The latest “gotta have an invite code” craze on Twitter is for Brightkite, the “location-based social network.” I’m not currently using Brightkite, but I can see the potential value of the service (find out where your friends are and see who’s near you, etc.). However, like other valuable Web-based services, such as Flickr, the Twitter interface is useless and only serves to spam your friends with irrelevant information.
In my opinion, Auto-Tweets from Brightkite users may have dethroned Flickr-generated updates as the king of useless and annoying Twitter spam. While the Twitter application by nature makes professional spamming ineffective by robbing the spammer of an audience, willing or otherwise, Auto-Tweet spam is different. It’s from your friends, and you don’t want to unfollow your friends. So you deal with it or face an unpleasant decision.
A typical Brightkite Auto-Tweet looks like this:
I’m at 123 Elm Street, Springfield KY (Springfield, KY)” and a link to a map.
There’s no context. Nothing about what’s happening, why you’re there, who you’re with, or what you’re doing. Just dry geographical information. What are Twitter followers supposed to do with this information? Hop in their cars and drive to your location? We don’t even know how long you plan on being there, and you may be gone by then. Hell, with gas prices these days, that could really dent the wallet.
There are a few useful Auto-Tweets, such as a new blog post or a WhyGoSolo event posting, both of which provide contextual information in the message as well as a call for interested parties to take action by clicking through for additional information. Looking at a map or viewing a blurry photo of your cat provides no value.
If you’re somewhere and want people to join you, by all means manually tweet it. And if you’ve taken a particularly stunning or interesting photo, provide your followers a link.
Go ahead, un-check that Twitter update box. Your followers will thank you.
There’s been a lot of discussion on Twitter, the online social conversation tool (my current description of the system), about how marketers are beginning to flood the platform. In recent weeks I’ve been “followed” by dozens of company and marketing Tweeters, such as “myhomebusiness” and “simplecheapwedd.”
Like many of my Twitter friends, I check the account of each new follower, and all too often it’s filled with nothing but push marketing and links. And they’re taking the time to follow thousands of people, with only a small handful following back.
“Twitter is being taken over by spammers” is a common complaint, but, aside from the inconvenience of getting “new follower” email notices, I don’t see much of a problem. If I choose not to follow them back, that’s the last I hear of them. And, as demonstrated by their lack of followers, I’m not the only one not following back.
Traditional “push-style” online marketing techniques don’t work on Twitter, and it shouldn’t be long before this concept gets through to them. Many marketers haven’t taken the time to understand the medium and have jumped in without testing the waters first. The result is that no one is hearing their messages.
Twitter requires balance. People like interacting with real people. Linking to your content or letting others know about what you do is fine, but if it is the dominant message you’re sending to your followers, they’ll start un-following you pretty quick. The only exception is news feeds, such as @breakingnewson.
There are some companies that are using Twitter properly, and I support and encourage this. A fine example is JetBlue (@jetblue). I don’t follow @jetblue because I don’t often fly with them and don’t have much of an interest, but there’s a real person operating the account and they’re actively engaged in conversations in the community. At the time of writing this, @jetblue follows 1,440 people, and 1,378 follow back. That’s a very impressive ratio for a “company” Twitterer.
Marketers, you can only get out of Twitter what you put into it. Go human or go home.
(NOTE: I would like a better application to manage the new follower review process to avoid email notices.)
Sometimes, when I’m determined to veg out in front of the tube, I wind up “surfing” TiVo - checking out what’s coming up over the next week or so on a handful of channels I like. This is how I discovered “Before the Music Dies” by filmmaker Andrew Shapter. Not unlike to how I discover music.
On its surface, “Dies” is a doc about the tribulations of the music industry over the last decade or so. Something we’re all at least vaguely familiar about. Consolidation. Napster. Wilco and its label(s). Metalica and its fans. Britney. Cratering sales.
But “Dies” goes deeper, painting a picture of the Western music *world* and the schism that’s currently in full swing. If you haven’t noticed, there’s a major disconnect in music right now between Wall Street and actual music as an art form. One sells, one doesn’t. Which is which? You might be surprised.
There’s always been beautiful people playing music, but music always took the lead. But now, with video, pop culture worship, and technology that can turn any vocalist into a perfect-pitch siren, image has taken over. “Dies” hilariously demonstrates hit creation using a gifted songwriter, a model who can’t sing, and computer wizardry that produces pure candy that fits right into radio or MTV.
“Dies” peeks into focus-group testing, *Artist and Repertoire*, and commerce. It explores why great artists don’t “cut” it (sell hits), how country music can be “too country,” and what it means to be a “band.” Would Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen and U2 have made it today? What does the Internet and file-sharing really mean? What happens when the artist takes control of their business?
You see, corporations are throwing good money after bad, and they’re running out of money. But there’s a lot of success to be had in the biz with really good music. And success can mean a lot more than just money.
The first and only time I saw RAQ before Saturday’s show at The State Theatre in Falls Church, VA was when they opened for my band at the Grog and Tankard many years ago. That was one of those instances where you ask your bandmates: “Do we really have to follow these guys?”
Back then, they were a blisteringly-fast technical jamband with oft-noted similarities to Phish. A lot has changed.
RAQ’s recent performance bore little resemblance to the band that played at the Grog, or to Phish. The RAQ of today has slowed things down, added in heavier - dare I say metal elements. The guitar-keys interplay wizardry that dominated the RAQ of old has given way to a more unified musical machine where much of the drama now emanates from the rhythm section. The band has more in common with Umphrey’s McGee these days, and they’ve got the chops to pull it off.
The six string histrionics of Chris Michetti are still available in abundance, and keboardist Todd Stoops masterfully dabbles in the lower registers of his instrument. But it was the precise interplay of bassist Jay Burwick and drummer Greg Stukey that stood out. Burwick, with his pronounced bass accents, and Stukey, with his heavy right foot, produced something akin to a crowd carpet-bombing.
Interestingly, the band’s vocal interplays and harmonies were more effective than solo vocal performances. Overall, they successfully avoid the typical jamband trap (the vocals suck). The originals provided enough interesting turns, catchy refrains, and bass-bombing breakdowns to keep the crowd moving and on their feet. A few covers, including takes on Ween and the Allman Brothers (the latter featuring a very capable Cris Jacobs of The Bridge standing agog at Michette’s guitar solo) added enough familiarity for those unfamiliar with original RAQ material.
If the “Grog RAQ” > “State Theatre RAQ” progress continues at this pace, these guys have a very long and bright future ahead of them.
Burwick and Michette doing the two step last October. Photo by Aaron Williams.
I had no clue as to what The Diving Bell and the Butterfly was about when I sat down in the theater, but it soon became obvious…and very uncomfortable. The movie is told from the point of view of Jean-Dominique Bauby, a high-flying editor of Elle magazine, after suffering from a stroke that resulted in head-to-toe paralysis - something called locked-in syndrome.
Full paralysis has always been one of the scariest conditions I can imagine. I look away if a football player is down on the field, not moving. Stories of paralysis, whether about celebrities like Christopher Reeve or our troops in Walter Reed, grip me with imagination - the kind of imagination I wish I didn’t have.
The Diving Bell’s perspective puts you right there, and it’s awful. Brief flashbacks of a full, vibrant existence give way to claustrophobia and terror. You wince as one eye is sewn shut. You ask yourself how long it will take to go crazy listening to the alphabet repeated over and over, albeit in pleasant female voices. One blink yes, two blinks no. And please, keep the damn television on!
What this movie really is about though, is life, relationships, determination, and communication. And humor. It is at first Bauby’s quick-witted, sarcastic humor that lifts this movie beyond the immediately terrible and elicits feelings of admiration. The determination of those who work with him (sans that evil doctor) is inspiring, as is Bauby’s determination to complete a book, one letter at a time.
The actors are fantastic, notably Mathieu Amalric in the lead role and Max Von Sydow, who nearly steals the movie in a few short scenes as Bauby’s aging father. The uplifting nature of The Diving Bell is always tempered by the reality of the situation, but the overall effect is a powerful one.
Umphrey’s McGee is simply one helluva live band. A mix of jamband, prog-rock, pop, funk, and extreme music talent (see the twin guitar slayers Jake Cinninger and Brendan Bayliss, along with monster drummer Kris Myers) they stretch a wide variety of styles and will throw down some amazing covers.
Here’s their performance of Women Wine & Song on Jimmy Kimmel Live from 2006 (with Huey Lewis!)
Unity08, the effort launched by a handful of prominent Republicans and Democrats to field a centrist, bipartisan third party ticket for president, is facing hard times. The movement has been knocked down by a lack of funding, struggles with FCC regulations, and the departure of two key founders now working to convince New York mayor Michael Bloomberg to wage an independent run for the White House. Their Web site has been reduced to a sad, non-dynamic “status-of-the-movement” message.
Unity08 is down, but is it out?
In order to continue with their efforts and hold an “online convention” to choose their candidates, Unity08 needs two things very soon: an influx of money and energy. No shortage here - Ron Paul and his legions of supporters have plenty of both.
For a while I thought it plausible that, after exiting his quixotic yet surprisingly resonant effort for the GOP nomination, Paul and his supporters could swarm over the Unity08 convention. Now I think that they can save it, albeit with a change in mission away from the centrist focus while maintaining their aim for a “post-partisan” ticket. He would also dispense with the criticism that Unity08 is merely a party for rich, center-right donors.
Ron Paul has indicated that he will not support the eventual GOP nominee if they don’t support some key policy issues he holds based on his Constitutional interpretations - namely the war in Iraq and foreign policy. He’s left the door open to continue his campaign elsewhere.
Will Ron Paul bolt the GOP for Unity08? If he will, the time is near.
It looks like Fred Thompson will exit the race for the GOP nod and likely endorse his buddy John McCain (he’s just indicated that he’s not going to participate in the debate later this week). However, the last two debates have demonstrated that he’s pulled a Hillary and found his voice: A no-nonsense communicator and a deliberate thinker with little in the way of negatives in the eyes of Republican voters.
Let’s briefly recap the negatives of the nominees according to many GOP activists and conservatives:
John McCain: He’s a pro-war liberal who, as a maverick Senator, aligned himself with the left wing of the Democratic party issues such as taxes, immigration, and the judicial confirmation process. Conservative radio has opened fire on McCain now that he’s achieved frontrunner status. His success is due to significant support from independents, a factor that won’t play in many upcoming contests. Having your name attached to Kennedy and Feingold on major legislation infuriates the base. Threatens to undo the “coalition” if nominated.
Mike Huckabee: He’s a pro-life liberal populist who raised taxes, was soft on immigration, and sounds not unlike John Edwards when talking about the economy. He scares the hell out of the Wall Street wing of the GOP on the economy and scares the hell out of the libertarian wing with his talk of bringing the constitution into line with God. Also a regular target of conservative talk radio. Threatens to undo the “coalition” if nominated.
Mitt Romney: All the money in the world is required to keep Mitt’s head above water in this race (good for him he’s got it to spend). He’s a late-comer on some key social issues GOP voters hold dear, particularly abortion, and many don’t totally trust him. I’d like to think that the Mormon issue isn’t a factor, but who knows? He seems to come undone when challenged and knocked off of his game, and he’s gone negative. The establishment, including talk radio, seems to like the guy. Probably doesn’t threaten the “coalition” unless evangelicals can’t deal with the Mormon issue or social conservatives don’t trust his latter-day conversions on key issues.
Rudy Giuliani: He may not even be a player any more as his Florida -> Super Tuesday strategy is becoming increasingly suspect. Can someone who’s posting single digit returns in multiple state contests generate excitement in later contests? He’s unacceptable to many social conservatives despite his promise to nominate “strict constructionists” to the bench. He seems solid on national security and economic issues, but is vulnerable on immigration. Threatens to undo the “coalition” if nominated.
Ron Paul: Many find his ideas a refreshing addition to the debate, but voters don’t think he’s electable and he’s just too far out there. He’ll likely bolt the race (and the GOP) to unleash his legions of supporters on the Unity08 online convention and become a third party candidate.
Fred Thompson. He doesn’t seem to “desire” the presidency enough and doesn’t like campaigning
So the worst thing conservatives can say about Thompson is that he’s lazy. They do like him though. He’s probably the first choice on the talk show circuit, although they lament the fact that he got in late and stumbled badly early on. Lately, however, he’s been much stronger on the stump and has posted a couple solid debate performances.
With the GOP race so fractured and all four frontrunners so badly flawed according to various factions of the old Reagan coalition, serious reconsideration by voters is inevitable. But they need an alternative, and Thompson could be that alternative. Just a few more weeks is needed to determine whether there is a unique opportunity to capitalize on the high negatives of the frontrunners.
His exit is premature, and a mistake.
UPDATE: Rush Limbaugh stated on his radio program yesterday (January 21) that he may not be supporting the eventual GOP nominee. He’s presumably talking about McCain and Huckabee. The fault lines are now real.
The fifth, and sadly, final season of HBO’s “The Wire” has begun and is looking brilliant as always. For those that want to get into the show for this season, you’re probably better off renting previous seasons than watching this video from HBO Content on Youtube. I suspect that it is more entertaining for Wire aficionados than useful for newbies getting up to speed.
Spoiler Alert: If you are intent on wasting your money to see this movie, don’t continue.
Plot: A handful of self-absorbed millennials videoblog about how a 10-story-tall monster demolishing Southern Manhattan is ruining their love lives.
Cinematography: Handheld camcorder style. If you can’t hold the camera steady at a going-away party, you can’t hold it steady when being chased by a bunch of alien crab creatures. Prepare to squint.
Crab Creatures: The writers felt that a 10-story-tall monster wasn’t scary enough. Why not have alien crab creatures sprout from the monster’s skin to add a critical “zombie” element to the movie (with obligatory “bite wound” repercussions)? Zombie movies seem to be hip these days.
The Hiroshima-9/11 Connection. Godzilla was a play on the Japanese’ national “post-nuclear” psyche. Cloverfield’s images play on American’s post 9/11 psyche. Oh, and the lead character was moving to Japan (hence the “going away party”).
What Are They? Who knows…except maybe the federal government. But since the movie is limited strictly to the video blog of the lead characters, we never find out. The quickness with which the army had tanks in position in Manhattan to do battle tells me that the government must be at least somewhat complicit in this awful movie.
The movie clocks in at 80 minutes and feels like 60 minutes.
Conclusion: Shitfield.
UPDATE: I saw the movie with a few social media peeps, including Aaron Brazell, who wrote this review of the movie.
UPDATE #2: As Aaron reminds me, this movie did give us one hell of a term: “Hammerdown Protocol.” I will certainly be using this in business situations in the near future.
