The Rage Diaries

Writers would love it if someone wrote them ... a check

Advertising Age's Simon Dumenco posits:

As for the notion of the self-actualized, non-wage-slave blogger? That's turned out to be, for many semi-famous bloggers, complete bullshit. Never mind all the hype about the select few blog stars, mostly in the tech realm, who are actually getting rich doing what they're doing; they've invariably fashioned unhealthy, obsessive-compulsive-disordered lifestyles for themselves way worse than anything any old-media slave drivers ever concocted. (See: GigaOm blogger Om Malik, heart attack victim at 41.)

Meanwhile, many pseudo-celebrity bloggers have finally figured out that they're as disposable -- as cog-in-a-wheel-ish -- as any of the cubicle-dwelling suckers populating old-media combines. That realization started, in part, when Gawker Media dismissed a blogger who didn't make her page-view quota. But just wait until the Huffington Post -- which still doesn't pay most of its bloggers -- tries to sell itself.

-- "From Media Darlings to Public Enemy #1 in Five Years of Less," June 1, 08

I've written on group weblogs for love of the blog, but man, oh, man, at some point you've got to stop being sentimental and start taking a hard look at what your product is worth. I'm a little surprised that the phrase "digital sharecropping" hasn't entered the lexicon of bloggers yet.

I no longer see the allure of the glossies

I was caught without reading material one night last week, so I picked up a copy of Allure and read it on the ferry and later into the night. It was the first time since Blueprint went under that I've picked up a magazine specifically aimed at the ladies, so I think my system was kind of unprepared for the shock*.

After a few minutes of leafing through, all I could think was, I just paid four bucks for a publication that does nothing but tell me how ugly I am. Good lord, I used to subscribe to these things! And I did. I used to justify it with arguments like, "It's mind candy." Swear to God -- every semester at finals time, I'd load up on Cosmo, Glamour, Mademoiselle, Vogue and Self and binge on the glossies between study sessions. All summer, the other lifeguards and I would bring in fresh issues and flip through them on breaks.

Have these things gotten more negative? Have the standards for women's appearances been stealthily climbing up for the last ten years? Or has my tolerance for this crap dropped because I'm no longer exposing myself to it on a regular basis? I don't know. Evidently, the spring issue of Ms. tackles this question, determines that chick media can lead to women's low political efficacy, and according to Jezebel, concludes:

"My research with college age women indicates that the less women consume media, the less they self-objectify, particularly if they avoid fashion magazines. [Emphasis ours.] By shutting out media, girls and women can create mental and emotional space for true self-exploration."

I haven't had a chance to read the article yet, but I'd like to explore this thesis more in-depth. It seems sort of weird that any article blaming the media for making women less engaged in the world around them would also advocate dropping media consumption. How are women supposed to get involved in the world when they don't know anything about it? Something's missing -- either in the article summary or the article itself.

My most consistent media exposures at this point are NPR, Comedy Central and the WSJ. Given my recent reaction to Allure, I'm clearly out of touch with whatever pervasive media is sending negative messages about women's appearance. But I am wondering: anyone else notice their reactions to ads changing after upping or lowering their chick-media consumption?

Ah, the little flaw in the aggregation strategy

If aggregating is becoming the best way to make money from content, who's going to undertake the costly business of creating that content?

[...]

[Michael] Wolff argues that the wealth of content on the web from both professionals and the legions of bloggers and other formerly-known-as-amateurs effectively is creating a golden age for content. "I'm tired of that New York Times argument that only the following kind of people create quality content. The range out there is remarkable ... and it's cost-free."

-- "It's Web 3.0 And Someone Else's Content Is King," Advertising Age, Apr 14, 08

I think there will always be a need for reporters and editors. I am sure people can passionately follow a subject and become self-made beat reporters/experts on it ... but I am not sure that everything that needs to be covered will attract the interest of driven, intellectually honest, selfless folks who will provide ace coverage for free. Sometimes, you have to pay people so they'll do the hard or boring work of paying attention for you.

Or is that too cynical?

It's the love child of 'Network' and 'Dancing with the Stars'

Legend has it that on Friday morning, when the streets of Cincinnati are free from traffic, the intrepid newsmen and women of Local 12 bust a move. These folks are bringing it at 5:45 in the morning, which is pretty hard-core, if you ask me.

Begin with the first dance party of the new year, then marvel at Bob Herzog's dedication to the cause when he comes in to dance whilst on vacation.

Oh, the things I miss by not watching TV news. Or by not watching it at 5:45 in the morning. Or by not living in Cincinnati.

If I like it, it's got to be doomed, eh?

So I'm reading Bluelines this morning and this comment caught my eye:

This isn't a reply to this post, but to the announcement that the print product has been cancelled. I am truly, truly sad.

So I clicked off to find the announcement, and while there was nothing on the site, Crain's NY has a piece today from AdAge.com, "Blueprint Folding After Less Than 2 Years." It would appear that the strategy will be to aggressively focus on younger-than-30 women via the Web and bridal magazines:

"After much discussion and analysis we have made a decision to produce Blueprint as focused special interest issues within the home category, which we will introduce to brides-to-be through our Martha Stewart Weddings magazine," Susan Lyne, chief executive of Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, said in a staff memo this morning. "Bluelines, the Blueprint blog, will continue and we plan to grow Blueprint digital content across our websites."

On one hand, this makes a lot of sense given the audience they're going after. (And I guess it doesn't affect their plans to hold the big online-only January Jumpstart Project in partnership with Apartment Therapy.) It's practically a case study in building brand loyalty among different audiences via different media vectors.

On the other: despite my digital bona fides, there's something about flipping the pages in a magazine that I sometimes prefer. I'll miss Blueprint. And now, at this point, I'm thinking any media outlet I gush about had better start getting nervous, as I'm apparently the kiss of death. (I apologize in advance, Bryant Park Project. I'll try to keep my continued delight over you under wraps.)

Who reviews the reviewers?

Now on Brijit are summations of articles in current issues of GQ, Wired, Mother Jones, ESPN the Magazine, the Economist, Smithsonian and more than 50 other magazines. Even if you never read the entire article, just scanning Brijit could make you the smartest person at your next cocktail party.

[...]

There are precedents for the idea. Reader's Digest became America's most popular magazine for decades by condensing content to short, easily readable articles. And magazine analyst Mark Edmiston notes that "The Week," the National Review's weekly magazine summary of news, written with attitude and wit, has made a solid business.

"I think [Brijit] makes a lot of sense," Edmiston said. "I think that's where the Web is going."

The Web is moving toward the combination of human reviewers with Internet search. WebMD founder Jeff Arnold has said that if the latest evolution of the Internet, Web 2.0, was about the consumer -- meaning user-generated sites such as MySpace, Facebook and YouTube -- then Web 3.0 will be about the editor.

-- "Brijit Cuts Magazine Pile Down to Bite-Size Pieces," WaPo, Oct 29, 07 I've visited the site, and I can see the point to it.

As I've noted people, people will pay if data's been sorted into something that's easily searchable, easily sortable and immediately applicable. And I've noted that people like having editors to act as human filters for them. And clearly, the identification of a business niche based on filtering and aggregation has been around for some time.

It's just the suspicious skeptic in me that wonders ... who will keep the abstract-writers and summarizers over at Brigit honest? I've checked three abstracts related to articles I read yesterday: two of them missed what I thought were salient and insightful points. This is a very small sample, but it still raises the question for me: how is this service guarding against editorial bias or agenda-pushing? Will it have an ombudsman? And do you really trust someone else to tell you everything you need to bluff your way into informed discourse?

On a different note, the writer in me thinks: They're paying five cents a word for the abstracts? It's like piecework, only for prose monkeys!

When I didn't show my work, my math teacher marked me down

According to "More Moms Staying (and Eating) at Home" (AdAge, Oct 22, 07):

The decades-long rise of women in the work force -- and the related rise of meals bought from restaurants -- has ground to halt and begun to reverse since the turn of the millennium. ... Women's participation rate in the paid U.S. labor force topped out at just above 60% in 1999 and again in 2001 but has fallen since then, according to the Labor Department. Restaurant meals, fueled for decades by the migration of moms to the work force, also topped out at 211 per person per year in 2001 according to NPD and likewise have been bouncing lower since, hitting 207 this year.

And the first thing I thought was, "Are the moms really dropping out? Break down those women by age group ..." So I went to the Labor Dept and checked out the stats for myself.

... and that's how I learned to love the Bryant Park Project

If you've got iTunes, go and subscribe to the Bryant Park Project podcasts. Where else can you hear Jill Sobule leading the NPR newsroom in a sing-a-long? (She's on the Oct 12 show.)

And best of all, because it's available via iTunes, you can still get your Morning Edition fix before absorbing a whole different take on the news. I am finding the different formats to be a fascinating study of how deftly news is packaged and branded for different demographics.

(Read an overview about the Bryant Park Project in the NYT's Sep 27, 07, "An NPR Program Aims to Awaken a Younger Crowd.")

Indeed, every penny does count

Seen when going through my bookmarks folder, appended to "Every Penny Counts" (NYT, Jul 29, 07):

An article on July 29 about people who demonstrated exceptional discipline in saving to buy homes included incorrect financial data from a buyer about his purchase of an apartment. Obi Onyejekwe paid $400,000 for his co-op in Gramercy Park, not $420,000. The down payment amount was $100,000, not $84,000. His assets reported to the board were roughly $100,000, not $84,000.

For those doing the math at home: what it means is that Mr. Onyejekwe put down a 25% down payment on his apartment, not a 20% down payment. Another 5% in home equity? Those pennies do add up!

Media junkies, get your fix here

One of the bright spots in my in-box comes courtesy of Larry Dobrow, one of the critics on Media Post's "Magazine Rack." He writes very funny, very acute assessments of assorted newsstand offerings, and it's rare for me to read one without laughing out loud at least once.

Take, for example, his assessment of Organize, which posted yesterday:

I ... question whether Organize conveys much in the way of realistic advice. A glimpse at the toy room at my sister’s house suggests that she could use, say, a second toy chest. What she doesn’t need, unless she wants to turn my niece or nephew into The Anal-Retentive Carpenter, are bright area rugs that delineate each child’s play space, an organizational framework that stores similar toys together, and storage bins affixed with pictures of their contents.

I am still quite disappointed that the magazine's site has not changed in months. It seems like a very effective way to build newsstand awareness would be to build online awareness by making the site a repository for useful information and the always-eager-to-share organization freaks out there. (I use this term affectionately, as I am one.)

In any event, you can sign up for Dobrow's assessments via e-mail; you'll also get the work from his fellow critics Fern Siegel (also very funny and incisive); Phyllis Fine (who doesn't write nearly enough); and Dorothy Parker (about whom I have mixed feelings, as I have yet to see the review with the line "Tonstant weader fwowed up.") For those of us who think Peter Carlson doesn't write nearly frequently enough, the Media Post dispatches will help ease the ache.