So I was researching a concept I had on Superfan and randomed into a comedy troupe site from [tag]Chicago[/tag], Phrenzy. I think this could very possibly have been a great show to go see.
I think I’ll send them an email on the [tag]superfan[/tag] character, maybe it’s a different idea than mine. Maybe not, this Who’s cribbing thing is eerie.
Get a little [tag]yonder mtn string band[/tag]’s Angel from [tag]youtube[/tag].
So as I was out browsing today looking for something interesting to blog on, not an easy task. I was amazed by the lack of original content and the almost recursive nature of the blogosphere. One would think being checked out for a week would bring just loads of new ideas, but not so much. I know that there aren’t a whole bunch of original ideas to begin with, but I tried to find one.
When pondering on the lack of limited new content, I “flashed” on a short story by Jack Lewis, much in the same way the tv character Chuck, on the [tag]nbc[/tag] tv [tag]series[/tag] [tag]Chuck[/tag] flashes on random things due to the intersect, a spy thing. The short story “Who’s cribbing” is about a new science fiction writer finds that all his submitted stories are being rejected because they are copies of those published by another writer in the 1930s and 1940s. He does not understand what is happening. When he finally gathers all his letters and rejection slips and tries to publish that, he is told that this, too, was the work of that other author. The real question is how much original content qualifies as new and original content? I am the blogosphere is like festivus for content.
Technorati is now tracking over 70 million weblogs, and we’re seeing about 120,000 new weblogs being created worldwide each day. That’s about 1.4 blogs created every second of every day. I further noticed that most inbound comments to my blog are not because the article or the other commenters speak to you; you’re commenting on the blog because you hope people will click on your name at the bottom of the comment and visit your own site. CLICK!
Well, we get along as independent and autonomous sovereign human beings in the physical world, and we need to bring that into the virtual world. So we use tools like social networks and blogs as a utility to deliver this sense of[tag] community[/tag]. For example, Twitter enabled me to make new friends. This is the greatest benefit of all. It connected me to people like Greg, Laura, Jim, Michelle, and Chris that I had not known. They have helped me in many ways, but more importantly, they have become friends, and friends are far more important than page views. This social networking stuff is tough work! Content is just plain everywhere, which in turn, as someone trying to blog, has to retain, synthesize, document and spellcheck. Drat!! [tag]Bloom’s taxonomy[/tag] again!
So what’s the effort for? So is it google hits in a query? Pageviews? People following you on Twitter? LinkedIn connections? Feedburner readers? Gosh I hope it’s not feedburner readers, because my 23 readers are probably not that interesting.
I’ll confess I’m not a [tag]Facebook[/tag] user. I have an account as a way of checking it out, but I’ve ‘friended’ very few people. Why? Because if I friend you, especially someone I don’t know, I’m giving you explicit permission to start a fairly intense series of interactions. This makes good commercial sense if you’re an insurance salesman or even a musician looking for gigs, but if you’ve got a limit on the time you can invest, it’s not only time-consuming, it’s a recipe to bitterly disappoint people. It’s that whole synthesis thing which takes so much work.
I force myself to read great blogs outside of my niche, passion and even interest for the same reason. Start email conversations with other bloggers. Develop relationships with journalists in my niche. I’ve been quoted and featured in four stories published in our state newspaper simply because I was blogging in my niche. And then, simply, get some rest. Blogging takes a ton of energy. I think more bloggers could use more rest times of simply sitting on the couch. But a fair amount of bloggers are just out in the field – right? C’mon, [tag]Barcamp[/tag] [tag]Scotland[/tag] 2007 was a brilliant event!
If you’re reading this, chances are, you already know the importance of getting involved in all this online conversation stuff. But it’s worth sharing this advice for wannabe authors which was first shared by Scalzi, it’s really very simple… it’s about what you can bring to the party, not what you can get out of it.
Wish I had time to really blog.
~ Cheers
Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn’t get it.
Sourced Inline
So I spent a good deal of time thinking about value this weekend for a couple of reasons:
1. I had to spend way too much time in a vet hospital for my dog panic and cost/benefit never really entered my mind, but I did do some quick budget math out of financial diligence – couldn’t help it.
2. I need to find Guitar hero and I can’t. But I did find out some guy paid $10,000 for one, not me though – cost/benefit entered my mind on this one.
3. The dollar menu at McDonald’s – how are those items only worth $1? I mean I like double cheeseburgers.
So I thought about it and realized that value is in the eye of the beholder or rather the coveter – but perhaps the marketer as well. Not sure if value is ever the same or within banded limits at any point in time and this is the most confusing thing about value. Value is about the buyer, so as a marketer and product manager know how can you optimize the value or perceived value of your product. Effective product placement can significantly change the value of something – right channel, the right package, the right promotion…. Often the value of something is marketed and delivered to market based on a plan, so perhaps a double cheeseburger is only worth a $1, if [tag]share of wallet[/tag] is a key careabout. Value is situational for both the buyer and seller. So I’ve cut in a general overview from Wikipedia on Value for consideration:
The economic value of something is how much a desired object or condition is worth relative to other objects or conditions…
In [tag]neoclassical economics[/tag], the value of an object or service is often seen as nothing but the price it would bring in an open and competitive market. This is determined primarily by the demand for the object relative to supply. Many neoclassical economic theories equate the value of a commodity with its price, whether the market is competitive or not. As such, everything is seen as a commodity and if there is no market to set a price then there is no economic value.
In classical economics, the value of an object or condition is the amount of discomfort/labor saved through the consumption or use of an object or condition (Labor Theory of Value). Though exchange value is recognized, [tag]economic value[/tag] is not dependent on the existence of a market and price and value are not seen as equal.
In this tradition, to [tag]Steve Keen[/tag] “value” refers to “the innate worth of a commodity, which determines the normal (‘equilibrium’) ratio at which two commodities exchange.” To Keen and the tradition of David Ricardo, this corresponds to the classical concept of long-run cost-determined prices, what Adam Smith called “[tag]natural prices[/tag]” and [tag]Karl Marx[/tag] called “[tag]prices of production[/tag].” It is part of a cost-of-production theory of value and price. Ricardo, but not Keen, used a “labor theory of price” in which a commodity’s “innate worth” was the amount of labor needed to produce it.
In another classical tradition, [tag]Marx[/tag] distinguished between the “[tag]value in use[/tag]” (use-value, what a commodity provides to its buyer), “value” (the socially-necessary labour time it embodies), and “exchange value” (how much labor-time the sale of the commodity can claim, Smith’s “[tag]labor commanded[/tag]” value). By most interpretations of his labor theory of value, Marx, like Ricardo, developed a “[tag]labor theory of price[/tag]” where the point of analyzing value was to allow the calculation of relative prices. …
Value in the most basic sense can be referred to as “Real Value” or “Actual Value.” This is the measure of worth that is based purely on the utility derived from the consumption of a product or service. Utility derived value allows products or services to be measure on outcome instead of demand or supply theories that have the inherent ability to be manipulated.
Alas, value is subjective and may or may not have any relationship to production effort ([tag]cost plus[/tag]) or value in use. The ever changing marketplace makes understanding your products value an ongoing and continuous thread of activity.
Sounds like this value thing is a continuous loop caused by an if-then-goto statement in the business plan.
