Worker Bees Blog

No, this isn't a marketing or tech or business story, but it's an awesome story, so I'm telling it here and everywhere, so sue me!

Check out this exclusive interview with Barack Obama at BlogHer!

Woo hoo!

Labels: barack obama, blogher, blogher voter manifesto, bloghercon

A couple of months ago, prompted by Mary Hodder, I blogged about the NY Times and its odd placement of a technology story about girl geeks in the Fashion & Style section.

Well, they're at it again. And this time it is even more egregious. Check the article Diversity Isn’t Rocket Science, Is It? In the Fashion & Style section.

The article is about some hard facts about women in technology, the stats on how they fare from college onwards, and some of the factors that might explain their declining numbers. Yes, "work-life balance" is a part of what is discussed, and yes, most discussions about work-life balance are immediately marginalized (because I guess we all know men don't actually care about that stuff, is that the implication?) But a lot of the discussion is about honest-to-God sexism that still remains in tech culture.

Isn't that a Technology issue? And a Business issue. Or a Political issue? Just about anything other than a fashion and style issue, if you ask me.

Hat tip: Stacy Higginbotham from GigaOm, who says:

I actually think the “macho culture” inherent to these fields has less to do with the lack of women sticking around than the persistent assumption that’s behind the NYTimes confining the article to the Style pages. The assumption is that work-life balance is a female issue.

Yup, there's that "liberal" NY Times being a part of the macho culture itself. I only wonder if the female reporter is OK with where they placed her article. Because the article is actually pretty good, but a lot of the people who might find it useful, enlightening, interesting or compelling might not find it buried amongst stories about Bret Michaels and Spiced Bubble Tea.

Grr.

Labels: Gender diversity, GigaOM, mary hodder, Ny Times

Tips on converting a non-vegan-looking restaurant menu to vegan with a few simple ingredients most restaurant kitchens always have on hand.Or, as I entitled the piece: Survival tactics.

Labels: Silicon Veggie

But if you don't blink, you'll see me utter three words...that's right three words...on this morning's Today Show:



The film actually is over a month old, from when Today attended BlogHer Business. I'm always utterly amazed that the MSM can take a pithy, substantive 10-minute interview and boil it down to, literally, three words.

I'm also a little amazed that not only didn't they ID me (not surprising, since I spoke for literally one second...or three words...but also didn't ID the marvelous Maria T. Bailey or Lindsay Lebresco (both BlogHer Business speakers, i'd like to point out) who got to say like 20 or 30 words!

I don't get that.

And don't get me started on Kathie Lee Gifford disapprovingly judging Blogher '08 keynoter Heather Armstrong about writing about her kids. On the internets. With her computer thingy. That the WHOLE WORLD can find.

I lived in NYC in the late 80s, and I actually watched Regis and Kathie Lee every morning. I knew a little TMI about Cody, let's just say that and leave it at that, shall we?

Hello kettle? You're black.

Anyway, I'm learning to deal with the fact that I don't even get 15 minutes, I get but 1 second (or three words!) of fame.

Labels: blogher, Blogher08, blogherbiz, bloghercon

Jake McKee, who I've met IRL and is a good guy, is enamored with this post by Martin, the blogger at the Community Spark blog.

The premise: "Why your online community is like a beautiful woman"

I have to say that I think that these posts make both of these guys seem a little skeevy...which I know Jake is not.

If the premise was "Why your online community is like a lover", I could totally go with it. The concept is that an online community and a beautiful woman both need:

To be well treated
To be kept interested
To be allowed to be seen and appreciated
To also have personality
To accommodate occasional conflict
To get past occasional jealousy

Sorry guys...we all need that, no matter where we fall on the beauty scale.

Adding the "beautiful" part, plus each guy adding a picture of a beautiful woman to the post to illustrate the point? Kinda skeevy, sorry. Not only that, but by specifying the "beautiful" part and illustrating as you have (instead of leaving to the imagination) you send a message of exclusivity not inclusivity. Which could be fine if your online community is meant to be exclusive, I don't know, but I'm guessing most companies have their hands full enticing and sustaining any kind of community...most of them are not in a position to be exclusive!

Meanwhile if you simply opined on "Why your online community is like a lover" you would be equally edgy without being so off-putting to at least some significant portion of your readership...whether most people will speak up about it or not. Hey, I see what they're saying and why they like it as a jumping off point, I merely suggest that the analogy could work a lot better...and feel less icky.

I have a new policy, only a few months old. It is a policy of total capitulation and surrender. It is a policy that is essentially meaningless, but makes me feel marginally better.

I call it Email Bankruptcy Day, and it happens on the first of every month.

I'm a Filer, not a Piler. I realize with the powerful email search functions available with such tools or Gmail or Apple Mail, many people have gotten in the habit of just leaving everything in their inbox and searching when they need to retrieve a particular conversation thread, but I cannot operate that way. The size of my inbox is a visual sign of how much I need to get done.

I actually touch every email as it comes in and try to sort it into one of two general categories of email:

-Emails to be filed: Something that is purely an FYI and requires neither an action from me nor a response from someone else gets filed right away into one of the many folders I have.

-Emails awaiting response: This is a folder I keep of emails sent by me or others that are awaiting a response from someone else to move toward completion or resolution. I occasionally check that folder and start pinging away to nudge people into responding when they haven't.

That's really about it. If I believe an email deserves a response or action from me, I leave it in my Inbox. And I have long believed in not letting your inbox get filled with over a dozen, maybe two dozen messages tops.

Cue maniacal laughter.

Because, seriously, I can't remember the last time I was actually able to hold to that philosophy. It is probably over a year, since before BlogHer '07, that I was able to keep the Inbox under control.

And it made me feel really bad, and overwhelmed, and on the edge, and like I had to work ALL the time.

So a few months ago I decided I simply had to declare Email Bankruptcy. I moved everything from 2007 into a folder entitled Action 2007. yes, in my heart of hearts I still believe those emails deserve my care, but let's face it: They didn't get it and may never get it (and oh, by the way, the world didn't totally come to an end.)

I moved everything from January and February into folders entitled Action January 2008 and so on. (The "Action" designator ensures the folders are at the top of my folder queue, so I still see those folders and know they're there.)

On April 1st, I moved March emails into their own folder.

And on May 1st I did the same to April.

Have I changed the fact that I have hundreds of emails I believe I should be answering that I haven't? No, I realize that I haven't.

But does it somehow alleviate my email panic to do this? Yes, for some reason it does.

Whenever people ping me apologetically, I actually thank them for it, and just about everybody seems to get it.

Whenever I finally do answer an email two months late and apologize for my very delayed response, it is now rare for anyone to act offended...most people seem not at all surprised and not at all put off.

I actually think the whole world (or perhaps just MY whole world) is full of people straining under the burden of Email Overload too.

Yes, I would be a better person if I was as responsive and efficient as I wish I was. But in the meantime, the first of every month is now Email Bankruptcy Day, and now I'm going public, outing myself about it, and wondering if anyone else out there has resorted to this policy too.

Labels: Email bankruptcy day

Just got invited to moderate a panel on Blogging Basics at an innovative new co-working space called Cubes & Crayons.

The description of the panel is here. I'll be moderating a panel with these four fabulous speakers:

Jill Asher of SVMoms, is Partner and Co-founder, Silicon Valley Moms Group and mother of two daughters. In addition to SVmoms, Jill is a Human Resources consultant.

Stefania Pomponi Butler of CityMama is a professional writer and blog editor/producer who covers style, food, pop culture, and parenting with a cheeky twist. She often speaks on blog-related topics.

Eric Case currently is a freelancer at Vedana Consulting, is a very recent employee of Blogger, now owned by Google, having handled product management and developer relations.

Brad Neuberg is an internationally recognized software inventor, engineer, and open source consultant. In addition, Brad Neuberg created coworking, an international grassroots movement to found a new kind of workspace for the self-employed. His blog is http://codinginparadise.org/ and he also writes for http://gearsblog.blogspot.com/

It's on Thursday May 8th from 7-9PM, so come on down.

And learn more about Cubes & Crayons here.

Labels: blogging, Cubes and Crayons, speaking

Jeremiah Owyang has a post up about his experience yesterday speaking on two different panels at the Web 2.0 Expo (where I will be speaking on Friday.)

In each case a backchannel, in this case Twitter, impacted the session. In the first session it was unplanned, in the second, it was part of the plan. I'm glad I wasn't there in either case. I left a long comment on Jeremiah's blog post, which broke my personal rule that comments longer than 3 paragraphs deserve to be posts. So I'm also blogging it here.

Now, maybe I'm biased because BlogHer crowds are so diverse, but in both cases it sounds like an elitist exercise that give preference and priority to those people who live on twitter and the like, instead of giving equal time and attention to ALL the people who showed up in the room, whether they want to play on Twitter or not.

As an attendee and speaker I hate slavery to the back channel. Or, as I call it, the Tyranny of the Backchannel.

In the first case, Jeremiah was on a traditional panel and noted via following Twitter that people were starting to zone out being talked at. So he moved right into Q&A with the attendees. So, first of all I might venture to say that paying attention to the body language and expression of the live people right in front of you would be a good thing to do anyway, but in any case, there's a simple solution: If you simply plan questions and interactivity with the attendees into your panel outline from the very beginning, rather than planning to wait until every speaker speaks for 20 minutes, you won't get boring to begin with. That's our general m.o. with BlogHer sessions...after BRIEF intros we try to alternate between questions to speakers and questions both from and TO the attendees right from the beginning.

You don't need a backchannel. You just need to talk to the people who are there. What is unique about a conference? For most people they paid money and showed up to be in the same room with other people. Why are we trying to find ways to make the face-to-face experience virtual? Instead I'd rather speakers really leverage the face-to-face opportunity.

In the second instance, the panelists "crowd-sourced" the agenda to the crowd by using Twitter. I suppose if the panel was billed as such then people who were interested in that sort of experiment would show up. That'd be fine. But if it was billed as a panel about something featuring specific people, and then I showed up to find what Jeremiah describes, I'd be hella annoyed. Now, we don't just have the tyranny of the backchannel, but the tyranny of having to use twitter to interact with one another. Sounds like, again, there wasn't really a point to being there in person. I can stay home and follow the various random insights and nuggets of entertainment and wisdom on Twitter.

And why do I personally feel so passionately about it? Because as an attendee and a visual learner, I absolutely cannot hack the distraction of projected backchannels. I start reading and stop listening. I get distanced from what is right there in the room with me and stare at the screen. Why attend in person at all?

I also get distracted when the inevitable rudeness, sexism or flames pop up. The few can get the many to focus on the negative that we may not have even felt or picked up on. I find it oppressive. And disrespectful both to speaker and to my time/money as a paying attendee.

Yes, that's just me...although I don't think I'm highly unusual. I've talked to lots of people who feel the same, but they've bowed to the tyranny of the backchannel.

My final thought is this: Organizers who insist on projecting a backchannel during sessions are simply afraid that their programming isn't interesting enough. As a frequent speaker my observation is that, more often than not, they're right to be concerned, because it seems to be the fashion these days to have speakers wing it...or at least to take very little interest in guiding or directing or even knowing what's going to be going on during the session. No amount of backchannel actually solves that problem. They're just hoping the backchannel is more interesting or entertaining than the session.

Labels: backchannels, conferences, jeremiah owyang, Twitter, Web 2.0 Expo

Only this time I will not succumb.

I will not succumb to linking to the post of a prominent person in the web space who is auctioning off his Twitter account, "followers included".

Seriously.

Link bait? Late April Fool's Day prank? Publicity Stunt from someone who is proving he was never the "great man" behind a series of great women?

Who cares...it's lame. It is almost the antithesis of everything Web 2.0 is supposed to stand for, according to the powers that be who think they can define the purpose of the Internet. Whether it is the least "Clueful" thing I've heard in a long time or not, it is most certainly doomed to fail...because the barrier to clicking "Unfollow" is extremely low. Very, very low. And if I were a follower of this prankster, I'd be unfollowing his ass right now...so that he could see the "value" of his item for sale decline as the seconds tick by.

Does this mean that Twitter, Web 2.0 or the Internet has jumped ths shark? Not at all...only Mr. Link Baiting Twitter Auction Man has.

Labels: link bait, Twitter

Check the comments on this post.

There's a corporate spammer who has been leaving an identical comment on this and other posts that talk about BlogHer Business. I guess the reasoning is, "hey, they're talking about an event. I have an event to pimp. I'll comment and pimp my event."

I consider this comment spam. Plain and simple.

Yes? No? Gray area that I'm not seeing?

Labels: blogher, blogherbiz, comment spam

Is it only me that reads an article like In Web World of 24/7 Stress, Writers Blog Till They Drop and think it reeks of exploitation and desperation?

Two guy bloggers die of heart attacks, and a third recovers from one, and suddenly we're getting an article on how taxing blogging is.

Mainstream media likes to hype, we know that. They like the scare tactics about the blogosphere. We know that too. But this kinda goes too far in my opinion. I guess the mainstream media has gotten tired of blogvaneglists saying "Blog or die" and have decided to respond with "blog and die."

It definitely doesn't sound healthy to live like some of the guys (and they were all guys) profiled in this article, but then again, how many bloggers really live that way. I somehow doubt that the bloggers in the BlogHer ad network...even those at the very high end of the making-a-good-living-at-this scale...live their life like those guys.

I know the NY Times and other newspapers must be very scared of things like our recent survey that showed women are leaving other media to spend more time in the blogosphere, but I don't think reporting that it's so scary and physically risky to blog is going to help them conserve their readers.

I felt it was incredibly disrespectful to the three guys mentioned, frankly.

Anyone else feel that way, or am I in a hyper-sensitive mood today?

Labels: blogging, Ny Times

A column on the concept of veg*nism and "moral superiority."

And how goodness and badness aren't really binary. One isn't all good or all bad...one does better at some things than other things.

How does this relate to marketing and social media?

I suppose because sometimes a company makes great stuff, but isn't a social media leader (can you say "Apple"?)

And sometimes a company is out there trying social media like gangbusters, but the product doesn't live up to their efforts (nominees? Anyone?)

And we judge those companies on both. The good and the bad. The marketing and the customer service and the product.

That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Labels: Silicon Veggie

I've been working with a fine panel of influential bloggers on a panel they'll be presenting at both BlogHer Business and the Women Who Tech Telesummit entitled "Improve This Pitch."

I got a really quite strange pitch from a local PR person that I've done some work with/for, and who generally seems pretty savvy about the social media space. I'm on his media list and if I so desired I could be getting access, purely because I (not too regularly) blog about local theatre, to a host of events for which he does the PR.

This one, though, has me shaking my head and dying to know how it turns out.

So, they're hosting a party at a local San Francisco tourist attraction and inviting bloggers. Bloggers who sign up will get a special tour of the attraction and a party, complete with food and drink. So far, so cool, despite a slight over-reliance on puns and "clever" language in the pitch.

But here's the catch: Before you show up for the party you have to have already written about this attraction. Sure, that could have happened organically, but if it hasn't, you can feel free to write about it now, so you have something published about it before the party.

They use the language "set up a blog about xxx" before the date of the party. I'm pretty sure they must mean blog post, because surely they don't expect someone to create an entire blog solely about this tourist attraction just to go to a party. What would be the point of that or even the benefit of having a bunch of abandoned one-post blogs created?

The night of the party, they plan to have laptops with internet access set up, so attendees can record their "thoughts, images and videos" in real-time.

The pitch then continues with lots and lots and lots of facts and information about the attraction.

I am really curious if they'll get a ton of bloggers signing up for this. I am really curious if any of them will really want to blog from the party via the laptops provided. I am wondering if a post simply saying, "Hey, i got invited to a party at xxx" will count, or if they expect you to incorporate the copious information they provided.

I mean, if it works, I guess it's a great idea for any kind of similar attraction that wants to, perhaps, broaden its audience. But it does require the bloggers to jump through some hoops, and I'm not sure how many will say "how high."

What do you think?

Labels: blogger relations

Seems like all too often the topic of gender diversity on conference speaking rosters arises. This time it's Google getting some heat. I found out via Susan Mernit, who in true bloggy fashion found out from someone else, that an upcoming Google developer event has a 37 to 1 ratio. That is 37 men speakers and 1 woman.

Susan's point is not only that there surely is a better ratio than that out in the real world, given that even folks that cite fewer women than men in the field as an excuse don't claim that the percentage is 2%. Her point is also that developers need to care about who they're developing for, and the simple truth is that women comprise the majority of Internet users (at least in the U.S.)

Susan has a commenter who wants to hear nothing of gender or race...that it doesn't matter to him and he wishes everyone was the same. That's awesome for you. I often hear even women say I don't think of myself as a woman developer or woman fill-in-the-blank. That's also awesome for you.

But I can assure you that, while you may not think of yourself as a woman xxx...just about everyone else does.

Instead of trying to swim upstream on it, I believe we need to emphasize Susan's point: your users, your audience, your customers...they want to see a reflection of themselves when they look at your company.

Because when they don't they see fearful visions of pink browsers dancing in their head.

Labels: Gender diversity, Google, Susan Mernit, women in tech, women speakers

BlogHer Lena West is speaking at the Forum for Women Entrepreneurs & Executives Social Networking Half-Day Conference, this Tuesday March 25th at Computer History Museum in Mountain View.

She has very kindly secured a discount just for BlogHers (or, really, anyone reading my blog.)

Use the code BLOG325 when registering here, and you can get $50 off the regular price. (That's 20% off.)

Why would you want to go? Well, besides Ms. Lena, the other speakers include Gina Bianchini from Ning and Robin Wolaner from TeeBeeDee (also speaking at BlogHer Business. And quite a few others.

So, if you're local and you're interested, check it out and get your discount!

Labels: blogher, blogherbiz, bloghercon, FWEE, gina bianchini, lena west, robin wolaner

Last week BlogHer partner Lisa Stone spoke at Harvard University as part of the Berkman Center's 10th Anniversary Celebration.

Her subject: How Candidates and Companies Help...and Hurt...Themselves with Women Online

Lisa posted the transcript here, and Steve Garfield kindly posted video he took (over his cell phone no less) here.

And I blogged about some of the disparate reaction here.

We've seen this week alone how a slight to just a couple of bloggers can turn into an Internet brouhaha. So why even try? Oh, for a host of reasons. Because women are the target consumer for just about every product out there. They control something like $.85 of every household dollar spent. They talk to one another...and share their experiences, positive and negative, with products, services, just about everything.

Personally, I would think marketers would be thrilled at the opportunity that social media and marketing to women participating in social media provides. In a world where building relationships and customizing approaches is becoming so very granular, human beings are going to be ever more important to the process. Talk about job security!

Sure, it's change. Change is scary. Fear can be paralyzing. But it's also a new challenge, and don't our brains and our spirits just die without those?

Labels: Berkman Center, blogher, bloghercon, Lisa Stone

Twice a year BlogHer does a survey to figure out who is reading the blogs in our advertising network. This helps us understand what topics you all are writing and reading about, and what kinds of activities, information and yes, ads, you enjoy (and don't enjoy) online.

The survey is about 15 minutes long, but it's all about you and what you love to do online, so I found it was pretty easy and fun to take.

Another interesting thing we're doing this time around is having a survey company conduct the same survey with a recruited sample that represents the general U.S. women's population. So not only will we get an update on data about the folks who visit the blogs in our network, but we'll also get to compare their responses to "regular folk" who may not be quite a web/tech savvy as the blog-reading population. I'm personally pretty excited to see the data.

So, please take the survey, pretty please?

Oh, and we will be drawing three random winner from the folks who compelte the survey and choose to enter, and those winners will be able to get a free pass to the BlogHer event of their choice. So, there's a carrot right there.

Thanks, and now we'll be back to our (somewhat) regularly scheduled programming.