'll ask the obvious question.... which is it, Robert? Were you pushing FB buttons fully knowing the likely outcome (like you talk about today) or were you shocked and surprised at what happened (as you implied yesterday)? I'm having a hard time following your position here...

Further, I find it a ridiculous argument to say that you just used this data in a test account. Where does that account live? The data is stored somewhere, right? Are you involved in a formal relationship with Plaxo enough to ensure that this "test" account isn't going to roll your 5,000 bits of new data into the larger master database? Either man up and admit you have a formal relationship with Plaxo or agree that there are enough unknowns here that you've made a mistake in trusting them so implicitly.

The real issue in this discussion is one of context. The context of when and how I'm asking for my Gmail info (a practice I neither support or agree with, FYI), is one of limited use and specific purpose. The context of what this Plaxo script is doing is far more broad reaching. And given Plaxo's previous reputation (which adds to the context), who's to say that once they get out of beta they wouldn't extend the collection of data past name, email, birthday alone?

Context matters.

Adding to your personal address book is a different context than adding to the corporate database of a business known for spamming.

I'm not saying you should, necessarily, have gotten permission to do this, but I'm saying we all should start applying more common sense to the way we handle this implied trust inherent in the friending process.

Since you've given contradictory positions about what this whole debacle was based on (beta test and/or poke at FB), it's hard to know what your real motivations are here. But whether this was a beta test or some sort of civil disobedience, the fact remains, you made your 5,000+ FB contacts unwitting accomplices in that process.

Re: Apple stabs Adobe in the back

Jake McKee — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 10:35:05 -0000

Have you actually USED Flash on the Mac? It's a slow, crash-prone dog.

In Firefox, if I have more than a couple of tabs open that have any level of Flash content on the pages, I'm destined for a browser crash every couple hours.

I was recently having consistent, reliable crashes when using a video camera through the Flash-based player in Utterz (totally Flash, not Utterz, I recreated the exact error in other "grab your video cam with Flash" apps). So I started digging.

Turns out that there's a great deal of discussion about the Mac Flash player, with many people suggesting a downgrade to the older version. (Didn't solve my problem, unfortunately)

If the Flash player on full sized Macs is a resource hog, prone to crashes, why would I possibly want it on a mini-sized Mac (the iPhone)?

Honestly, I'm bummed at Apple's decision, but not because I think they made the wrong one. Hopefully this will get Adobe into gear and actually make a robust Mac version of the Flash player...

Re: Apple stabs Adobe in the back

Jake McKee — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 11:25:24 -0000

Robert, I'll point this out, as others have, again: It wouldn't be "impossible" to make a stable DESKTOP version of the Flash player either, but Adobe is choosing not to do that. What makes you think that if they're not committed to a decent Mac desktop player they'd be committed to a decent iPhone player?

Re: Is Steve Jobs lying about Flash not working on iPhone?

Jake McKee — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 10:59:08 -0000

Great attention grabbing headline, pointless post.

Apple had Windows running on a Mac how far back? How much earlier than the switch to Intel chips made it more REALISTIC to run Windows on a Mac?

As others of have said, Jobs didn't say it couldn't be done. What he said was: "it performs too slowly on the iPhone". Considering how poorly Flash performs on my desktop Mac, a point Robert that you seem to be ignoring completely, I sure as hell don't want it on my iPhone.

Re: Flickr’s fourth birthday “adults only”

Jake McKee — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 01:38:39 -0000

@Robert, come on man, this is ridiculous. You said:

> "If you want an adult night out, go to a Playboy party."

Wow. So when my wife and I leave the baby with the in-laws and head out with another couple to get away from the kids for a while, the only viable destination has to be sponsored by Playboy? Or when I want date night with the wife, the movie we see should be softcore porn? That's beyond foolish, and hopefully you don't actually mean it.

"Photography should be a family affair and you should expect to have kids involved."

This seems fairly obvious, but you know that Photography and Flickr aren't one in the same, right? That'd be like saying the Facebook party at SXSW equates to the use of social networking.

(As a side note, I didn't hear you complaining about kids not being allowed at the FB SXSW party...)

"Not to mention that my son isn’t your usual kid and is very respectful of adults. Even last night he didn’t get involved in trying to get into the party and waited quietly outside."

Bravo. You've taught your kid great manners, congrats. Seriously. But beyond that, A-List power doesn't (or shouldn't) equate to different treatment.

The craziest thing in this thread, however is this line:
"If you say you don’t want my son around because you want to be 'child free' then that’s an attack on me and my family."

Absolutely, unquestionably false. Wrong, wrong, wrong. This is an aggressively foolish argument to try to make - no one is "attacking" you, your son, or your family by saying they want to attend an event free of kids. They're simply saying that at a bar on a Saturday night, there's an assumption by *most* people that kids are not included.

I honestly can't believe we're having this discussion...

Re: Blog comments are dead: discuss

Jake McKee — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 10:52:27 -0000

All due respect, man, it's time to step out of the "Scoble Bubble" and say hello to the rest of the world. So you use friendfeed, fantastic. For ALL of my clients still struggling to understand the point of Twitter, to all of my relatives that can't remember to check my flickr stream, and to my friends in the industry who only sometimes visit my blog because they're busy working, blog comments aren't dead as much as not quite understood. We may agree that blog comments aren't getting the traffic they should but that's because you've moved past them while the rest of the world has mostly yet to find them.

I'm curious though - if blog comments are so dead (whatever that statement means), why are we seeing an uptick in Disqus/Intense Debate adoption?

Re: Scoop: Google Analytics Updates - Compare Data Points

Jake McKee — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:22:31 -0000

I hope to god the compare to site is an opt-in feature...

Re: Scoop: Google Analytics Updates - Compare Data Points

Jake McKee — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 00:29:35 -0000

Actually, upon further review, I think Mashable is flat wrong.

Re: Bamboo’s Pen Tablet; a Case Study in Using Social Media Marketing

Jake McKee — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:22:45 -0000

So this is either an example of how different people are interested in things in different ways, or that she did her research in advance and wrote content in a way you'd actually enjoy.

See, I personally read that content and am bored beyond belief. Why would I care how many subscribers the Facebook page had? Why would I need to see "NEW ERA" in all caps? I hate the word "Leverage" these days.

But you read it and enjoyed it and blogged about it.

Since I'm not sure whether the sender did pre-research on you, I'll extend the benefit of the doubt and assume she did and that she crafted this email appropriate to your desired tone and content!

Jake McKee's last blog post..Rapid Fire - Wednesday, April 23

Re: Blog World Expo speakers are Lijit!

Jake McKee — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 21:47:01 -0000

So does that mean I can get more stickers this year?? Woo hoo!

Looking forward to seeing you!

Re: Intelius expands in Bothell

Jake McKee — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 12:56:00 -0000

For as much business as I find myself doing in Seattle these days, I'm extremely pleased to hear that area tech is not all in "batten the hatches" mode.

Are you hearing other expansion plans from area businesses?

Re: The Machine Has No Soul – Or Backup Singers

Jake McKee — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 03:00:13 -0000

While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I do have to wonder if one day we (or people after us) will look back and say "I can't believe they ever thought that machines couldn't write music". Seems like every time we turn around, history slaps us in the face, from Gates talking about how nobody needs more than 64k or RAM or how the IBM Selectric was easy enough for even a woman to use.
I agree with your point, but I wonder if that's just because I don't have the abilities of a futurist?