Daulerio vs. ESPN

From this Times story:

In his initial posting on the topic, Mr. Daulerio suggested less-than-scrupulous concern for the accuracy of the rumors he repeated: “Chances are, at this point, there’s some truth to them,” he wrote. “We’ll just throw ’em out there” and wait for the reactions. But in the interview, he said he adhered to the same standard of proof as any traditional news organization, repeating only those things told to him by multiple sources with close knowledge of the subject.

This is the paragraph that’ll get glossed over. Gawker likes to suggest that it shamelessly rumormongers, but it doesn’t in any traditional sense. And “multiple sources with close knowledge of the subject” is pretty traditional sourcing.

There’s another question, re: whether Deadspin should be publishing information about the sex lives of ESPN employees, especially if they aren’t public figures. But the Times seems more interested in the fact that AJ is a blogger taking on a sports news network.

Nonetheless, having been lied to by lying PR people who lie on a number of occasions, I understand AJ’s reaction.  I think they should be publicly outed every time they do it.  (For the opposite of this principle, see GossipCop, which happily—and either knowingly or stupidly—regurgitates publicist lies, perpetuating the problem.)

Deadspin Opens Gates of ESPN Sex Rumors [NYT]

This Is Why You're Broke

The year-over-year rate increase in my health insurance: $91 a month. (Q4 ‘08: $365, Q4, ‘09: $456.)  I think inflation is understated and that health care premiums should match cost-of-living increases, but 25% seems positively Zimbabwean.

n+1, Mark Greif, And Ignorance

johncarney:

[Notes & Disclaimers: I bought the very first issue of n+1 and went to Keith Gessen’s “What I learned at the internet” party in Dumbo. They were pretty much out of booze so I didn’t stay long. Keith once rejected an article I pitched to him because he thought it was too philosophical and didn’t have a link to a compelling contemporary issue. Many of the writers for the Awl are my friends, and I’ve known Alex Balk since we were fellow anonymous bloggers.]

Forgot to issue my disclaimer: just before n+1 launched, Keith Gessen sent me an email. I was at New York magazine at the time, and had never met Keith.  He told me a bit about n+1 and said he’d love to have me as a contributor, but “only if I could write something substantive.”  I didn’t know whether to be flattered or insulted. My mischief-making impulses kicked in, and for a few seconds, I considered writing an 8000-word essay on why I couldn’t possibly write anything substantive. Ever.

But life is short. And 8000 words is long.

Later, n+1 published a piece on Gawker wherein I was described as the Eliza Doolittle to Nick Denton’s Henry Higgins, the implication being that I was a backwards rube from Alabama and that Nick schooled me in the ways of the Big City—analysis based less on fact than observations about gender and age difference, with attendant assumptions that you wouldn’t expect from a publication that claims to be left-leaning. I ran into Keith a reading he was doing with one of my friends, and he politely asked me what I thought of it.  I just pointed out that I had already lived in New York for two years when Nick moved here and that we were close friends (read: peers—though Nick was certainly the ringleader of our group) for a year or so before we launched Gawker.

It was then that I realized that my bar for what constitutes “substantive” isn’t necessarily everyone else’s.

I don’t think n+1 is all bad, but I think the Greif piece was badly executed. And it makes me wonder if the magazine’s editors sometimes mistake convolution for complexity, and ambiguity with profundity. It reminded me of this line from Michiko Kakutani’s review of Thomas Pynchon’s last book:

It is a humongous, bloated jigsaw puzzle of a story, pretentious without being provocative, elliptical without being illuminating, complicated without being rewardingly complex.

And yeah, I’m friends with Balk and Choire and nearly everyone at the Awl.

via johncarney

My Sandwich-Making Fees

ninety9:

youngmanhattanite:

spiers:

maura:

spiers:

If I actually charged people for that stuff, I’m not sure I could sleep at night.

No. You are right. And ethical! I just bristle when I see people who aren’t qualified (cough) loftily throwing around dumb titles… and other people who are less in the know falling for it.

It also just really annoys me when I see these companies/so-called-experts trying to snow my less web-savvy clients. They make something very basic sound inordinately complicated, suggest that it’s a 12-month implementation, and attach a five-figure price tag to it. And I find it inconceivable that they don’t know they’re ripping people off.

Culturally, this is just the new iteration of We’ll SEO The Shit Out Of Your Site, And You’ll Automagically Be Successful.  (Free consulting: if 98% of your traffic is coming from search engines and you’re a media property trying to build an audience, you’re doing something wrong. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. Or they think you’re an idiot.)

The proliferation of bullshit SEO “experts” has been eclipsed by a proliferation of social media “experts.” I can count the number of social media geniuses I know on one hand. And not a single one self-identifies as a “social media expert”.

I know I’m risking incurring some wrath here, but there’s much to SEO that is valid; enough so that SEO Specialist/Consultant is not an entirely bullshit title. (No, I’m not an SEO consultant.)

Ha! Funny, just saw this (via Rex?). You want to increase traffic? Make a balloon. In the shape of a sandwich.

I was just going to link to that.  (AJ and Balk: Months of PDA have made @boyfriend and I telepathic.)

I’m not saying SEO is never useful. But it’s not difficult, either. Anyone who suggests that it is, and that it’s a long implementation is lying. Or they don’t understand SEO themselves.

via ninety9

My Sandwich-Making Fees

ninety9:

youngmanhattanite:

spiers:

ninety9:

maura:

Joe Dolce is now a “social media consultant”??? OK, I seriously need to rebrand myself.

Musta watched this.

Pursuant to this, below is an actual clause in a proposal I sent out recently outlining a la carte services and related fees:

Miscellaneous trendy add-ons: FREE! Social networking—Twitter, Facebook, etc. marketing—is increasingly in demand and I know how explain it to clients, implement it and have used it on many occasions to market properties. I think it’s a basic marketing skill that any intelligent intern should be able to do. It’s not rocket science. I feel obligated to mention it because so many “social media experts” charge for it, and so many people ask about it, but it’s frankly not that difficult. It’s a fundamental part of marketing any site, and you should never pay for it. And I don’t charge for it. It’s a no-brainer part of any web marketing strategy.

If I actually charged people for that stuff, I’m not sure I could sleep at night.

“It’s a fundamental part of marketing any site, and you should never pay for it.”

If it’s fundamental, then why not pay for it? I’m as annoyed by sandwich makers as you are, but if someone has never set virtual foot in Facebook/Twitter/blogs, then I don’t think you can get them up to speed in a few hours on how to market their product in that arena without sounding like a spambot. And yeah, an intern can do it because an intern is probably spending most of his/her time at the office on social media sites, but then why not pay them for it?

Because it’s part of a larger agreement providing value that isn’t something any reasonably intelligent adult could find in a couple hours on the Internet. Yes, if you have spent those couple hours figuring it out, you deserve to be remunerated for sharing that information, but to what degree? An hour of billable time? For an enterprise, the value calculation is out of sync, since the data is valuable. But what is more valuable is talking about communication strategies and who shapes the message, who manages touch points, etc. Stuff people in marketing consulting have been doing for years, and stuff that requires skills about assessing large organizations and providing advice. But the particulars of Twitter? There’s no value there. Helping an internal marketing VP write policy (our guidelines or tutorials) on Twitter for consumer facing personnel is not what Joe Dolce is doing. At all. And if any enterprise has marketing people who can’t figure out the rudiments of Twitter in an afternoon, well, then the consulting gig should be around firing your marketing staff and replacing them, not on the finer points of a retweet.

What @boyfriend said.

via ninety9

My Sandwich-Making Fees

maura:

spiers:

If I actually charged people for that stuff, I’m not sure I could sleep at night.

No. You are right. And ethical! I just bristle when I see people who aren’t qualified (cough) loftily throwing around dumb titles… and other people who are less in the know falling for it.

It also just really annoys me when I see these companies/so-called-experts trying to snow my less web-savvy clients. They make something very basic sound inordinately complicated, suggest that it’s a 12-month implementation, and attach a five-figure price tag to it. And I find it inconceivable that they don’t know they’re ripping people off.

Culturally, this is just the new iteration of We’ll SEO The Shit Out Of Your Site, And You’ll Automagically Be Successful.  (Free consulting: if 98% of your traffic is coming from search engines and you’re a media property trying to build an audience, you’re doing something wrong. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot. Or they think you’re an idiot.)

The proliferation of bullshit SEO “experts” has been eclipsed by a proliferation of social media “experts.” I can count the number of social media geniuses I know on one hand. And not a single one self-identifies as a “social media expert”.

via maura