Warning: This is a longish post. Read at your own risk.
When you write a blog on communications, you occasionally have to write about other bloggers and the “blogosphere.”
This is one of those times, because something happened recently that really points out some of the flaws in this thing we call the “blogosphere.”
I don’t like to write about the blogosphere very often, mostly because it has a bit of an incestuous feel to it, for some reason. A lot of bloggers, it seems to me, are self-involved navel gazers who jerk off to their own blogs and have an overblown sense of their own importance.
Now, maybe you’re thinking . . . hey, self-involved navel-gazing jerk-off, as a blogger you probably fall into that camp. But I don’t think I do.
Maybe it’s because I write thousands of words every month for print publications that have their own readers who maybe don't even read this blog; maybe it’s because I was a columnist long before anyone ever heard of a blog; maybe it’s because I’ve never thought of myself as a “Blogger” with a capital “B;” maybe it’s because this blog has always been a labor of love for me, and the reason I love it is because of the readers and the comments and the community that this thing somehow created—and not because it enables me to attain some kind of status in the blogosphere.
Whatever. The point is, I don’t give much thought to the “blogosphere” all that often . . . until something forces me to take notice. And something happened last week that made me sit up and pay attention.
I was out in Las Vegas, at a Social Media conference co-sponsored by Ragan Communications and the Society for New Communications Research.
Overall, the conference was a big success as far as I’m concerned. I saw some great sessions (especially ones by Shel Holtz who, against all odds, appears to be getting smarter as he gets older. He’s supposed to be losing brain cells, not gaining them.)
My own individual session on the evolution of employee communication that kicked off the Employee Communications track went really well, too. And the speakers I lined up to speak at the conference all did terrific presentations. In all, it was a really great experience.
With one glaring exception: The lunch panel I sat on, on Thursday afternoon.
It was titled “Winners and Sinners in Social Media,” and it didn’t go very well. Wait. Let me be clear. The session sucked ass. It was the worst session I’ve ever been a part of, in 11 years of professional speaking. And I saw it coming.
This was a train wreck waiting to happen.
The panel was supposed to be me, a guy named David Strom, and a guy named Jeremy Wright. Jen McClure—the head of the Society for New Communications Research and someone I like a lot—was going to moderate it.
I had never met the other two dudes, but I know they are serious bloggers, and very big names in the blogging community. One of them, or maybe both of them, has even written a book, or books.
I was excited about the panel . . .but a little nervous that we didn’t have a firm plan in place for what we were going to talk about.
So two weeks before the conference, I shot an e-mail to Jen, basically saying: “Should we talk? What’s the plan? What do you see as my role on the panel?”
Now, it should be noted that last-minute planning is fairly normal for conferences . . . especially with group sessions. I’ve been involved in sessions that were planned on cocktail napkins the night before . . . and they were terrific.
So I wasn’t all that worried about the fact that we hadn’t talked yet. So I e-mailed Jen, and she e-mailed the group, and we set up a conference call. The day of the call, I called into the number, and the only person there was Jen.
The other two guys didn’t make the call . . . but they also didn’t bother to e-mail anyone and say they needed to reschedule.
Can you say, “red flag?”
I mean, it would be sort of normal if one person couldn’t make it . . .but both of them? And neither of them could bother to call? That’s weird. But, I figured, these are very important bloggers, after all, so maybe this is how it works at the higher levels of the blogosphere.
So Jen and I have a very nice conversation . . . and we decide that, on the panel, I would talk about a case study that I’m involved in right now—a very successful internal blog/podcast combination for a Fortune 500 company.
Great. My role is done. I’m a little nervous that I don’t know what anyone else will be doing . . . but it’s a panel, I only have 10 minutes to talk, and I have more than enough good material to fill that time.
Then it’s go time. I give my morning session, go back to the room, review my notes for the panel, and then go down to the meeting room to meet the rest of the gang. Jen and David are there, and David seems like a nice enough guy . . . outspoken and funny, which is always a good thing for a panel.
But Jeremy Wright isn’t there. Turns out that Jeremy isn’t going to show up for the panel—despite the fact that he’s in the hotel, and attending the conference! Jen tells me that he had “an important business meeting” suddenly come up. The old Brady Bunch excuse. Something suddenly came up.
Now, I’ve planned lots of conferences in the past 15 years, and I’ve had lots of speakers cancel on me before, because of family issues or personal crises . . . but this is the first time someone has cancelled because of a last-minute “business meeting” even though they are on site at the conference!
But okay . . . it is what it is. I can feel the bad karma sitting on my shoulders like a wet poncho. But it has to be done. The show must go on, right?
So Jen introduces us and I lead off, and start talking about my case study. David immediately interrupts, the conversation veers in seventeen different directions, and it’s a clusterfuck. I don’t blame David or Jen . . . there was no plan, and I was focusing on internal communications, and they wanted to go in different directions. I could see it coming a mile away.
And while it’s all unraveling, I notice a man sitting in the front row. He’s an older guy, and the entire time we're talking, he’s typing. Except once, during the audience participation portion of the clusterfuck, he gets up and gives his opinion about something.
When he does that, David addresses him as “Shel,” and says something like, “We can always count on you to voice your opinion, Shel.”
At that point, I realized the man is Shel Israel, one of the bigger names in the blogosphere. Shel, I believe, has not only written one book, but he’s working on a second book. By all accounts, he’s almost as smart as Shel Holtz. Almost, but not quite. He’s a sort of Shel Light, I guess.
But, as big of an intellectual giant as he is, it still pisses me off that he’s sitting there typing the whole time we’re trying to have a discussion. At the time, I told myself: Hey, if you were sitting in this clusterfuck of a session, you’d be doing something else, too.
And I forgot about it. In fact, I immediately grabbed my wife Cindy after the session, and went and had a bottle of champagne and a dozen oysters, to put it out of my mind. That was nice.
Then, the shit storm hits. I get back from Vegas and, out of curiosity, go to Israel’s blog for the first time. Sure enough, he has a write-up on the session, because he was “live blogging” it. When you “live blog” something it means that you are writing the entire time the speaker is speaking.
Bloggers take great pride in “live blogging” events. In fact, at this conference, the planners had to go to great lengths to provide dozens of power strips in all the meeting rooms, so all the bloggers could “live blog” each session—meaning, write reports of the sessions while they are taking place.
Now, here’s the write-up that Shel Israel gave to my portion of the lunch panel: Remember, he’s doing this as I’m speaking:
“Steve Crescenzo begins by slamming a David Weinberger. He's been talking about his successes for five minutes now without mentioning a single winner. Now he's declared that 95% of corporate executives should not blog. Now he's saying any idiot can blog and proves his point my mentioning his blog. He argues that CEOs are not comfortable in situations where they are not in control. Now he says, that as a consultant he should coach CEO, who apparently need not only to be in control, but without his help they will be clueless on what to say in the natural conversation that is blogging.”
Now, that was complete and utter bullshit. I never slammed Weinberger, who was the keynote speaker and one of the authors of the Cluetrain Manifesto. I never said that a CEO needed ME to coach him.
I actually complimented Weinberger, who by all accounts gave a hell of a presentation.
Yes, I said any idiot can blog. Yes, I said I’m living proof of that (little did I know that Shel Israel was, too).
And yes, I said that 95 percent of corporate executives should not blog because a) they aren’t comfortable with a conversational, non-corporate style of writing; b ) they aren’t comfortable with not owning the conversation; and c) they aren’t willing to live up to the commitment a blog demands—and read the comments, blog frequently, and be a part of the community.
And I didn’t say CEOs need ME if they want to blog. I said that internal communicators need to step up and help coach these people, which is hard for many internal communicators---who often don’t have the access to top executives that other communicators do.
Now . . . I have to admit. Shel Israel is supposed to be pretty smart . . . so I had to wonder if maybe he was right, and I was so upset about the panel to begin with, that maybe I didn’t come close to saying what I thought I said.
But then I happened upon a blog called Pardon the Disruption, written by a communicator named Chip Griffin. Chip also “live blogged” the session. Only he had a different write-up than Israel. Here’s what Chip had to say:
>>>>The lunch "keynote" was a panel with Steve Crescenzo and David Strom.
Steve started out talking primarily about internal communications. He focused on the how internal communicators should use social media. His top point was that executives shouldn't blog in many cases. Unless the exec is comfortable with the medium, they should steer clear. Steve also focused on the need for communicators to coach others within their companies about best practices.<<<<
Now, that is pretty damned close to what I thought I said. Again, I’m not sticking up for the panel or my role on it, because it was pretty awful . . . but it seems to me that Israel’s irresponsible reporting points to a dangerous trend in online communication.
As people sit and “live blog” speakers and events, and get a whole bunch of shit wrong but publish it anyway, isn’t that a little dangerous? Especially when the person doing the “live blogging” is a very respected person who has the power to influence a lot of people?
As I told Israel in the comments section on his own blog:
“You know, I would rate the lunch panel as the worst session I saw at the conference, and I was on it! But your ‘live blogging’ of it was even worse. Maybe you ought to just stop typing for a second, listen to what’s being said, and THEN go back to your room and blog using your notes.”
That seems to me to be pretty good advice. I would never try to write and publish an article while the source was speaking, and I’ve been a reporter for 20 years. I don’t think Bob Woodward could do that. In fact, I can’t think of a single reporter who would try to do what Israel was doing.
But Israel is having none of that argument. His response to my suggestion to take some notes and then write the article was this:
“You know, you almost had me feeling bad about how hard I was on you—not on the panel, but on you. But then I got to your cheap shot and don’t feel badly at all.”
And therein lies the problem with the blogosphere. It’s a bunch of arrogant, self-important people who have suddenly been granted a platform. Never mind that he might have misconstrued my comments, because he was so busy writing as I was talking. Never mind that he may have besmirched my reputation, such that it is.
He gets to write whatever he wants, and that is that. And he gets to do it very fast, with no editors or fact checkers to keep him honest.
People like Shel Israel will spell the end of the blogosphere, sooner or later. Because people will stop trusting what anybody writes.
And that’s a shame.
Comments (60)
Steve--
I agree with you about this "live blogging" business. It's a way for bloggers to get a leg up on journalists. But usually, the events they cover are not NEARLY newsworthy enough to justify "live blogging"--as if there are thousands of people around the world wanting to know what happened at the 11:15 session on podcasting.
They'd still beat the journalists to the punch and would offer much more insightful and worthwhile reports if they'd only listen during the sessions, collect their thoughts, and write in the evening.
Of course, if something earth-shattering does happen, they could "live blog" that.
I read Israel's blog about your session: What can anyone learn from it, aside from getting the impression that Shel Israel thinks Steve Crescenzo is a jerk?
WHO CARES?
David
Posted by David Murray | March 12, 2007 7:59 AM
Posted on March 12, 2007 07:59
You are exactly right . . . but he doesn't even do a good enough job of painting me out to be a jerk! There are certainly better ways, and more accurate ways, of doing that!
Live blogging is all about the blogger, not the information. And that's dangerous.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. | March 12, 2007 8:22 AM
Posted on March 12, 2007 08:22
I remember the Democratic and Republican national conventions with the last election - live blogging was a big deal then, and still is. I read a few "live blogs" about what was going on at the conventions, and I thought they were well written and gave a different feel for those of us who couldn't be there about what was happening.
I think there are definitely instances, such as those events, where live blogging is definitely about the information and not the blogger, and is very useful. I think as with anything live, there is a certain margin of error - it's why we have blooper reels.
Posted by Rebecca (token IT Goddess) | March 12, 2007 9:48 AM
Posted on March 12, 2007 09:48
Rebecca:
You're probably right (as usual). In a situation like that, I can see where live blogging could be pretty useful.
But I don't see it as just sitting there typing words as the speaker speaks. I think there has to be a LITTLE thought time. I mean, live blog the session ten minutes after it is over.
You know, there is a pattern to many speeches. They build the tension, they build the drama, they save some examples for the end. Which is why you should wait till the end before you blog it . . . wait until it is complete.
Now, that wasn't the case with my session. There was no drama, there was no structure. But still, basing the whole write up on the first four minutes of the talk seems a little goofy.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. | March 12, 2007 10:25 AM
Posted on March 12, 2007 10:25
I don't know what panel discussion this guy was at, but the one I was at was nothing like this. And most importantly, Steve, is that my first thought as I was reading this was, "Who the heck is Shel?"
Male bloggers, I find, take life way too seriously. Rebecca the IT Goddess would never blog about anything so serious - which is why I read hers every day.
I was sitting there during the panel discussion listening to the stories and intermittently thinking thoughts like, "Jen looks good in that color," or "Steve's wife sure is cute," or "Where can I get another Diet Pepsi?" Good Lord, guys, leave your computers at home and come to a conference to learn from someone else for a change. I don't care how many books you've written, you're never above learning a thing or two from someone else.
Posted by Eileen | March 12, 2007 11:31 AM
Posted on March 12, 2007 11:31
Eileen:
Steve's wife is cute? Jen looks good in that color? What about STEVE is cute. What about STEVE looks good in that color?
Those were the important takeaways from the session.
You're right . . . many male bloggers see their blogs as an extension of their penis, and their manhood seems to depend on how big and noticable their blog are. And blogging becomes like sex: the more you do it, the more manly you are.
And if you can do it LIVE . . .well, hell, that's like satisfying six or seven women at once.
I once satisfied seven women at once. I was at a party, and they didn't like me much, and I left. They were very satisfied.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. | March 12, 2007 11:51 AM
Posted on March 12, 2007 11:51
Thanks for the timely thoughts, Steve! I'll be blogging a conference for the first time later this month, and while I know a lot of people will be live blogging, I'm really hesitant to do that.
Now I know why! This is going to be the first conference in years I can attend and just listen and learn, and I can see live blogging getting in the way of that. I'm going to think things over and then blog, and if I'm the last one to post about a particular session, so be it!
And I'm certain you looked fantastic in that color.
Posted by Beth R. | March 12, 2007 12:49 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 12:49
While I completely understand the point of live blogging a major event like the Democratic or Republican national conventions, I'm not sure I see the point of doing the same at an event like the Social Media conference.
Sure, there are people interested in knowing what happened at the conference (and I'm one of 'em) but are any of them waiting impatiently to read the bloggers' posts DURING the presentation? I don't think so. I know I'm not. I'm too busy ... say ... working. I'll catch up during a quiet time at work or on my own time in the evening. If someone waited 30 minutes to blog when the actual presentation was over, would I mind? Nope, wouldn't even notice.
Now, with regard to the aforementioned political conventions, it seems reasonable to assume that people ARE waiting to read about those as soon as bloggers post.
Posted by Andrea S-R | March 12, 2007 1:03 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 13:03
Steve,
exactly my point in my swan song post of Feb. 13. I'm out and I'm glad. I'm tired of the echo chamber among the self-appointed "leaders" of the PR Blogosphere and I refuse to add to the freakin' noise anymore.
http://www.adventuresinbusinesscommunications.com
I'll be listening but not "spewing" anymore. Keep up the good work. Maybe Shel's next book can be about the decline of the blogoshere when he realizes he's the only one left doing it.
Posted by Dee Rambeau | March 12, 2007 1:07 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 13:07
...and once again, ThinkGeek comes through in the clinch:
http://www.thinkgeek.com/oreilly/tshirts/5eb7/
Neruda
Posted by Neruda | March 12, 2007 1:16 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 13:16
It's ADD culture at work. Everything is NOW. Even if that means that the person writing about the events in front of them can't pay any attention to them (because most of us are just not that good at multitasking).
Wouldn't a little analysis of the event, once the writer had time to think a bit, be more interesting and useful?
Posted by John | March 12, 2007 1:30 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 13:30
Great shirt, Neruda!
Beth, I agree with Andrea and John: The value that you can provide from these things is not the speed with which you can report . . . it's the thoughts and analysis that you can add to the session.
There was no news being broken in Vegas. Analysis would have been welcome, I think.
You know, we used to have to wait for the printer; then we had to wait for the IT people, or the Web designer, before we could publish.
Now, we don't have to wait for anyone. But that doesn't mean that just be cause we can publish instantly, we should.
I think we need to be careful to measure what we gain by being speedy (news value, a sense of "being there) by what we lose---the chance to look over what we write, think about it, maybe talk to an additional source, etc.
If it's news, live blog it! If it ain't, what's your hurry?
Beth: If you give your postings a little thought and add your opinions, you'll have more readers than the folks who are regurgitating what the speakers are saying as they say it.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. | March 12, 2007 3:13 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 15:13
Great conference in Vegas! Learned a lot and got some perspective on what others are doing within their own companies. What really struck me as odd is the vast number of people there who sat with their laptops in front of them the entire time. Some were checking in on work email, but others were blogging. And I remember thinking, are they even listening to what's being said? I went to Vegas to learn, and I came home with some great ideas. I wonder if the live bloggers went home with some new thoughts, or if they just went home with some new blog posts.
Posted by Amy Maggart | March 12, 2007 3:46 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 15:46
Amy:
I couldn't agree more . . . I showed up late to Shel Holtz's pre-conference session on podcasting, which was just excellent.
Since I was late, I stood in the back of the room . . . meaning, I could see what all the people were doing on their laptops.
The vast majority of them were NOT typing notes on what Shel was saying. They were blogging or surfing or checking outlook e-mail. I wanted to scream out: "Why the hell are you in this session??!?!?!"
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. | March 12, 2007 4:38 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 16:38
I almost got so ticked off by the power strip Nazis that I walked out of several sessions. Is there no such thing as listening and just being where you are anymore? If not, I'm afraid I'm forever hopelessly lost in the brave new world.
Melinda
Posted by Melinda | March 12, 2007 6:11 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 18:11
Everyone is talking about the "conversation" but if they're not listening, then it's not two-way. The "live" blogging cracks me up...it really epitomizes "Blahhhging"
Posted by Dee Rambeau | March 12, 2007 6:35 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 18:35
Where is Shel Holtz when we need him? He would know if "professional" and "live" bloggers have a code of ethics similar to that the Society for Professional Journalists has for reporters (note this point from the SPJ Code: "Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible"). I'd be a lot more likely to trust information from a blogger that signed up to someting like that.
Posted by Amy | March 12, 2007 6:53 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 18:53
You have to wonder if Jeremy Wright was even there, to judge from his blog:
http://www.ensight.org/
Jeremy has had so many "accidents" in the past two years... laptops blowing up just before deadline and thus destroying parts of his book (begging the blogging community to donate a laptop to him), allegedly being arrested and strip searched in the Toronto airport by US officials for being a "blogger", being fired for being a "blogger", selling himself as a blogger on eBay (but it was very hush hush, so we never heard if it worked), blah, blah, blah... yeah, no wonder he didn't show up.
As for liveblogging... it's born of a sense on the part of the liveblogger that the world awaits his bad court reporting. It's just vanity, and I am sad to hear Shel Israel felt the need.
Allan
Posted by Allan Jenkins | March 12, 2007 7:24 PM
Posted on March 12, 2007 19:24
Melinda, what are "power strip Nazis"?
Posted by David Murray | March 13, 2007 7:05 AM
Posted on March 13, 2007 07:05
I felt like I had missed the memo to bring my laptop to class. What ever happened to just bringing a pad of paper and a pen to a conference? At least with only paper and pen it was easy to go back downstairs and find a place to stash my stuff while I sat at the black jack tables.
Posted by Amy Maggart | March 13, 2007 7:51 AM
Posted on March 13, 2007 07:51
Wish I could have been there in Vegas - but the "b" word (budget - or lack thereof) put the kibosh on it.
Now, that said, I very likely would have had the laptop fired up if I were there. Not something i'm proud of, mind you, but the result of a combination of: guilt for not being in the office proper; an obsession with staying connected because, you know, the multi-billion dollar company would close its doors without me for two days (yes, I know I have issues); and, lets be honest, potential boredom.
I've never been bored in a Steve C session (and I don't say that cause this is his blog, it's simply true in my experience. He's engaging, period. Also true of Shel H - but for different reasons. I tend to disagree with some of what he says, which ALSO keeps me engaged). However, this is not true of all speakers and all sessions.
Ive been bored out of my mind at various Ragan events for one reason or another (content WAY too basic, does not apply to me, speaker is practically comatose, session was hijacked by some audience member who works for a company with 5 people without email and she wants to talk about her specific problems endlessly).
At something like the CCC, I'll just up and leave for another concurrent session, which is a nice option. Where this is *not* an option, well, that's why I love technology. I try to be subtle - i'm not a click and clacker - but I am guilty as charged.
Hello everyone, my name is Neruda, and sometimes my mind wanders....
Posted by Neruda | March 13, 2007 10:05 AM
Posted on March 13, 2007 10:05
Steve, you MUST MUST MUST go to the Frank & Earnest archives for 3/12...they have a good comment on a blog. I've put the link in the URL spot here (I hope). If the link doesn't work, just Google them--it's a quick find.
I say, if someone hasn't spent enough time listening to you to have you tell the "why I have no hair" story, they haven't listened long enough and have made a snap judgement. Screw the doofus dweebs who diddle themselves in front of others in such a way.
Laurel =)
Posted by Laurel | March 13, 2007 1:30 PM
Posted on March 13, 2007 13:30
Does anyone actually take blogs as fact or gospel? I’ve always thought that the basic nature of a blog is a sounding board for one person’s opinion on a particular topic.
Maybe the problem is that society has lumped bloggers together with journalists, when they are in fact entirely different. If I had to make a print analogy, I see Bloggers being closer to Dear Abbey than Bob Woodward. There is no editor, no fact checking and no accountability. These facts immediately put blogs in the camp of conjecture and hearsay.
This guy thought the session sucked. Well I am blogging right now that he in fact sucks. I am blogging that I suck. I am blogging that count Dracula sucks (although in an entirely different way). And the final analysis is who cares? This is just one man’s OPINION.
See you in Washington Steve, please don’t suck. :-)
Posted by Rob Patey | March 14, 2007 8:25 AM
Posted on March 14, 2007 08:25
Neruda, thanks to you I am going to recommend to the Ragan brass that they ban attendees from bringing laptops. Do not worry: They will not listen to me.
But here's the deal: If you think you see dud speakers now, wait until speakers come into the job knowing everyone will be looking at their laptops anyway, so who cares how good the session is.
Have you ever been to an academic conference? These sessions are morgues. That's what business conferences will be like.
Please, Neruda: Let your mind wander; it may go somewhere worthwhile. Or fume at the speaker--loudly, if you must. Interrupt Ms. That Won't Work At My Company to ask a relevant question. But don't be so uncivilized as to check out during the session and look at your MySpace page.
Posted by David Murray | March 14, 2007 9:51 AM
Posted on March 14, 2007 09:51
Rob's right when he says that the problem is bloggers are beginning to be considered journalists. Live blogging is not journalism. No responsible journalist would try to write their story while the event was happening -- it would be impossible to capture everything accurately. As a former journalist, I remember many times when I'd cover an event and diligently take detailed notes throughout. But afterwards I'd still have to interview participants to make sure I didn't miss anything or take something out of context or misinterpret something. It was only after checking and double-checking everything that I'd sit down and write the story.
The unfortunate thing about journalism and communications is that they're professions that everyone thinks they could do, and with today's technology there's nothing to stop them from trying. But just having a laptop and an FTP connection doesn't mean you understand objectivity and fact checking and proper interviewing techniques and everything else that goes into responsible reporting.
Posted by Jim Harris | March 14, 2007 10:18 AM
Posted on March 14, 2007 10:18
Steve,
I may be misinterpreting your issue here, but it seems like the problem is not the live blogging itself, but it is sloppy live blogging. There is a difference between reporting what someone actually says, and reporting your interpretation of what they say and presenting it as fact.
As David Weinberger said in his talk at the conference, bloggers are not journalists. Live bloggers that position themselves as breaking news are doing a disservice to readers. A disclaimer that this content is an opinion would be appropriate.
That being said, would you have objections to someone recording a presentation and putting it up as a podcast minutes after the speech? Do you have issues with conferences that hire or credential bloggers to post about events?
Personally, I quasi-live blog, writing notes during the presentation, saving it in draft form and posting later when I have looked it over.
However, what is great about the blogosphere is that you are able to respond, that you were able to comment on Shel's post, respond on your blog, and direct people to other posts.
Blogging is an inherently egotistical act - you are proclaiming that what you have to write is of value to other people. But I also think that you implicitly give too much credit to traditional journalism, which frequently ignores stories people are interested in and once in a while get things wrong with significant consequences.(...cough...cough...Judith Miller...cough)
As for the arrogant, self-important people, this is indicative of the generation entering the workplace today. Is this a good thing? No, of course not, we are now flooded with people who think they are special and their poop smells like roses. However, this is a reality of today's communications environment where access and immediacy are considered standard. Organizations need to understand this and find ways to balance the desires of this audience with the realities of business.
Thanks again for the great presentation.
Cheers,
Jeffrey
Oh, and by the way, I couldn't have live blogged your session anyway because I was laughing too often.
Posted by Jeffrey Treem | March 14, 2007 11:07 AM
Posted on March 14, 2007 11:07
Great comments, all. Neruda: Don't worry, if Murray tells Ragan to ban laptops, they'll start handing out laptops at the registration desk.
Jeffrey . . . I think your quasi-live blogging is the way to go. Listen, take notes, then write.
I guess live blogging comes down to what you're trying to accomplish. If you're trying to "take the reader there" you're going to screw up. You can't possibly type fast enough to catch everything, you're invariably going to get some stuff wrong, you don't have time to inject your personal opinion, you can't reference the examples/powerpoint the speaker is using . . . all you can do is give an abbreviated, fast rehash of what the speaker is saying.
And what if the speaker builds to his most important points, but they don't come until the end?
Wouldn't you want to lead your item with the most important stuff?
I like the idea of people blogging from conferences. But they shouldn't try to do it immediately, and while the speaker is still speaking.
Rob, see you in DC! I promise not to suck the entire time. And Amy Gooen is going to be a guest speaker, and won't suck at all.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. | March 14, 2007 11:43 AM
Posted on March 14, 2007 11:43
Jim:
I couldn't agree more that we shouldn't consider bloggers journalists. But we do have to recognize their influence.
This guy Isreal is a big deal in the blogosphere. Obviously, he's not a journalist, nor does he pretend to be one.
But he's a Blogger, with a capital B . . . and he has influence. And that's what scares the hell out of me. With no code of ethics, no training, no editors, no fact checkers, these people can ruin reputations and publish wrong information to their heart's content . . . and the people who read their blogs will take them at their word.
That's a little nerve-wracking.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. | March 14, 2007 11:46 AM
Posted on March 14, 2007 11:46
No, no David, not MySpace...Fark.com! Now, if you ever want to see the inherently egotistical scribbling away, that is the place to go. Be warned, though, its funny and addicting as hell.
If laptops are banned, hell, if the speaker as much as ASKS for them to be closed/turned off, I respect that request. (After all, thats why I have my Motorola Q. That's a joke. Not really.)
The one thing I won't honor are the people who demand phones be turned off. Not silenced, not put on vibe, but turned off. That, I think, is a little cheeky. Sorry, I am at said conference through the benevolence (and budget) of the company, and on their time, they get to have a way to get hold of me if they need to. As do my kids. As does my father.
I do disagree that if speakers think people won't be paying as much attention, they will care less and become duds. The good ones won't. But then again, the good ones don't have this problem, do they?
But I have indeed wandered from the topic at hand. Yet again!
-Neruda
Posted by Neruda | March 14, 2007 1:46 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 13:46
Steve:
The fact that some bloggers have influence worries me, too. Shel Israel might not consider himself to be a journalist, but plenty of bloggers do. And some of the people who read blogs can't distinguish between objective mainstream journalism and subjective, opinionated blogs.
But to be fair to bloggers, live-blogging is no more or less accurate than much of the live broadcasting on the 24-hour cable news networks. It's not unusual for CNN to be covering an unfolding event and have their anchor fill the time with any tidbit of information they can get their hands on, including wild speculation, unsubstantiated rumours and out-and-out errors.
Posted by Jim Harris | March 14, 2007 1:56 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 13:56
While I'm not totally on the "blogging is important" bandwagon - I think you might be wrong in saying that blogging is not journalism.
There are many columnists, editorial writers and pundits who are, in fact, journalists - even communicators who I might consider journalists - why should their title change simply because of the media they choose?
Now, in the SAT analogy section: just because journalist = blogger does NOT always mean that blogger = journalist. This is for certain. My blog could never for a moment be confused with anything remotely like journalism. Egotistical? Maybe. Completely pointless? Probably. Journalism? Never.
But lest we forget - one of the purposes of your conferences is to bring all mediums to the table and show their use, for better for worse. So to downplay blogging simply because someone wrote something unkind or even untrue - kind of underscores its importance and validates its impact. Look what a great blog you were able to start to maybe make people think about ways to use and not use live blogging as a communication medium!
And trust me - you don't even know the meaning of self-important power-strip nazi until you've been to a geek convention. Holy mother of pearl. I think I saw a man physically seize because his hands weren't touching a keyboard.
Posted by Rebecca (token IT Goddess) | March 14, 2007 1:57 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 13:57
Well, Neruda, I respectfully disagree with both of your points:
Not knowing your personal situation, I don't know how desperately your company or your kids or your father need to get ahold of you. But as someone--a freelance writer and a father and a son--who who takes long road trips without a cell phone, who goes golfing without a cell phone, who spends days interviewing sources without a cell phone, takes long trips in my International Harvester Scout without a cell phone, spends beautiful (and boring) mornings in the park with my daughter ... I don't think God wants us to be totally accessible to everybody we know all the time.
Just about every memorable moment in my life--those times when you are truly in ONE PLACE, together with someone else or all alone--have happened without a cell phone.
Conversely, I have had a cell phone in the past and I occasionally borrow my wife's phone, and I absolutely HATE it when I'm walking down a city street thinking my own thoughts that are coming to me in the rhythm of my day, and somebody calls and shatters all that to ask me some quick question.
Don't answer, you say? Too late. It upsets me not to answer, as I now know I have to get back to the person, I've got to figure out how soon, etc.--and by the time I get over it, the moment is lost.
I know I sound precious when I say this, but I hold dearly to my moments and hours and days between all-e-mail-all-the-time computer sessions. In large part, they are the reward for the computer sessions.
You, obviously, are not built like me, which is fine. Unless you're sitting next to me at a conference where I'm trying to listen intently to the speaker and figure out what he's saying and what he REALLY means and you're constantly flipping your Q over or having it buzz all the time. You, and the woman next to you and the guy in front of me ..... While three other people around me are clicking on their laptops looking at three different sites.
It DOES change the mood of the room when that's happening. It cuts down the sense of community of the audience--a big, big intangible factor in all education. And, if your behavior becomes the norm, the speaker's anticipation of the event will go from:
"I have to hold the attention of 40 people for an hour."
to
"I'll just spew for an hour, they'll multitask if they get bored, and they'll get what they get out of my session."
This is a huge difference, and while you're right that it won't affect the great speakers or the terrible ones, it'll hurt the quality of the hordes in between.
And I'm a Ragan longtime conference planner. I know the hordes in between!
Posted by David Murray | March 14, 2007 2:14 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 14:14
Hi Steve,
The lunch panel did suck but not because of you. I seriously wanted to kick the guy sitting next to you! You were trying to impart value. He was simply trite and condescending and added zero value. Now that you point him out Shel Israel was in a bunch of my sessions typing away--I just didn't know who it was. He never asked questions, didn't engage, just kept his head down, fingers flying, never once looking up.
Posted by Nicole | March 14, 2007 2:59 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 14:59
A-HA! Thank you, thank you -- I finally understand where the strange request I got to do "live note taking" is coming from.
For the past 10 years, a very small part of my business has been to attend conferences, take extensive, almost court-reporter-like notes and then produce post-conference reports for distribution to attendees. It works well because I'm usually bright enough to know what people meant to say (it's pretty ugly to read a transcript of what people actually say), plus I know how to put together a good report.
This week, a client wanted me to 1) produce a wrapup from a three-hour morning session during lunch so it could be passed out in the afternoon session and 2) have my notes thrown up on a screen as I was taking them.
The first is close to impossible -- I usually need about an hour for every hour of note-taking to have a good finished product. In this case, I wrote a two-page outline of key concepts from 25 pages of notes in about 45 minutes.
But as for number 2, I couldn't understand where such a bizarre concept was coming from. Can you imagine an audience watching a live transcription being taken, complete with typos, while trying to listen to a speaker?
Now I get it -- someone is used to reading "live" blogs and thinks it's a good form of communication. Clearly, it's not. The written word needs careful consideration -- hell, even the spoken word that someone pays to hear should have a little thought go into it.
anyway, thanks for unlocking the mystery for me, Steve!
Posted by Kathy | March 14, 2007 3:58 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 15:58
Hey, if I took offense every time someone disagreed with me I'd be one miserable son of a gun indeed. Wait a minute....
Nah.
Without boring you with details, yeah, my situation calls for me to be available - not when I want to be, but when others need me to be. Of course, a cellie is a tool like any other - and can be used for good or evil. (speaking of good and evil, "what god wants" for us doesnt hold a whole lotta water with me - raging atheist that I am...)
If carrying one provides stress in your life, by all means you should not be so burdened! But for me, it actually provides peace, albeit in a rather ass-backwards way. Having it with me - and knowing i'm reachable - means I don't have to worry/wonder/stress out about crises of one kind or another that may or may not be going on!
I know they are not - or I would have been called. Kinda backwards, I know. But it works for me.
No argument, of course, on the politeness/courtesy/civility thing of course. On that we agree completely.
Posted by Neruda | March 14, 2007 4:02 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 16:02
I hear you, Neruda.
As for God: I'm an agnostic so my God reference, as well as everything else in my wandering life, was purely speculative.
Posted by David Murray | March 14, 2007 4:15 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 16:15
Well . . . I'm probably going to have to end up sending Shel Israel a thank you note . . . because if nothing else, he got us started on this, and this is one of the most worthwhile discussions we've ever had out here.
Not quite as important as the one on 80s hair bands, or the electronic fist fight we got in over the Catholic Church, or advice I got about my vasectomy . . . but for a work-related topic, this has been terrific.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. | March 14, 2007 4:22 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 16:22
Should I be proud or ashamed that I was involved in all three of those?
Posted by Neruda | March 14, 2007 5:03 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 17:03
Proud, Neruda. Very, very proud. You athiest bastard, you. I'm about to post a funny story about religion and employee communication. Maybe we can get it going again.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. | March 14, 2007 5:33 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 17:33
Steve, you wrote: "...many male bloggers see their blogs as an extension of their penis, and their manhood seems to depend on how big and noticable their blog are. And blogging becomes like sex: the more you do it, the more manly you are."
Well, I don't have a blog and I don't intend to get one anytime soon. So what does that say about me? Never mind. I don't want to know.
I'm really not a Luddite -- ask Shel Holtz -- but I am a technological minimalist. I just don't get why it's so important to have the cell phones that take pictures and videos and the Blackberries that essentially enable you to take your office everywhere. That's why the good Lord invented bars and coffee shops, so we could escape the office for a while. I never take a laptop to a conference session or any meeting unless there's a compelling reason to do so; I have a $99 Palm that serves as my calendar and phone book because I got tired of lugging around a Daytimer; my kids have never set foot in MySpace or Facebook and hopefully never will; and I'm giving a daylong seminar next month without PowerPoint or any other electronic presentation tools. Why? Because, in every case, it's just not necessary.
Blogs are kind of like Clip Art was back in the '70s and fancy fonts were in the '80s when PageMaker came out. Folks used 'em because they could. And just like those examples, I figure it'll all shake out when either the users get bored with the novelty or the readers tell them how stupid they look.
Robert J Holland
Posted by Robert J Holland, ABC | March 14, 2007 7:09 PM
Posted on March 14, 2007 19:09
Steve,
There is a good chance that if Shel wasn’t live blogging that his opinion or interpretation of what was being said would have been way off anyway. Understanding that someone with influence could damage your reputation, can also damage their own reputation at the same time for getting it wrong.
A quick cell phone comment…
I have two daughters and I always know where they are and I can always get a hold of them. GPS is a great thing! Also they do have a habit of calling often to ask for stupid things, but sometimes it will save an extra trip to the store because they call you while you’re out and ask to for a poster board or notebook etc. for school. Now if I take the wife, dog, and flask to the mountains I let them no that the phones will be off for a while. And work? They ask me for my cell# about every three months so they can get a hold of me in case of an emergency. I always say I don’t have one. I was even going through an audit and my boss was talking to me and my phone rings. I pulled it out and sent the call to VM and put it away. The boss said “I thought you didn’t have a cell phone?” I said “it’s not mine”. The next day I’m asked to update my personal information including my cell#. Nice try dummies! Guess what? I have caller I.D. and I would pick up the phone anyway, even if I were at home.
Are there concerns that people might draw attention to their blog by “Live Blogging” from an expensive conference? I know people pay to get information and share this info with their companies, but live blogging from a conference seems the same as downloading MP3”s from Limewire.
AN
Posted by AN | March 15, 2007 6:06 AM
Posted on March 15, 2007 06:06
Roberth and AN:
Thank you both for the great comments. I work my ass off not to be a slave to telecommunications or technology, too. I have a Trio, but only because I spend half my life in airports and want to check e-mail without having to boot up my laptop.
I've always hated David Murray for not having a cell phone when I've wanted to reach him . . . and admired him for not having a cell phone when I wanted to reach him.
AN: "When I take the wife, dog, and flask to the mountains," . . . just one flask, for you, the wife, and the dog? Let's hope the dog doesn't drink much.
And you know what? That is a GREAT question that nobody has asked: Is live blogging stealing content from the conference? I wonder if Mark Ragan is still reading this thread, and if, as the owner of Ragan and the sponsor of the conference, he has any thoughts on that.
It's one thing to get some publicity by granting a few press passes to newsletters . . . it's quite another if 68 bloggers are revealing all to everybody for free, maybe.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. | March 15, 2007 8:53 AM
Posted on March 15, 2007 08:53
If there are 68 theoretical live-bloggers publishing content from Ragan conferences, they're not doing a very good job putting themselves out there! I read numerous blogs related to employee communication and am always on the lookout for new-to-me ones, and I haven't seen any of these live blogs.
That makes me think two things -
1. You probably don't need to worry about it too much in terms of people reading the live blogs instead of attending your conferences.
2. The value of these live blogs is even less than I originally though, because they're hard to find.
Posted by Andrea S-R | March 15, 2007 9:23 AM
Posted on March 15, 2007 09:23
Andrea:
Great point. If 68 bloggers are live blogging the conference, but the only people reading their live blogs are their friends and family, and they don't have any friends and very little family, are they blogging at all?
It's the old tree falling in the forest thing.
Steve C.
Posted by Steve C. | March 15, 2007 11:49 AM
Posted on March 15, 2007 11:49
The tree-falling thing led me to wonder:
Q. How many bloggers does it take to change a lightbulb?
A. None. Bloggers would never lower themselves to actually changing a lightbulb. They have much more important work to do, which is to tell the unenlightened world what a crappy job the lightbulb changers are doing.
Posted by Robert J Holland, ABC | March 15, 2007 12:39 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 12:39
"Unenlightened"! Ha!
Posted by Neruda | March 15, 2007 1:11 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 13:11
Here's a question - not really relevant to employee communication, but related to blogs: What makes one a "blogger?" I, for instance, have a blog that I post to every day. And my blog posts are not just of the "what I had for lunch today" variety. But I don't know that I'd call myself a "blogger."
Is it because my blog is personal rather than professional or political? Because I don't write about what I find on other people's blogs (although I have done that a time or two)? Because I try to avoid self-importance? Because I don't post throughout the day?
Posted by Andrea S-R | March 15, 2007 1:26 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 13:26
There are so many questions asked or posed by this blogging discussion that it's hard to know where to begin.
1) On the importance of blogging and bloggers. The influence of blogging is directly related to the person or organization doing it. This seems obvious, but it's not. Many bloggers believe that the very act of blogging makes them credible. It does not. But this inflated view of themselves is what leads to such obnoxious behavior.
Shel Holtz would not have an influential blog if he was not Shel Holtz--the premier expert on technology and communications. The blog did not make Shel's reputation, but Shel's reputation did make the blog. Steve Crescenzo would not have a popular blog had he not demonstrated through years of laboring in the trenches that he is one of the great wits in the employee communications industry. And it helps that Ragan's web site attracts tens of thousands of visitors a year--visitors who become new fans of Steve's.
The blogs produced by The New York Times feature hundreds of comments each day--not because they are better written, though they often are, but because they are attached to a reputable news organization whose reporters and editors are respected purveyors of news.
I am sorry but a blog written by the NYT's White House correspondent is going to attact my attention more than one from the guy down the street who has no access, no factual basis for his opinions, no journalistic fact-finding skills and no reputation. In this case, the brand and the platform made the blog.
Bloggers absolutely hate to hear this but a blog attached to a credible brand, particularly a media brand, will always do better and attract a greater readership than some guy blogging from his basement. In other words, context is everything.
Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. But of the literally gazillion blogs out there, those exceptions are rare. I can count on one hand the number of blogs in our industry that consistently generate discussion (this being one of them). Another one is Melcrum's blog. What do we both have in common? Credibility and platform.
2) Bloggers at conferences. I agree with all of those critics who hate the idea of sitting next to somone who is clacking away on his or her laptop. Come on guys, give it a rest. I am hoping that what we experienced in Las Vegas is not the trend. If it is, we may have to take up David Murray's suggestion of banning laptops at our events. It's hard enough to hold the attention of an audience; I, for one, refuse to compete with a dozen laptops in the hands of self-important bloggers. Sorry guys.
Posted by mark ragan | March 15, 2007 1:55 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 13:55
>>I've always hated David Murray for not having a cell phone when I've wanted to reach him . . . and admired him for not having a cell phone when I wanted to reach him.
An interesting dichotomic comment. And somewhat reflective of a quandry I now face.
For years I've loved that when I went to my hunting cabin I essentially dropped off the communications/technology grid. Unless I climb up the hill behind the cabin several hundered feet to get line of sight access to the nearest cell phone tower about 5 miles away I am unreachable.
Now, however, some of my hunting buddies want to install a booster antenna on the roof to be able to connect to the cell phone networks. I am trying to dissuade them from this to preserve the ability to get away from it all.
OTOH, as one of them correctly pointed out, by being able to connect to the outside world, including my company's network and the Internet, I could hunt more often by being able to keep up with my work while at the cabin.
So, while technology in this case will be intrusive to the total experience I've enjoyed in the past, it also will allow me to enjoy it more often, albeit at a somewhat diminished level.
I suspect, however, the pragmatic argument is going to carry the day. And I belive there will be a twinge of sadness at what we will have lost alongside what we will have gained.
Posted by Craig Jolley | March 15, 2007 2:03 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 14:03
Craig, well said.
Posted by David Murray | March 15, 2007 2:52 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 14:52
Hey Neruda--
You heard Mark. You can come to our conferences, but check your ADD at the door.
Posted by David Murray | March 15, 2007 3:17 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 15:17
I think it's fairly simple... would you want your spouse to be reading the paper while you're trying to discuss something you've been thinking on for a while? Would you want your teenager to have earplugs from his I-Pod in when you're trying to reason with him? No and no. So why wouldn't it be rude type on your computer when a speaker has prepared something to share with you? I don't believe that rudeness is just a natural byproduct of technology.
Posted by Eileen | March 15, 2007 3:27 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 15:27
Right on, Eileen. I've sat in small meetings where people, whenever they are not talking themselves, are dicking around with their Blackberries and pretending to nod at whoever IS speaking.
The only thing that makes me madder than that is the probability that this behavior, like cell phone use EVERYWHERE (including on airlines soon), will only become more acceptable in the very near future.
Am I a dinosaur, or just a guy who likes people to be with me when they're with me--and gone when they're not?
Posted by David Murray | March 15, 2007 3:34 PM
Posted on March 15, 2007 15:34