:: John C. Havens ::

Thinking about beautiful weather and cookouts and Corona’s with limes. But also remembering that we’re still ensconsed in this craphole of a war and there are lots of people fighting for us (and some who have passed) and I wish my best to them and their families.
Sort of deep sort of quick but there it is. Happy holiday weekend to all.

I’ve gotten over 75 spam comments on this blog in the past week and a half. Should I be flattered? Does someone even know they’re doing this to me? This is not the type of conversation I was hoping to have in terms of having this blog. I like chatting with people, not spambots. If ANYONE reads this who is a human, have some decency, would you? Go somewhere else. I’m just deleting your comments before they go live anyway.

Geesh.

I admit it. I’m very much about pursuing whatever I’m most interested now at a breakneck speed and sometimes it gets me in trouble. Or at least people think I come on too strong. I equate it to dating (and thank God that era is over) and when I’d see “that look” in a woman’s eyes that essentially meant I needed to leave her alone for a week or so. Now that same effect can happen with clients and it’s a tough balance. How do you stay in touch with them without being pushy?

Some ideas on this:

*Follow up with someone when they say you should. If they give you a date to contact them, wait until that date or after.

*Read between the lines. Are they telling you to “stay in touch?” (vague; blowing you off) or, “get in touch with me when (fill in event causing them to be busy) is over.” I take people at their word and will then get in touch when they’ve asked.
Typically people know to actually blow you completely off if this is their intention.

*Be honest. I let people know if I’ve been pushy so they can say something akin to, “yeah, you’re coming on kind of strong.” Then I can say something akin to, “Sorry. I’m a passionate artsy type and that sometimes happens. You know where to find me.” And then I leave them alone for a while, typically at least a week.

But it’s hard. And I had hoped I would have that balance down by now, as I’ve been out of the dating world for over a decade and have a lot of great clients. But it’s a tough balance to maintain and I fully admit sometimes I don’t maintain it.

So if I’ve been pushy to anyone out there, please take it as a compliment as it means I admire your work. Typically I won’t suck up that much as it turns people off. I understand some may see my effusive behavior as obsequiousness, which is fair, but I don’t/can’t maintain that type of relationship too long.

In other words, I go back to normal quite soon. I promise.

Just finished reading a really intriguing article by Richard Siklos in yesterday’s New York Times, A Soft Sell With Cold, Hard Cash in Mind. Very well written discussion of the author’s watching bud.tv and Ge.com/imaginationtheater, where his thoughts ‘after sitting through a few clips and episodes…(was), “Hey, some of (this material) isn’t bad.’ Then he watches/surfs some more and goes from being ‘impressed to entertained to indifferent to bored. In other words, it was just like watching TV.” So far I was with Richard, and appreciated the fact that he took the time to invest in content created by companies versus media outlets, ostensibly in the hopes that people would buy their products. Then comes the line that cheesed me off and gave me the passion to write this post. After discussing what I quoted above, Siklos says, “Yet, knowing how and why this programming came into being, I wondered if it was crossing an unseen line between commercial message and content where consumers ought not to go. Can material spawned (my italics) in such a way be anywhere near as effective as traditional advertising, or as good as conventional programming that is born by creative inspiration rather than to help sell something?”

Please read the rest of the article yourself, because Siklos makes a number of great points. However, his closing button is the main reason I fled to the keyboard to unleash my grandiose irritation at what I see as the real underlying message of this piece. After quoting from G.E.’s global head of advertising, Judy L. Hu who said, “that’s always what you want to do as a marketer; take the old and make it new again,” Siklos warns, “Unless, of course, you are dashing into a world where old distinctions between media and marketing are becoming increasingly - and at times disturbingly - blurry.”

Okay - am I the only one who wasn’t awash in the inescapable and pervasive irony of this piece? Let me spell it out for you if you’re not sure what I mean. I read this article in the New York Times I received free in my driveway as an encouragement to buy a subscription. Now I was actually happy to receive a copy and enjoyed reading it. But I would not have read it if I had not been overtly marketed to by a major news outlet with its own specific paradigm of reporting.

Now, don’t get me wrong - I see the difference between the copy of the New York Times and the shopping circular lying next to it. I appreciate the Times has an enormous amount of amazing writing and opinions and leans away from the bombastic, used-car salesman pitches found in said circulars. But who else here loves the Kevin Spacey quote from The Usual Suspects where he says something akin to, “The smartest thing the devil ever did was to make people believe he doesn’t exist.”

I’m not calling Siklos or the New York Times the devil, especially as (full disclosure mode) I write for About.com which is owned by the Times. What I am saying, however, is I’m JUST as insulted when someone from the supposed media cognoscenti gives me a warning against material spawned by marketers with nothing but, “cold, hard cash in mind.” Okay, first, Siklos and everyone else writes for a paycheck, correct? Can we just get that out in the open? That if I’m not given a free copy of his paper in my driveway, I won’t buy it and increase subscription revenue that along with the MANY ADS in the paper pay his salary? Correct? So what Siklos is also not saying, but warning very much against, is the fact that you, ignorant and utterly impressionable consumer, might actually prefer GE’s or Bud’s entertainment (or ‘advertainment’ or ‘edutainment’) over and above HIS WORK IN THE TIMES. Hello? Right? Is this thing on?

See, what I loathe more than most things is unctuous behavior veiled in Good Samaritan language. And traditional journalism has what they call the “Chinese Wall” between ‘journalism’ and advertising. Now in theory, I support this idea. What it means is that journalists should be able to write without having to feel they owe a good story or a certain twist due to their boss or the parent company of whom they’re writing for. In other words, avoiding the “pay per play” idea where if I pay someone enough money they’ll write a good story about me/my firm. However, anything I read/interact with is likely trying to get me to buy into something, correct? An idea, a philosophy, a point of view. So I actually think this golden rule of journalism is maintained largely by the journalists who want to keep their hidden hierarchy afloat to maintain their status as ‘objective reporters untainted by marketing messages.’

Okay, so enough already, ENOUGH. My message to Richard and any other journalists (including myself) is that we’re competing with the planet now for eyeballs/attention/mindshare/whatever. Threats, whether guised in this type of seemingly “objective” reporting, or more overt ones made by whomever, have lost their place in our new media society. No, Richard, I do not have to just believe your warnings because you write for the New York Times and supposedly have no marketing/money interests behind what you write. First off, that’s a lie, plain and simple. You want me to buy the Times so you can keep getting paid to write. And guess what, I’m fine with that! You’re a great writer and the Times is a great paper!

But please, PLEASE stop WARNING me as if without your Gandalf-like entreaties I’d be out buying GE Turbines or six-packs of Bud’s left and right because I didn’t just happen to notice people were trying to sell stuff to me. That’s a big reason I’m writing in caps and am so cheesed off (as invective in not typically my style). But I’m sick and tired of the “them versus us” mentality, as I have been since I was the fat kid on the playground desperate to impress to popular kids.

But now the lines of “me versus them” are ‘blurrier’ than a simple John Hughes movie metaphor. Now, (in Siklos’ case) the Me is the journalist with a major, famous newspaper, (automatically trustworthy and important due to pedigree and stature) versus Them - the (supposedly evil) company interested ONLY in money.

Okay, we get it - GE and Bud may want me to buy something. Really? Seriously? Even if they don’t say, “buy now?” Wow, thanks for SAVING ME! Crap, I was going to deplete my savings and order online right away! I’m being hyperbolic to ply the layers of subterfuge away from the overall paradigm of American media here. And yes, please blame me (as you should) for warning you the same way I feel Siklos was trying to warn the rest of us. But my point here is that nothing is objective, and American media in no way can pretend to have a “Chinese Wall” of any kind as no major outlet is not owned by some MNC (multi national corporation) pulling strings in one way or another.

For example, why don’t we hear more stories about Darfur in major outlets? I’ll tell you why - it doesn’t sell papers like stories about Iraq. Period. End of story. Don’t try to tell me differently because I won’t believe you. And that in and of itself isn’t what bothers me; what irritates me no END is that I’m supposed to believe those types of stories don’t appear in the Times as much as The Economist or whatever simply because the journalists at whatever outlet weren’t ‘led’ to write on such stories. Enough! We all have to make compromises with what we do, correct?

For instance, I’ve been reading some fantastic books on the nature of net neutrality, some of which preach a similar anti-marketing gospel as if they were Media Moses with coded tables of sanctimonious purity. But can I ask a simple question? Am I right in thinking folks who run great organizations like the ones that produce said great books on net neutrality get paid by grants? Right? Or they get money somehow, and grants are as competitive to secure as money from Venture Capitalists. Is grant money more sacred or less profane than money gotten by V.C.’s? That’s what folks want you to think, in my opinion.

As someone (myself) who writes a lot of marketing materials for companies for a living, this means I get to walk around feeling like less of a human or creative individual because MY ideas and efforts apparently are EVIL, SUSPECT, and “DISTURBINGLY BLURRY.” Well, for Richard and anyone else, news flash - I’ve just written in print that my efforts are sometimes geared towards helping companies sell stuff to make them and me money. HORRORS! GASP!

Again, don’t get me wrong - I was an actor for fifteen years and appreciate the utter need for storytellers/journalists of every stripe in every aspect of our culture. But we can’t all be journalists. And we can’t all just eat each other’s opinions or live under roofs help up by words alone. I’m typing on a computer made by Apple; I found out about it after seeing an ad online for it. Then I decided I wanted it and I bought it. The folks at the store were helpful, but not cloaked in evil veils of deception. They’ve also got (Apple) some of the best ads on TV/online that I’ve seen in years (Mac/PC guy comparing notes). Newsflash - those 30-second bits of entertainment are better than a lot of the articles I’ve read in the New York Times and other places as well.

So let me conclude my diatribe by providing my warning again - we ALL (anyone who speaks to anyone and wants others to listen) have to work to continually provide value added messages that provide some level of meaning to our listeners. And we all have to explore what “transparency” means to our community and ourselves. For me, when I write and work with companies, I urge them to speak truthfully to their audience. Meaning, work to establish a relationship with customers/your audience and they’ll buy from you if they want to. If they don’t, you may as well give them something to enjoy (good entertainment, etc.) so they’ll appreciate you and maybe buy from you in the future.

It’s the same with Richard Siklos. Obviously, I strongly disagree with what I feel is the underlying, unspoken message of the piece. But its well written and made me think. Plus it really pissed me off. As an actor, I’ve only had the pleasure of being in a show once or twice where people actually left they were so angry. THAT means you’ve moved someone and challenged them (unless it’s just racist, Imus-inian ranting, of course). So I’m going to look forward to more articles from Siklos, especially if his writing becomes less of an overt ad to maintain big media’s status quo.

And a final note here - I’d tell Siklos so as well, but don’t see a place to comment on the NYTimes site after his piece. I can ‘forward it to a friend’ and email him, but when I’ve emailed anyone at the Times before I never hear back. What I’m intrigued by is how companies are supposed to open the doors for transparency and create communication, yet the NYTimes doesn’t have a comment feature on their blog? Does anyone find that a bit “disturbing?”

Pot, meet kettle. Kettle, pot.

Seriously, who cares? I’m thrilled the guy got fired in the sense that he’s been crass/borderline racist for years. Thank goodness. To me, this isn’t about being PC. It’s about CBS/whoever thankfully setting limits. Howard Stern is not really a fave of mine either, but he’s essentially a sex monger and has good interaction with his co-hooligans. But “nappy-headed hoes?” Come on, the hoes part isn’t the big deal, right? Can we all say that? It’s the nappy-headed portion that’s absurd and cannot be tolerated. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom to instill racist values.

Anyway, I’ve had some wine, so there it is. I’m sure Imus will be fine, money wise, so I wish him well if he can allocate some of those funds to tolerance training.

So now huge online wisdom today, just an observation. I had a long dream last night about a huge tsunami wave crashing over my head, and last minute I told everyone around me to duck under the water to be safe (an old technique I learned from my grandfather when swimming in Long Island years ago as a kid). So we all did and we were safe.

Two nights ago I had a dream I was with my daughter and an enormous tornado was coming our way. I headed towards it, then prayed mightily when it was upon us and we were safe.

So I guess my question is, why do we dream in metaphors? I know that dreaming about water (calm water) means you’re at peace. I think. So the wave thing probably means I avoided what could have been a disaster? Same with the tornado? (Although I did watch ‘Wizard of Oz’ with my kids recently). Does anyone else think it’s funny that we dream in such obvious metaphors? For instance, what would I dream about if I hadn’t ever seen a tornado? Or what if I’m scared of the water; that wouldn’t be peaceful, would it? The mind is an amazing organ.

I’d never written a blog before. I knew there was a lot of ‘netiquette’ issues to think about, but I was sure I was going to break at least a few rules. For one, I’m not the most pithy of guys. I’m more of a “funny in person” type of person, and the printed word can sometimes be cruel to those of us who enjoy a good pun. Nonetheless, I gave it a shot and wrote a couple of paragraphs about my latest brainstorming session with my fellow advertising creatives.

“What the hell are you doing?” It was two hours after my post was up and my boss looked incensed.

“You mean the blog?”

“Of course I mean the fucking blog. How could you write about our meeting?”

Apparently I had transgressed a rule of one kind or another. “I thought I was supposed to blog about something real and be transparent about it?”

“Transparent doesn’t mean you write out our best ideas from a brainstorming session. If you want to make observations or whatever, do it about stuff that doesn’t reveal proprietary information about our company. Isn’t that obvious? What are you, an idiot?” She stormed off, grande latte in hand with her telltale lipstick smear across the rim.

So…Nuance number one; transparency doesn’t mean tell-all; the way I wrote the post (to be fair to myself) I didn’t actually reveal whole ideas about our agency. But I suppose my reporting of the types of ideas we were coming up with could still give someone else the opportunity to…well, steal our ideas.

Lesson learned. My blogs from this point on are transparent where necessary, but won’t reveal company secrets. Check.

I wanted to take some time out to say a special thank you to everyone who helped PodCamp NYC by volunteering on Saturday. A huge number of folks took some time on the registration table and/or T-Shirt table, knowingly missing time at sessions that ostensibly is the reason they came to PodCamp NYC in the first place.

Here’s why I think this is so vital nowadays, meaning, this willingness to help - it’s becoming a rare quality in the marketplace of the mind. I think a LOT of people talk about the importance of community but don’t actually lend a hand in situations when (to me) community is very much about completing the task at hand. I forget where it is in the Bible (O.T., I think) that says, “If you don’t work, you don’t eat.” I think the same should be said for blogging. Am I devaluing the importance of commentary and free speech online for whomever wants to chime in? Not at all. I’m just saying for me, it’s great to ruminate on specifics about an event or situation but at the end of the day if I need help carting boxes and you gesture to your watch and head out the door, you go down a couple of clicks in my estimation.

Let me provide a few examples of two guys who not only practice, but participate before/during/after anything they’d do that might be called, “preaching.” (Although they’d call it talking in a conversation, not delivering a monologue or speech, and I’d agree). Chris Brogan and Christopher S. Penn, co-founders of Podcamp, or Podcamp Boston as some call it (the original flavor, whatever the name). Here are two guys who about a month before PodCamp NYC reach out to us (the organizers) and ask how they can help. If you didn’t know, running a Podcamp is sort of like owning a franchise - as long as you follow the central tenets established by the two Chris-men you’re left to your own devices. Point being, they won’t get in your way while running your particular animal, but are always right there to help when you need it.

So Chris Penn ponies up and becomes a Gold sponsor (we needed money in our move to the New Yorker Hotel) and Chris Brogan was kind enough to return a number of breathless calls from me, even while he was helping to run the VON conference at the same time. Then when the event rolled around, both guys were in the trenches, arriving first thing on Saturday, helping to run registration or teach a number of classes.

So some might say, ‘of course they’re going to come, it’s a podcamp and they started it.’ Well, true, they do come to all of them by and large, but my point is they don’t simply sit around, pod-tificating or coming late after an all-night welcome party. (They party, but still come on time; a remarkable feat for any good podcaster).

You get the point, and I’m NOT putting down folks who blog but can’t travel due to work or who are supportive in what they write, etc. But I am tired of snarky online. It’s just old, and like puns, it’s easy writing. Running a conference, creating the idea for Podcamp, putting out a weekly podcast, etc., is hard work, and simply to criticize in an offhand way without acknowledging the labor behind said work is lazy to me. A person may be funny in their snide delivery, and I’m always up for a laugh, except when I know someone on the other end is going to suffer.

I look forward to the fact that as we shift back to a society more focused on being together than being online (a big prediction of mine) that this era of big bloggers getting so much attention for being clever and acerbic gives way to people wondering why folks can’t get from behind their computers every once in a while and pick up a box or chat with someone who won’t necessarily help their career.

That will be something worth blogging about.

I’m fairly tired, as PodCamp NYC happens this Friday and I have to stay up late to get other client work done. I’m not complaining; I’m actually mystified/thrilled that we’re up to 940ish registrants! Needless to say, we’ll probably run out of T-Shirts for everyone. However, the CONTENT is amazingly rich, and I’m only bummed I won’t be able to see it all, since I currently can only be in one place at once, by and large. Although as I haven’t been to the gym in a while, I’m larger than I’d like to be.

But seriously, the range and diversity of talks people are giving is incredible, along with the eclectic and talent of people coming. I’m awed to be in everyone’s midst.

Midst is a good word. I should use it more often.

Thanks to my brother for the colored version of my caricature which I think is fun. Andy (brother) also set the blog up so kudos to broski.

I’m excited to have a blog where I can talk about all kinds of media beyond just podcasting, as the About.com site is great but obviously needs to be focused. Plus I can’t swear there. Not that I need to swear here, mind you, but sometimes it’s great for effect and About is just not the place to do it.

Now if I were the About.com Guide to Cursing, THEN I could go to town. “How to swear at a party,” “Who to cuss out while snowboarding,” that sort of thing. But, alas, not the case.

So, I will talk about about PodCamp NYC as that’s taking up most of my time these days. Running an unconference is a tricky thing, and I’ve learned a great deal in this process. One thing for sure is that people are hungry to learn about new media and how to use it for their business and life which I think is totally cool. We really are in an amazing era in terms of media and communication. But likely my favorite reason to be involved with PodCamp NYC, and the Podcamp movement as a whole is it forces me to expand my relationships, and to get away from the computer screen. As a young dad who wakes up with the kids, works from 9-6ish, hangs with the family until the kids are both asleep (8:30ish), hangs with wifey (or works) until bed, I have seriously gone entire days where I realize I haven’t left my house. Like at all. I’ll get the mail in the afternoon and realize it’s been hailing. Not necessarily pitiful, per se, but…not that far off either. Events like Podcamp and working with the amazing organizers I do has been a real godsend. Seriously.

Plus, running an event like this makes you realize your flaws pretty quickly. Not that that’s a lovely experience at all times, but I’ve always been of the mindset to throw myself at something when it’s a bit scary. And I’ve failed quite a bit, and some of those memories are not fun at all. I don’t look back at them and say, “but I grew so much with that experience.” I’m sure I did, but some of them still sting. It’s just not always fun seeing your flaws.

And also there’s this crap that for some reason you make one mistake and never make it again. As if deeply rooted behavior manifests itself once, you identify it, conquer it, and it doesn’t come up again. And…bullshit. (There’s the swear thing, see? Was it effective? Or as a first blog post are you flitting away as I’m a three coarse meal?) In my own experience, at least, I’ve been a leader (or tried to be) a number of times throughout my adult life. A few times starting a theatre company (I get exhausted even writing those words), a band (same story), or taking the helm at certain jobs I’ve had when “intraprenuership” has been encouraged.

Here’s something I’ve come to realize about leadership, at least for me; a lot of it comes down to working your ASS off. I wish I could delegate better sometimes, but more often than not I’m delegating with volunteers who are peers/colleagues and really busy. Plus I try to surround myself with people who are smarter/more talented than I am, so delegating to THEM is even harder. How do you tell a new media luminary you need help cutting and pasting a list of 50 names off a wiki? Personally I use levity and coax them with lattes.

Anyway, rambling and I’m exhausted so I’ll wind up here except to say welcome to my new blog and I hope you return. I’d love if you leave comments and all that, and I’ll work to get more photos up and videos and 3-D interactive wiki-widgets, smellavision and all the rest. But I hope I see you at PodCamp NYC or another event where our avatars look exactly like ourselves and when we drink a beverage it actually tastes real because it is. Nothing against SL, mind you, as it blows my mind and I can easily get sucked into it three hours a day.

But then I wouldn’t even think to check my mail.