Last week, I posted some thoughts on why I blog in anticipation of the 10th anniversary of Scripting News. Steve Rubel was kind enough to give the post a shout out and suggested that it would be good if bloggers wrote a short “why I blog” FAQ post. I wish I could credit whoever picked it up from there, but someone responded to Steve’s suggestion, and, well, I now know how memes get started.
Some bloggers are posting “5 Reasons Why I Blog” as demonstrated by Andy Beal of Marketing Pilgrim and others are writing brief essays, like John Robinson, editor of the Greensboro News & Record.
I went back and tagged my original post with the Techorati tag whyiblog and will add a whyiblog tag to posts I bookmark on del.icio.us.
So, why do you blog?
Technorati Tags: whyiblog
This photo posted on Flickr is supposed to be an iPod that deflected a bullet from an AK47, saving the life of a soldier in Iraq. I’d like to believe it, but whenever a description of something starts off, “this is from my friend’s, wife’s uncle,” I remain skeptical until it is analyzed by Snopes.com. Again, I’d like to believe it, but the elements of a hoax are too obvious. In addition to the convoluted source of the photo, another indication it’s a hoax is that it’s an iPod. Pranksters know that gullible Apple cultists* never doubt any miraculous claim about what one of its products can do.
*Please, no attacks. I am one.
(Thanks, Cole.)
Yesterday, on del.icio.us/rexblog, I pointed this animated gif shot and created by Nashville blogger and photographer Chris Wage (who has a day-job, as well, but I know him from Nashville blog meetups and by following his awesome photo-posts.). On his Flickr post of the photo, I asked if he’d explain how he shot the photo(s) and created the animation. He was nice enough to explain it here. He says, “it was probably less complicated than you may think.” Yeah, right. (I’m inspired, however, to attempt this some day,) He left out the part about how not to get electrocuted in the middle of a thunder storm in downtown Nashville.
Color me green with envy, again. I bow an “I’m not worthy” salute to the publicist who dreamed up the idea of pitching the New York Times on a story that a single sponsor extra issue of a magazine that appears online only is a grand experiment by a print magazine and, not-only-that, it’s an “environmentally-friendly” green thing, to boot.
By comparison, the “enviro-messaging” of the Infoworld announcement was understated: they at least did away completely with a print version, and thus, can make a claim on actually “shrinking their carbon-footprint.” To claim “green points” for not publishing an issue of a magazine that you had not planned to publish is more of a stretch-claim, however. Or what am I missing?
As I’ve blogged previously, single-advertiser issues of magazines go way-back. Also, the concept of a single-sponsored issue of a magazine as an “extra issue” is nothing new, as I’ve noted before with a link to an Apple-sponsored “extra” issue of Newsweek that appeared in 1984. Brand-extensions of magazine titles and special health or technology extra issues of magazines are regularly issued by numerous publishers, and many have single sponsors. For example, if my memory is correct, , American Heritage Invention & Technology started out with General Motors as its single-sponsor.
For magazine publishers — even the New York Times — to publish branded or sponsored editorial content in an online-only form is nothing new (i.e., the “article tools on NYTimes.com are sponsored”). For magazines to publish “digital versions” — or to go “online only” is nothing new, as my friends at NXTbook.com remind me from time-to-time.
What is new is to claim doing any of this is “green” and have Stuart Elliot bite.
Note to marketers and those who cover them: When everything becomes “green” nothing is green.
It may be difficult to discern from this post that I like the idea and think both Lexus and The Week deserve kudos. I’m just jealous.
