Comments for A Smooth Surface

Comment on Why Advertising is More Influential When You Call It Advertising by Leo Laporte

Leo Laporte — Wed, 23 Sep 2009 05:09:12 +0000

Excellent points, David. I don’t try to hide the advertisements on TWiT because I believe transparency is important for building trust. “Here’s the ad” is our way of saying we know we’re not fooling you nor are we trying to. It’s a consensual transaction, not coercion.

The issue of separation of editorial and advertising is more challenging. In a large publishing operation there can be a Chinese Wall between the ad department and the editorial. Unfortunately, many new media operations, like mine, are too small to create an effective wall. I try to handle this by carefully selecting advertisers: rejecting those (like Microsoft and Apple) whose money would imply a significant conflict, and embracing those whose products I already, happily, use. In other words, the endorsement is explicit, again in the service of transparency.

One final point, we do know very well how many people download our shows. We use a rating system by Podtrac that has been carefully engineered to satisfy advertisers for accuracy. In the last analysis, however, our advertisers stay with us because the ads work. Our influence with our audience is real.

Comment on Yeah, but how many Ahmadinejad supporters tweet? by Janna

Janna — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 19:11:35 +0000

Ahmadinejad supporters may not be tweeters, but they also don’t have much to complain about right now. (He “won,” remember?)
It’s like I was saying about hotel reviews: angry people are more likely to post than people who were content with their stay.

Comment on I’ve been meaning to Check that out: Celebrating à la carte culture by Craille

Craille — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 13:42:50 +0000

Actually, I find I still spend a lot of time looking for media, just through my laptop. In fact, here’s an example of something I came across while procrastinating. This person went on a kind of media diet, only listening to music that started with B for a year. That this is possible proves your point.

http://www.psfk.com/2009/01/an-experiment-for-dealing-with-media-overload.html

Comment on Have you seen this video? by Bentley

Bentley — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 02:59:18 +0000

Here here!

Comment on In Praise of Waffle(r)s by JTG

JTG — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 19:24:33 +0000

ya, i like it…agreed.

Comment on A Piece of Advice for John McCain by JTG

JTG — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 19:16:02 +0000

hmm…feels a little slate-y. I think I read something like this recently about how nothing sticks to Obama. I hear what you’re saying, but can you give me a little substance.

Frankly, I’m sick of reading about this crap. In fact, I vowed two days ago to stop reading Obama articles – of any kind. For about 18 months now, I’ve been reading them all, wasting precious minutes that could have been devoted to actually learning something. I read Lizza’s article about Obama’s role as a campaign organizer in Chicago last week, I read about his phenomenal exams as a law school professor at UC in the NYT a couple of days ago…and then the straw that broke the camel’s back…a shitty article in GQ about what Obama’s inauguration party should look like.

Give me 2 months w/o Obama. Please! Or at least talk about the real issues.

Comment on Other Writings by Barbara Ellenson

Barbara Ellenson — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 15:51:19 +0000

Love the Twitter blog…now I know Obama has a Twitter feed:)
Also, Clare can fly fish? News to me…

Comment on The Great White (Slippery) Slope by psychology

psychology — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 20:20:50 +0000

Psychology says : I absolutely agree with this !

Comment on She’s gonna stick around, you know, just in case… by dgizzle

dgizzle — Mon, 26 May 2008 14:10:55 +0000

the 24hr culture leads to an obsession with ‘first post’ status, granted, and I think you’re story ‘bubble’ metaphor is an apt and insightful idea. you’re also right to compare this comment to obama’s ‘bitter’ remarks; though politically dumb, he meant what he said. Now the two important points you get wrong: first, her campaign has been doomed since february; john kind and chris matthews have kept it alive well beyond its best before date because they’ve got 24hrs to fill (and they’ve gotta put something on that magic map). second: if it’s been taken out of context, what’s the right context? is there a context in which we can read this statement as anything other than a window on a dark, empty place?

Comment on She’s gonna stick around, you know, just in case… by JTG

JTG — Sun, 25 May 2008 23:19:26 +0000

How are we to believe the “outrage” of the press over these remarks, when the same press has published dozens of stories related to RFK’s assassination and the “soixante-huitards” (including the most recent cover story of Vanity Fair) during the past month. It is the press that has been reminding everyone of RFK. HIllary’s gaffe is no different than the “bitter” comment, in that it was taken unfairly out of context; she was attempting to say the race isn’t over till its over – a fair if misguided statement. Bringing up RFK was not completely out of context given the recent media obsession with his death. Though this gaffe has effectively doomed her campaign, it is, more than anything else, evidence of the “self-fulfilling panics” that the 24hr blog culture has created, where there is more danger in “missing the story” than getting the story right. Similar to the banking culture that led to the sub-prime culture, we are witnessing herd behavior in the media (the minute Drudge posts it, its officially news) that causes a story to bubble over and assume far greater importance than it ought to.