I've been following, with some interest, the whole Pajamas Media thing - or I guess it's now Open Source Media? If it IS Open Source Media, looks like it won't be that way for long - due to trademark violations. (Uhm, guys? Maybe you should have checked on trademark issues BEFORE making the announcement of the name).
I don't normally talk about blogging and other bloggers - or comment on how people run their own blogs - it's not my business, and I really don't care. But I have found THIS particular venture very interesting (probably not for the reasons they want me to) ... and have been following it, albeit in a desultory way.
Anyway - a lot of bloggers I respect and read daily are involved in this thing. So this is not meant to be bitchy - it's just an outsider's perspective - based on their press releases and also based on the unbeLIEVABLY touchy responses the bloggers involved put out whenever anyone DARES to criticize them. I mean - they sound like petulant whiny brats when anyone asks a valid question like: "Uhm ... so what's the business model?" (Okay, that was a little bitchy, sorry.) They show up in other bloggers comments sections and go APESHIT. It's very unprofessional. Get a thick skin, guys. You've got a tough road ahead, and you had BETTER start taking some of those questions seriously if you want to stick around.
Ann Althouse has been a great source for these questions - here's her latest post - (I really think the Pajamas people should be listening to these people and not dealing with every criticism as "Oh, whatever, sour grapes." So every single criticism that comes your way is due to "sour grapes"? Isn't that convenient!).
Jeff Jarvis has been great to read as well - if you're interested in this whole thing.
And, of course, Dennis the Peasant. Just keep scrolling. And here is a good place to start.
An insider's view. One of many.
I am getting this huge 1999 deja vu feeling looking at all of this. One of the PM's press releases talked about "word of mouth" marketing. Dudes. I don't even know what I'm TALKING about but I know that "word of mouth marketing" is ... What? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Fine. Great. It's revolutionary, whatever: but tell me how it will work.
I remember the mania of that time back then, the self-congratulation, the evangelical feeling of MISSION ... and also ... there was a distinct sense of ANNOYANCE in certain people when someone asked them to GET SPECIFIC. Anyone who asked for specifics, or who tried to put the brakes onto all the "irrational exuberance" was seen as a party-pooper to the wave of the future.
Pajamas Media doesn't even seem like a really good idea to me. I must be missing something. It certainly isn't revolutionary, it certainly isn't new. Again: a lot of those people I respect and read all the time. It would be great if they made some cash.
But from the little I've seen ... I ... I guess I just can't get a grasp on the whole thing. On what they MEAN, on what they are going to DO, and WHY it is new ... This could just be because I'm a dim bulb intellectually, and can't understand their business model - but ... I don't know ... shouldn't business models be relatively simple? Shouldn't they be easily explainable to dolts like myself? HOW will it WORK? WHAT does "word of mouth marketing" MEAN? And tell me your steps that you are going to take?
Also: just a quick aesthetic comment: The design of their website is atrocious. I have no words for how bad it is. All right, I have some. Boring and yet confusing. Nothing "gets" me. I don't know where to go. Also: it's slooooooow. I hate the grey. My brain goes to mush looking at the dern page. It's awful. Don't they have anyone who could design them a nice-looking page that actually ... reflects what they're supposed to be?
This is a subjective comment from a girl who has sprinkled her own page with Gibson Girls (designed, for me, by the marvelous Curly McDimple). I designed my page that way - with her help - because I wanted it to reflect my little world here, also I think they're lovely and they make me feel peaceful when I look at them, and happy to be a woman. I love them.
I don't know. The Open Source Media page looks like a disaster to me. I know it's new and all - but you would think the kinks would be ironed out by the time of launch. That's how MOST businesses are run.
And the whole touchy-to-the-point-of-hysteria response to criticism has got to end.
So that's my post. I can't be accused of sour grapes, though, since I was never asked to join.
DOH! Now that really DOES sound like sour grapes!!
I swear - I don't want to be involved in it - I'm just giving my perspective. I'm confused. Don't get it. Don't get it.
Okay, on to more important things:
What?
Posted by sheilaI haven't followed OSM's development closely, but it looks to me like it's their critics who are "touchy to the point of hysteria." Most of the naysayers (Dennis especially, and perhaps understandably) aren't just critical, they're derisive and nasty. Althouse refers to them as "Open Sores Media," Richard Bennett says the contributors are all "wacked," you call them "social morons," etc etc. Pointing out the problems with their business model is all to the good, but what's with all the goddamned sneering?
Just so we're all on the same page: a business that would put a little extra coin in bloggers' pockets is a good thing, isn't it? Laying aside the question of whether the company is sustainable, we do want them to succeed, don't we? Or is this one of those situations where we're "rooting" for OSM the same way the anti-war crowd is "rooting" for us to win in Iraq?
I see that Charles Johnson has called Althouse out on his blog. Presumably, this makes him a "petulant whiny brat." As opposed to her, you know, comparing his company to semen.
Posted by: Allah at November 16, 2005 5:00 PMGreg Gutfeld regularly criticises Huffington Post from within and he's probably the most popular poster there because of it.
So... I guess that's the niche I will be seeking. I figure I'll just say "plausible deniability" when I Ask The Cats tonight. ;)
Posted by: Laurence Simon at November 16, 2005 5:03 PMAnd right on cue, as if to prove my point, James Wolcott chimes in with a sustained sneer of his own. He doesn't even bother critiquing the business; as always with Wolcott, it's entirely personal.
Posted by: Allah at November 16, 2005 5:08 PMAllah -
I certainly think that bloggers finding a way to make money is a good thing. I said that in my post.
I've just been very unimpressed so far with how this group has comported themselves. I am unimpressed with the press releases, and general vagueness about it all - It reminds me of the vagueness in the Internet IPO world of 1999. I could be wrong, but that is my impression at this time.
The critics come from all different sides, and have their own biases, sure - but many of them make good points, I think.
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:09 PMLaurence - I look forward to it. :)
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:10 PMAllah -
I think a lot of the sneering may come from a sense of disappointment. Maybe they were involved at first - and felt betrayed. That's the sense I get from some of those posts.
But I think a lot of the sneering too is warranted because of the pomposity of some of the press releases, and general announcements about their mission.
It's fun to make fun of people who take themselves too seriously. They're an easy target.
So I think the sneering might come out of that as well.
Just guessing.
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:13 PMI think that girl in the picture should worship at the Altar of the Double-Stick Tape, because damn
Posted by: Lisa at November 16, 2005 5:15 PMdamn. Left off the period.
Posted by: Lisa at November 16, 2005 5:15 PMI have a lot of friends involved in this thing - In general, there's a sense of excitement and anticipation about this venture on their blogs -
This is more about the powers-that-be- whoever writes their press releases, and whoever presents their mission to the public. Not good. Not good at all.
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:16 PMLisa - I know, like: WHAT?
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:17 PMAlso - her smile just KILLS me. hahahaha She looks so PSYCHED!
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:20 PMSometimes I wonder if these "stars" have relatives or friends who are going to design school and made some sort of drunken promise to wear their designs at their next event.
'Cause I can't think of any other reason why you'd wear that tweed swimsuit things that has apparently ripped on her way out of the limo. With matching boots!
Posted by: Lisa at November 16, 2005 5:20 PMSeems like the 'word of mouth'[word of blog?] hasn't been all that positive to date.
Not quite what they had in mind, no doubt.
And I agree, Sheila.. what's the business plan is the question.. because it seemed, at least to me, like that was the plan, to found a blogging business - a compilation blog that would attract mass advertisements.
Except.. press releases?.. advisory board?.. staff profiles?.. headline story "Compiled by OSM staff in Barcelona"?
Isn't that kind of an old-skool company model for a blog? Can we expect a 'dead-wood' version too?
Posted by: peteb at November 16, 2005 5:21 PMIt's almost like a cry for help, isn't it, Lisa?
Like: PLEASE. WILL A LEGITIMATE DESIGNER PLEASE STEP FORWARD AND HELP ME??????
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:21 PMThere's a great documentary called Startup dot com ... anyone see it?
Fascinating. How the mania of the moment took over and basic questions weren't answered - (and actually - those two guys had a pretty good idea) - Of course, with the dot com crash, it all collapsed (to quote Eddie Izzard: "like a flan in a cupboard")
"love child of a pirate wench and a gray-flannel-suited stockbroker"
Hahahahaha!
Posted by: peteb at November 16, 2005 5:26 PMalso: "post-coital discussion of mutual funds"
bwahahahahahahahaha
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:27 PMI think they're putting the "buzz" in front of the horse. The bottom line is that very few people seem to understand what the model is.
Posted by: Matt at November 16, 2005 5:37 PMBut I think a lot of the sneering too is warranted because of the pomposity of some of the press releases, and general announcements about their mission.
Every start-up since the dawn of time has touted itself as the next big thing. The law even has a term to describe it for purposes of commercial speech in First Amendment cases: "puffery." Everyone, but everyone, does it. Why does OSM get special scrutiny? As for them supposedly taking themselves too seriously, one of the featured posts on the OSM site today was Jeff Goldstein's lampoon of the launch party. Doesn't sound to me like they're uptight about their image.
I also don't get all the confusion about what the business does. From what I understand, there are two basic functions: 1) syndicate advertising to the contributors' blogs, and 2) aggregate contributor content (some of which will be original reporting) on the main page. It's hardly revolutionary. All it does is offer another platform to contributors and make it easier for big companies to blanket-advertise on a whole slew of blogs.
Let me note here that I read every post Charles and Roger write. And to the best of my recollection, until this afternoon when Charles called Althouse on her semen remark, neither one of them has uttered a single word publicly in response to criticism. Despite all the nastiness from their critics (particularly Dennis), mum has most certainly been the word. So once again, I have to ask: where do you get this idea of OSM's powers-that-be acting like "petulant whiny brats"?
Posted by: Allah at November 16, 2005 5:41 PMMatt - which is just what happened to internet companies like Webvan. A lot of buzz. Massive IPO. But ... how exactly would it work? Did anyone even care in the middle of the frenzy?
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:42 PMAllah -
I didn't say that this was anything new. I don't think they're getting special scrutiny at all. I think they're getting scrutinized like any "next big thing" gets scrutinized. It doesn't seem over-the-top to me - it seems like any business going public. There's buzz, people are asking questions, there's attention on it ...
Some of the comments I have seen in comments-sections of bloggers who have criticized them have been extremely petulant - to the point of hysteria. Name-calling, shrill polarizing shouting - Nothing measured, or professional-sounding. It makes everyone involved look insane.
These have not been from Charles, by the way. I can't remember the names, because I don't know many of the bloggers involved. But like clockwork - they show up. And they sound UNHINGED.
In terms of the powers-that-be - that's a different group of people than the attack dogs. I said that they (whoever they are - I'm talking about the press releases - not any statement on a blog) come off to me sounding vague and pompous.
And now: I'm off to the theatah, folks. I've got some schmacting to do!
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:49 PMBreak a leg, Sheila!
Posted by: peteb at November 16, 2005 5:53 PMThanks, peteb!
Hey - the NY Times reviewed No Applause by the way - it's so exciting!!!
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:54 PMHere's the link to the review, Peteb:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/16/books/16grim.html
So proud, so psyched!
Posted by: red at November 16, 2005 5:56 PM"High art, low art, and no art stood cheek by jowl writes Trav S. D. (it is the stage name of Travis Stewart) in "No Applause - Just Throw Money," his exuberant, messy history of vaudeville.
Damn, I'm looking forward to reading this.
Posted by: peteb at November 16, 2005 6:04 PMAs a person who has absolutely no clue what OSM is, I went in search to find out what it is. I spent five minutes clicking around trying to find a decent "ABOUT" or "FAQ" and I still have only the vaguest idea of what this thing is all about. How is that sound business?
On the FUG: At least she seems happy.
On the Theater: Break a leg^2.
Posted by: Cullen at November 16, 2005 6:37 PMSheila,
I love your Gibson Girls too. They are beautiful and elegant and put me in a lovely frame of mind and make me want to pile my hair in luscious curls on top of my head and drink tea. Whither the corset? I mourn its demise--comfort be damned.
Allah,
You show up in every comments section I read. Where is YOUR blog?!? You were one of my favorite stops once upon a time, then it was that picture of Jeter like, forever, and then nothing. Come back!
Posted by: Another Sheila at November 16, 2005 7:15 PMCan someone please tell me what this is all about?
Posted by: Patrick at November 16, 2005 10:27 PMJust remember: this time, it's different. ;-)
Posted by: Dave J at November 16, 2005 11:59 PMdave j - hahahahahahaha Exactly!!
Posted by: red at November 17, 2005 12:00 AMPatrick - your small interjection made me laugh out loud.
i think that's the question many of us are asking!
Posted by: red at November 17, 2005 12:02 AMThank you for writing this, Sheila--when I've tried to write about this project it's just come off as bitchy and, yeah, sour grapes. That's my own fault for cultivating such a distinctly bitchy voice, but listen, this post of yours really does NOT read that way at all.
It does sum up better than I've been able to what's fascinating, frustrating, and perplexing about the whole endeavor. I think the 1999 analogy definitely applies here. It's that same anything-can-happen, anything-is-possible, the-world-is-our-oyster vibe all over again. That's a fun vibe to have, which is why I kick myself when I feel like I'm attacking it--"Why do I have to be such a killjoy?"
On the other hand, businesses have to succeed or fail on merits a little more substantial than just good vibes. So maybe there's some gray area between being a killjoy and being a pragmatist.
And I think Cullen's comment completely confirms what you've said about the official web site.
Posted by: ilyka at November 17, 2005 2:04 AMjust reading about this is exhausting. this is the first i've heard of it, too. i'm with patrick.
Posted by: beth at November 17, 2005 10:20 AMI truly don't have malevolent feelings towards these people, but I'm sorry - I have got to point out:
They now have a page up talking about the dispute of their name:
http://www.osm.org/site/story/11172005osmflap?currow=1
There are typos on that page. Missing words. It reads like it was written off the cuff, and not proofread.
Guys, get. it. together.
Posted by: red at November 17, 2005 11:03 AMAdditionally - I find it to be badly written.
And, according to my Merriam Webster "protectable" is not a word. Maybe it's in some OTHER dictionary???
Posted by: red at November 17, 2005 11:05 AMAnd now I'm reading posts where people appear to be saying, "Wah wah wah Ann was mean to us FIRST so we get to be mean back!"
Guys. Is this a business or is this 3rd grade recess? You're acting like morons.
Again: I have no horse in this race, dog in this fight, whatever that phrase is. I don't care. I am outside. I am happy with how I blog, I like my blog, and I truly like many of the OSM people. I don't wish them failure.
But man, I will call a spade when I see a fucking spade, I will tell you THAT, and this is amateur-hour-central.
This is supposed to be the "final nail in the coffin of the MSM" - that's from a comment on Roger's site. hahahahaha Really? Sorry. Not convinced by that - at ALL.
Posted by: red at November 17, 2005 12:50 PMI always love those people who are so sure blogging has/will conquer the mainstream media, especially given how obviously reliant blogging is of it.
Posted by: Emily at November 17, 2005 12:58 PM"According to the New York Times - (WHO WE DESPISE, THOSE LIBERAL COMMIE BASTARDS) - but anyway: according to the New York Times ..."
Posted by: red at November 17, 2005 1:17 PMPatrick - your small interjection made me laugh out loud.
I still have no idea what this is all about. Truth be told, I really don't care except I HATE being out of the loop.
Posted by: Patrick at November 18, 2005 11:12 AMAnd I just want to point out that the people who are saying, "God, they just launched - give it a chance - give it more than one day" are probably the same people who LEAPT all over Huffington Post within 2 seconds of IT launching. Why didn't they give THAT a chance? Why didn't they give THAT more than one day?
Oh, I get it. Because you don't agree with the politics of those involved.
Hypocrites.
Posted by: red at November 18, 2005 11:19 AMPatrick -
Andy has, as his first related link to that post - a piece called "Business Plan in Heels"
It's long - but VERY well worth it. Again, it's the point of view of a baffled outsider, but it's VERY interesting, and fantastically well-written.
Posted by: red at November 18, 2005 11:22 AMYeah, that is a good one. I wonder if those of us who are like the guy from Boston are aware of it. I think I was like that for a time.
Did you read Moxie's take on it?
Silly, trite details. fact checking, and all. Critics have noted that there is already a vehicle for this purpose, known as THE FUCKING INTERNET.
Posted by: Patrick at November 18, 2005 11:41 AMyeah - that was a very funny post, I thought (Moxie's). True. From my perspective.
Posted by: red at November 18, 2005 11:46 AMOh, and about the bratty responses to criticism -
Again - sorry, I don't know where the link was - but someone mentioned the typos on the main page of OSM. And one of the bloggers from OSM left a comment to the post saying, "Ah, another whiny liberal."
Brat. That's what I call a brat anyway.
Uhm ... so only "whiny liberals" find typos bad form? Or ...
What exactly is the point??
Posted by: red at November 18, 2005 11:52 AMOMFG Paula looks good in that outfit!!!
....oh, I'm sorry...what's this about someone else's blog?
Sorry, I have exposed woman flesh on my monitor.
Posted by: Wutzizname at November 19, 2005 4:23 PM