I haven’t blogged for a week because I’ve been in Hawaii with my girlfriend and my son, celebrating his graduation from high school. This place certainly lives up to its reputation as the prettiest state. Maui is unreal. The highlight for me was the Hana Highway, a 60-mile stretch of heaven that winds down Maui’s eastern coast and yields some of the most incredible scenery I’ve ever seen.
It was like 150 Kodak Moments in one five-hour stretch.

If you ever go (and I sincerely hope you do), give yourself a treat and continue on the Hana Highway past the usual turn-back point in Hana. If you follow the highway to Kipahu’u, you’ll be rewarded with the best scenery of the drive, culminating in a spectacular 95-foot waterfall by the side of the road that literally took my breath away.

The highlight of the drive had to be swimming in a vernal pool at the base of a 40-foot waterfall. I have dreamed of doing that for many years and my dream was finally realized. It was simply an incredible experience.

If someone had told me two weeks ago that I would find a movie narrated entirely by Al Gore to be one of the most moving and compelling films I’ve ever seen, I would have thought they were crazy. But having just seen An Inconvenient Truth, an independent film just released into limited distribution, I can testify that this is, indeed, the case.

I wouldn’t say that I was previously a skeptic on global warming, but I have been inclined to listen to the doubters who argue that evidence of worldwide temperature increases are more a function of natural climactic cycles then of human intervention. This film has changed my mind completely. And it does that because it makes its case with a relentless deluge of scientific and evidentiary data that leaves your head spinning. We understand, going into a film like this, that the filmmakers have an agenda. However, there is a big difference between the cogent case presented by a film like Inconvenient Truth and the ideology-driven polemics by filmmakers like Michael Moore (whose work I also enjoy).

Because I write about the media, I will cite one of the scores of statistics presented by this film as being particularly thought-provoking. Gore cites a research study that evaluated the perspective of published articles about global warming in academic journals over a period of several years. The research found that none of the articles fundamentally questioned the premise that the world is getting warmer as a result of human activity. In contrast, a similar study conducted over articles in consumer publications found that about half questioned whether global warming was more theory than fact.

This statistic, alone, highlights the effectiveness of lobbyists and corporate spinmeisters at challenging scientific wisdom. It is a somewhat depressing example of how beholden the mainstream media is to marketing messages. It also shows how impotent the academic community is at getting its messages out in the face of well-funded business competition.

Perhaps there is a persuasive counter-argument to the points put forth in An Inconvenient Truth. Whether or not there are, you owe it to yourself to see this film as soon as possible. While it may not change your view on the global warming issue, it will certainly provoke thought and discussion. BTW, take your kids.

A California appeals court ruled last Friday that Apple can’t force website operators to divulge sources that gave them details of an unannounced product. The decision overturns an earlier ruling that gave Apple the power to force the disclosure.

One interesting aspect of the ruling is that the court specifically deals with blogging, declaring that constitutional free-press protections do apply to bloggers. See the footnotes on page 44 for a discussion of the definition of blogging and the similarity of blogs to other forms of publishing. I’m not familiar with a precedent to this case that deals with first amendment issues around blogging, but maybe somebody could set me straight.

I was also surprised to note extensive references to Wikipedia in the court’s footnotes. Given that there is ongoing debate over the reliability of information on Wikipedia, I thought it was interesting that a state appellate court considers the source reliable enough to cite extensively in a legal decision.

Thanks to Alice LaPlante for pointing out this story on the Informationweek Blog.

Two revealing headlines, both from BtoB Magazine:

First-quarter online ad spending hits record $3.9 billion – Internet advertising revenue totaled $3.9 billion in the first quarter, a record high that was up 38% from $2.8 billion a year earlier, according to a report released Tuesday by the Interactive Advertising Bureau and PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Merrill Lynch lowers estimates for newspaper ad spending – Investment bank Merrill Lynch has lowered its projection for U.S. newspaper ad spending growth this year to 1.2%, down from a February forecast of 1.8%. Merrill Lynch media analyst Lauren Rich Fine adjusted the company’s newspaper ad revenue projection for next year down to 1.1%, from a February forecast of 1.4%.

The Merrill report was actually entitled “Deep Depressing Dive.”

Could it get any worse for the newspaper business? Even if you believe that newspapers are going the way of the dodo bird, the rate of decline in the business is shocking. It’s not like circulation is plummeting. It’s more drifting down with a change in demographics.

Ironically, another survey I read recently said mainstream media gets more citations from blog posts than any other source by a wide margin. So as mainstream media become more important to the dissemination of useful information for discussion in the blogosphere, its business starts to go off a clifff.

The good news: The NY Times will do more than $60 million in online advertising this year. Newspapers that are changing their business models are seeing results, but reinvention is a long, painful process.

For some great insight on what social media means to marketers, listen to this podcast of a speech by Larry Weber to last December’s Syndicate conference.

Larry is a marketing genius, the founder of one of the world’s largest PR agencies and a guy who is always on the leading edge of the media business. A few gems from this talk:

*He draws a wonderful analogy between the blogosphere and the newspaper business in the use in the late 18th century. At one point, Pittsburgh had 24 newspapers and nearly everything they published was opinion. A distant mirror?

*”The mainstream media is going through the greatest transformation in its history…The primary function of mainstream media in the future will be aggregating consumer generated content.”

*“I think in five years we will be meeting here and talking about the Wall Street Journal’s and USAToday’s circulations dipping below 1 million. “

*The number of blogs will actually decrease, much as the number of newspapers decreased after the initial surge in the late 18th century. This isn’t a sign of weakness; it’s a sign of maturity.

*The job of marketers will increasingly be to listen to the conversations going on in the community of customers. The days of “delivering a message” are over.

*$90 billion a year is spent on advertising in the US. Two-thirds of that is spent on TV advertising. That is going to change in a big way.

Wow, so much great advice on the survey. Thanks to everyone. Now I need to bear down and try to incorporate all these good suggestions.

Now I’m looking for corporate bloggers. Do you know any? These would be people who blog on behalf of mid-sized or large companies or who blog on a company domain. I have some restrictions, though:

No high-tech companies (tech firms are not representative of the state of the blogosphere)

No marketers (they’re doing this to understand the phenomenon)

No consultants who work for companies (different motivations)

I’ll devote a chapter of the book to corporate bloggers, so if you are one or know of one, I’d appreicate the reference.

As part of research for my book, I want to survey bloggers about their motivations and opinions about blogging. Here’s a survey I created. I’d appreciate any comments or suggestions you care to contribute before I launch it. If you’re willing to help direct bloggers to the survey form, please note that in a comment. Thank you!

Clarification (5/22). This is just a draft survey that I’m posting for input. Several people have asked about how they can take the survey with no input forms. I guess I did a lousy job of explaining that this is just a draft :-). The final survey will be posted on a commercial service soon. Thanks!

This survey is being conducted as part of research for a book on social media. It is intended to measure bloggers’ attitudes toward blogging and their motivations for contributing to blogs. Results will be posted at www.paulgillin.com and regularly updated once a sufficient number of responses has been received.

1. Do you contribute to one or more weblogs?
Yes
No (terminate)

2. How long have you been blogging?
Less than one year
One to two years
More than two years

3. To what types of blogs do you regularly contribute? Please check all that apply.
Business
Corporate
Entertainment
Hobbyist
Literary/art
Personal
Political
Reference
Sports
Technical
Other

4. How many blogs do you regularly contribute to?
1
2
3
More than 3

5. Approximately how many hours do you spend writing for blogs every week?
Less than one
One to three
Three to five
More than five

6. Approximately how many blog entries do you post in an average week across all blogs to which you contribute?
Less than one
One or two
Three to five
More than five

7. Why do you blog? Please check all that apply
Capture memories
Career advancement
Connect with people with similar interests
Employer requires it
Influence market or discussion of a topic
It just feels good
Keep in touch with family/friends
Make money/hope to make money
Other

8. How many blogs do you read at least once per week?
Fewer than five
Six to ten
11 to 20
21 to 30
More than 30

9. Do you subscribe to RSS feeds?
Yes
No
Don’t know

10. How do you believe your reading of blogs has affected your consumption of mainstream media such as television, radio and newspapers? Has your use of mainstream media:
Increased substantially
Increased somewhat
Neither increased or decreased
Decreased somewhat
Decreased substantially
Don’t know

11. In your opinion, how credible are the blogs that you read regularly?
Very credible
Somewhat credible
Not very credible
Not at all credible
Don’t know

12. In your opinion, how credible are blogs in general?
Very credible
Somewhat credible
Not very credible
Not at all credible
Don’t know

13. In which of the following social media activities or services do you also regularly participate ?

File sharing
Instant messaging
Multiplayer games
Photo sharing
Podcasting
Social bookmarking
Social networks
Video blogging
Wikis
Other

14. In which ways do you derive income from your blog? Please check all that apply
I don’t derive income from blogging
Affiliate commissions (ex: Commission Junction)
Consulting
Contextual advertising (ex: Google AdSense)
Donations
Paid writing assignments
Product sales
Speaking
Other

15. In the space below, please describe your most important motivations for blogging

Tell us about yourself.

16. Are you male or female?
Female
Male

17. How old are you?
Under 18
18-25
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
Over 65

18. Where do you live?
North America
South America
Europe
Asia
Australia/New Zealand
Africa

[Optional] Please list the URLs of all blogs to which you regularly contribute

[Optional]If you would like to be notified when results are available, please enter your e-mail address. This address will be used only to notify you of the availability of survey results.

I had the good fortune to spend some time with David Weinberger at Syndicate. David is the author of Joho, as well as several other blogs, and is at work on a book about tagging.

I’ll admit that I never gave tagging much thought before speaking to David, but after hearing his perspectives on the potential of this very simple yet powerful technology, I am kind of bowled over.

Think of the Internet as a vast collection of information about very specific topics. For the most part, we have limited information about how to find and identify these topics. Authors tag – or self-classify – their own information because they have to tell people where they think that information should be stored. Publishers and sellers may add to or modify those classifications, but the reality is that they probably don’t change much from what the author intially defined.

In a world bounded by physical limitations, these rigid and very inflexible classifications were necessary. The Dewey Decimal System, for example, dictated that a work of non-fiction had to occupy a single physical space on a shelf, even if that book covered a broad variety of topics. You had to do that in a physical world. But in a virtual world, there’s no need for that kind of rigidity. A book or an article about the Civil War, for example, may belong in the history, military, sociology, anthropology, government and geography sections of a library. You couldn’t possibly classify it that way with a conventional library system. But you can do that – and much more – with tags.

Tags allow authors to self-classify their work – whether it be a book or a blog post – in multiple categories. But what’s cool about services like del.icio.us, digg, TagWorld and many others is that they enable the community to also tag content. So not only authors but readers can classify what an article or other work is about. That means that over time, content can be indexed by what the readers think it is and not just by what the author believes it is.

Think about this, because it’s very powerful. Tags will eventually enable us to subscribe to people, not just to content. I’ll be able to read about what you’re saying about a very specific topic while ignoring what you say about everything else. No offense, but that’s how I’d rather consume information.

Tagging can be applied to anything because anyone can tag any content. So the New York Times can put out an article on Iraq, for example, but if readers decide it’s really an article about Bush’s political agenda, they’ll tag it that way and the classification of that article will change. Over the long term, tagging takes classification out of the hands of the authors and puts it in the hands of the readers. There are plenty of pros and cons to that. I’m not sure I entirely like it, but I’m intrigued by its potential.

David Weinberger has a book coming out on this topic next spring. I’m know it’s going to be on my reading list.

The two hosts of Mommycast – Gretchen Vogelzang and Paige Heninger – were on my podcast panel at Syndicate yesterday. Later, they generously gave me 45 minutes for an interview. It wasn’t hard to see why their program has been successful.

The secret of a co-hosted program is chemistry. The Mommycast formula is straight out of the comedy team mold. Gretchen is the reserved one. She’s had a 25-year career in dance instruction and has owned her own dance studio. She has that Germanic disciplined demeanor that belies a planner

Paige makes up life as she goes along. She admits she hasn’t held any one job for more than four years. That one was as a school bus driver, an incongruous image for one so petite. She’s impulsive, irreverent and chatty, even bubbly. Gretchen is the wise mom. Paige (despite having five kids) comes is the irreverent teenager. They’re perfect together.

Everything has gone right for Mommycast. They’re being approached by terrestrial radio networks that want to take Mommycast to the airwaves. They’ve had inquiries about books and paid endorsements. Dixie, their main sponsor, wants to align as closely as possible with this duo, who bring the dual benefits of family values and Internet coolness. Gretchen and Paige are featured on a back-to-school CD package Dixie is preparing for the fall and the cup maker wants to do more. They have endorsement requests. Movie studios, smitten by the pair’s impact on March of the Penguins (Warner has attributed 25% of the film’s revenues to Mommycast’s recommendations) are inviting them to preview new films.

Paige and Gretchen can take this as far as they want to take it. They may turn out to be the first podcasters to become pop culture icons. It couldn’t happen to two nicer people.

There’s a bit of a preaching-to-the-choir quality to Syndicate. Most of the attendees appear to be bloggers or social media companies. A lot of people are asking where the marketers and ad agency people are. It’s a good question, since Syndicate was sited in Manhattan presumably to reach these people.

I suspect this deficit is indicative of the head-in-the-sand attitude of mainstream marketing toward social media. One possibility is that marketers are scared. They’re deer in the headlights of a fundamental change in the way business and consumer customers want to be reached. So instead of dealing with the change, they’re denying it and simply hoping it’ll go away. A lot of these people will lose their jobs, in the same way that hundreds of CIOs were fired in the 80s and 90s because they refused to make the transition to end-user computing. The value proposition of direct-to-customer marketing is too compelling for this industry not to grow a lot. Marketers who aren’t embracing this change are signing their own walking papers.

A more cynical theory I’ve heard here is that marketers and agencies don’t want to embrace this media because it’s so cost-efficient. A three-month viral marketing campaign can cost less than a single 30-second TV commercial. If you define your value to an organization in terms of the size of your budget, are you going to embrace a new approach that promises to substantially reduce that budget? It doesn’t matter that you’re delivering greater efficiency and lower cost. Budget-cutting is a sign of weakness in most organizations. And ad agencies are hardly going to support a strategy that reduces their commissions.

An agency that gets it is NightAgency. Check out this new viral campaign they did for Symantec called SafetyTown.