Tylenol….

As content consumers, we are ravenous today; but our attention shifts quickly and focus is spread across multiple ongoing streams of conversation taking place continuously over different platforms (blogs, twitter, discussion boards, email, RSS feeds, multimedia, etc.) As a matter of fact, I’m shifting now from this topic to an entirely different focus - gotta run!

What surprises me most about this ongoing conversation is the platform-centric views of both parties involved. Communication can be effective over multiple platforms, and I would expect most people today to be somewhat flexible in this regard. In online marketing, for example, campaigns are seldom run on only one of the existing communication platforms on the web. Effective communication involves a combination of email, RSS, blogs, discussion boards, multimedia, search engines and even (shock horror) traditional comm channels to reach targeted audiences.

The reality is that although A-list bloggers play an important role in online communication, their audience is not all that large. There are local newspapers with readerships larger than many of the leading blogs. That said, their audience is generally highly targeted to particular subcultures on the Internet (tech, mothers, politics, etc). Steve Rubel recently posted a graph from Forrester Research which shows that 52 percent of the US online-audience doesn’t participate in reading blogs, creating content, using RSS or other activities online: http://www.micropersuasion.com/2007/04/forresters_part.html

That said, the A-list bloggers and other new technology participants are the early adapters that are at the forefront of the shift from traditional media to interactive conversations on the Internet. As we evolve, we are seeing a growing demand for a more continuous flow of information that comes to us in a personalized form.

All the best

Tom

Makes me wonder about all those folks who have become champions of algorithms instead of human editors, though. Was this really the most important story in the world of high tech today? C’mon.

Bottom line: there isn’t a right or wrong answer when it comes to the best way to interview people. I insist on phone or in person, but that’s just what I’ve found works best for me after 22 years as a journalist. Jason says phone isn’t a good use of his time. I say email isn’t a good use of my time. Big deal. There isn’t a day that goes by where I ask for an interview and get turned away. No one talks to me to do me any favors. If they think they can get something out of it, they say yes. If there is too much downside, they say no.

Fred Vogelstein
Wired Magazine
415 276 4922

We can try to be objective - but it appears that the mob prefers it when we’re at each other’s throats. One aspect of traditional media that hasn’t changed since the rebirth of the Internet: Dog bites man isn’t news. Man bites dog is. Now if Jason would just bite the reporter, then we’d have a story on our hands.

All the best

Tom

But of course we bloggers must always remain objective

http://www.messagingtimes.com/blog/?p=834

Stuff like this is mad. A story about an interview that didn’t happen getting more press than interviews that do is evidence of the new media in action.

All the best

Tom