Ever since his appearance before hard core geek bloggers and techies at Gnomedex in July, there has been a certain enthusiasm about John Edwards’ Presidential candidacy in the tech blogosphere. Why? I think a big reason is that he is wooing a contingency that isn’t used to being wooed by politicians.

For political bloggers this stuff is old hat. They meet with candidates, exchange emails with staffers, participate in campaign conference calls and have opulent parties thrown for them. Hell, last cycle a number of them got put on the campaign payroll.

Tech bloggers are also used to being wooed. But by tech companies. They get pitched on daily basis and sometimes even get sent free computers by Microsoft.

So what happens when a tech blogger gets wooed by a political campaign for the first time? They are flattered and feel important and get a little star struck by the important of it all. Just like political bloggers are the first 4-5 times they are wooed. They also don’t look at things nearly as critically as political bloggers. Unlike political bloggers, their opinions about the candidate haven’t been hardened by an obsession with politics. They can forgive Edwards for voting for the Iraq War or for being on the ticket with John Kerry.

In advance of his official announcement, the Edwards campaign upped the stakes in their wooing of the tech blogosphere and invited super blogger Robert Scoble to follow him around this week. From the sound of things, Scoble is getting awesome access to Edwards and his campaign staff. What Scoble is doing isn’t clear. Is he some sort of unpaid advisor? Or just covering the campaign as a blogger/journalist?

Regardless, the result is what you would expect. Scoble, who appears a bit intoxicated by the experience, has compared Edwards to JFK and is writing enthusiastically about how technology is changing politics (a subject many have been writing about for years). I think the coverage would be quite different if InstaPundit or DailyKos were on that plane.

Scoble, like most Americans, isn’t burdened by a hardened ideology or an encyclopedic knowledge of recent political history. He doesn’t have an agenda.

I think reaching out to the tech blogosphere is a very shrewd move by the Edwards campaign.

According to the average American, this one’s a no-brainer. In a poll of 1,203 American adults, Zogby International and 463 Communications reported that 83% of those surveyed believe that a typical 12-year old knows more about Internet than members of Congress.

Do I even need to remind anyone that The Internet is a Series of Tubes?? If the average member of Congress thinks like Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens, it’s pretty obvious that this 83% of people are 100% correct.

It’s getting increasingly difficult for older career politicians to catch up with younger generations in terms of knowledge about the Web. I personally remember having computer classes as early as elementary school; I’m sure kids today are being exposed to the Internet at even younger ages. The result? Politicians that declare nonsensical myths about the “mystery” of computers. They just don’t get it.

CNET blogger Anne Broache also wrote about this survey:

“…when it came to deciding which political party has a better “grasp” of the Internet, survey respondents were mostly, well, undecided. About 30 percent threw their confidence behind Democrats, 20 percent chose Republicans, and more than 40 percent picked “neither” or said they weren’t sure.”

All of this information ties in with our research about political campaign sites and blogs (here, here, and here), which we found were generally of poor quality and failed to reach the general public on a personal level.

This leads me to make one obviously clear conclusion. Politicians should have 12-year olds run their websites.

Okay, maybe not. But on a more serious note, I do believe that it would be to the advantage of every campaign staff to include some younger people in their day-to-day operations. College students, for example, operate in huge social networks (both digitial and actual), and could help politicians reach out to younger and more tech-savvy demographics. I realize that many campaigns have college interns, but it would surprise me if these interns did much more than make photocopies and coffee.

At any rate, it’s apparent that politicians need to do something to improve their use and understanding of the Web. As shown in Sen. Ted Stevens’ “Series of Tubes Speech”, it is simply unacceptable to have senior members of our Congress have no understanding of a technology that so greatly affects our daily lives and operations of the US government.

In addition to the discussion of kids vs. politicians, the survey had some other interesting findings. One that caught my eye is that when asked “What would make it harder for you to work – your car not starting, or losing Internet and email access?”, 78% of those surveyed said their car, while just 10% said the Internet. I personally do not own a car, but the thought of going one day without Internet or email is actually scary.

Also of note is that just one in five Americans believes that the next Bill Gates will come from the US. Half of those surveyed think that the next Internet mogul will be from China or Japan.

The survey was conducted between 12/5/06 and 12/8/2006, consisted of 1,203 American adults, and has an error margin of +/- 2.9%. You can read about the survey here and here.

The Problogger Group Writing Project wrapped up last Friday and somehow I managed to win a Nintendo Wii for participating with my Top 8 YouTube Videos of 2006 post.  The prize was kindly donated by 451 Press. 

As a wrap up, here are some cool posts submitted by other contestants:

• Top 10 “Crzy” Tech Gifts by Nic
• The Year in Review: The Best Websites You’ve Never Visited (and some you have) by Erin
• What Google, Yahoo and Microsoft will buy in 2007 by TIm
• Best Japanese Commercials of 2006 by James
• Look Back in Anguish: My Switch to a True Blogging Platform by Mike

Pew Internet Life released a fascinating study a few days back (PDF) that looked at voter contacts during the 2006 election.  Below is a table summarizing the key findings:

Two things jump out at me here:

(1) 56% of folks surveyed received recorded calls urging them to vote, usually from celebrities and high profile politicians.  That’s a big number.  I hate robocalls and can’t hang up fast enough.  But the calls are dirt cheap to make and clearly effective enough to justify the expense.  These things are definitely a case of campaigns using a shotgun instead of a rifle.

(2) People were more likely to have a campaign representative visit their home (16%) than to receive an email from a campaign (12%).  Basically all that means is that parties still have some work to do in developing email lists of voters.  If parties sent emails to 12% of the population, that pretty much means they have the email address of 12% of the population.

[Via CNet]

The Associated Press released a list of their Top 10 YouTube videos a few weeks back. And we did a Top 10 Political Videos list back in September. So here’s a derivative post listing our Top 8 YouTube videos of 2006.

(8) Microsoft designs the Ipod packaging….

[gv data="0pXL5_RvGrs" width="425" height="350"][/gv]

(more…)

Well, it looks like Yahoo! and Google aren't the only company having trouble in China.  Ebay announced today that it is turning over its Chinese branch to a Beijing-based company in a new joint venture, capping a 3-year financial slide.

According to CNN:

EBay said it would fold its China subsidiary, eBay Eachnet, into the venture with Tom Online, a popular Chinese provider of games and other value-added online services. EBay will contribute $40 million and own 49 percent of the venture, while Tom Online contributes $20 million, owns 51 percent and has management control.

Apparently, the trouble began in January of 2005, where Ebay reported that its financial performance was falling short of high expectations.

And China is not the only country where Ebay has encountered difficulties.  The company took a similar strategy in June of this year, when it merged its Taiwanese auction site with a local partner, PC Home.   

Meg Whitman, Ebay CEO, maintained that this joint venture shouldn't be considered a failure, but rather a re-adjustment of Ebay's strategy:  "We have determined that every country in Asia is quite unique, and we have to make a decision about every country in Asia, how we want to do business." 

Whitman also noted that "I think you have to be willing to evolve your strategy on a local market basis to make sure you are doing the right thing for your buyers and sellers and the right thing for your company."  It seems strange that essentially pulling out of the world's largest Internet market would be the best decision for the company.  Apparently, operating in China required too much time and energy, occupied too many valuable resources, and took away from Ebay's business ventures elsewhere.  

David Wolf, chief executive officer of Beijing-based technology consultancy Wolf Group Asia, commented:

Few American companies come here prepared to devote the executive time and corporate focus that China demands, and those that don’t give this place the time and attention it deserves are, sadly, doomed to be sent packing.

So who's next??

TechCrunch has an interesting post on this subject from September, 2006.  Check it out here . 

2006 has seen many fantastic developments in the realm of Web 2.0.  Looking back over the year, the growth of sites like YouTube, digg, Facebook, and Wikipedia immediately come to mind.  But 2006 has also brought us many other great websites that, while they are less well-known, are no less fun or interesting.  Here is a round up of some of my favorite off-the-beaten path websites from 2006, which I love for their randomness, creativity, and all-around fun factor.

(more…)

A couple of months ago we ran a demo of our ImpactWatch™ product that analyzed media coverage around the 2006 Senate race in Connecicut.  Today we’re launching another demo that looks at coverage on major gaming websites of the launches of the Playstation 3 and Nintendo Wii gaming consoles.  By signing up, you’ll get access for 5 days to a fully functional version of our ImpactWatch system that covers this topic. 

Please sign up now to get access to the Playstation 3 vs. Nintendo Wii demo.  For more information, visit ImpactWatch.com.  Check back later in the week when we’ll release our first report analyzing coverage.

For the uninitiated, here’s our one sentence summary of what ImpactWatch is.

ImpactWatch™ is a web-based media management platform used by public relations and corporate communications professionals to continuously observe, track, gather and analyze high-volume media coverage of any brand, product, issue, event, or industry.

We launched a new look and feel for our ImpactWatch™ product a couple of months back.  We are in the midst of rolling this out to our clients now.  One cool feature we’ve added the last few months is a "Dashboard" version of the ImpactWatch homepage. 

ImpactWatch users can now choose whether they want a "News" or "Dashboard" view of their ImpactWatch data from their homepage.  We decided to add this feature in recognition of the different ways people use the system.  Some folks login multiple times a day to read articles about their company.  Others login less frequently and are looking more of an overview of what’s going on instead of to read the days news.

You can see screenshots of both views below (click the image for a bigger version).  Both of these versions of the homepage are customized based on the clients needs. 

News View

Dashboard View

You can learn more about ImpactWatch here and sign up for a demo here.

This weekend, Todd mentioned that Time Magazine named "You" the  person of the year.  And by "You", Time means, me, you, us, and them: all the bloggers, You-Tubers, Facebookers, and everyone else that has helped to make the Web and the world of cyber-journalism what it is today. 

I think this was a very interesting choice on the part of the magazine, whose persons of the year are typically incredibly high-profile and mainstream individuals who have had a profound effect on the general public.  As an example, here are some examples of Time’s past Persons of the Year:

• 2005: Bill Gates, Bono, Melinda Gates
• 2004: President George W. Bush (again)
• 2003: The American Soldier
• 2002: "Whistleblowers" Sherron Watkins (Enron), Colleen Rowley (FBI), and Cynthia Cooper (WorldCom)
• 2001: Rudy Giuliani
• 2000: President George W. Bush
• 1999: Albert Einstein
• 1998: Ken Starr and Bill Clinton

Choosing the American cyber-junkie as the person of the year seems like a role reversal: instead of choosing the people that affected the lives of everyday Americans, Time chose the everyday Americans that affected the lives of mainstream celebrities.  This in itself is a testament to how bloggers and citizen journalists have affected ordinary media.

We all know how YouTube and blogs have affected political campaigns and the traditional print media.  But have we ever stopped to think where we would be without Web 2.0?

I think the writers at Time hit the nail on the head when they said:

We’re ready to balance our diet of predigested news with raw feeds from Baghdad and Boston and Beijing. You can learn more about how Americans live just by looking at the backgrounds of YouTube videos—those rumpled bedrooms and toy-strewn basement rec rooms—than you could from 1,000 hours of network television.

That’s what the blogosphere is all about.  No longer do Americans want to accept everything they are fed by the media.  Now, we can decide what’s important, and, thanks to the Internet, we have the tools to make a difference.

I also find it interesting that Time, the nation’s 8th largest magazine, cited its prime competitor as the most notable person of the year.  Is this mere flattery, or does the publication realizes that it needs the blogosphere to survive? 

So who is going to be 2007’s Person of the Year?  It would be great to see the Web editor of a major publication, like the New York Times, nominated for opening its website to Web 2.0 and citizen journalists.  In 2008, it would be great to see a victorious politician who used grassroots Web support to win an election.  Likely? Maybe not.  But a blogger can dream, right?  What’s your prediction?

In a nod to user generated content (blogs, social networks, video sharing sites, etc.), Time Magazine has named "you" the person of the year. 

AP writer Jake Coyle took the time to draft a good list of the Top 10 YouTube videos of 2006. The story appears all over the place.

There is just one problem though. The story doesn’t so much as link to the chosen videos, much less play the videos within the story itself. The experience is actually frustrating. I’m given a seemingly great list but no way to watch the videos without going on some sort of wild goose chase to find them.

I’m on the Internet reading your story. Show me the videos.
Anyway, as a public service, here are embedded versions of his top 5 videos (or concepts in some case).

(1) “The face of YouTube — The cute, bedroom confessions of Lonelygirl15 remain the site’s quintessential expression.”

[gv data="dZN-Wye4rDE" width="425" height="350"][/gv]

(2) “Network wake-up call — ‘Saturday Night Live’s’ “Lazy Sunday” mock-rap sketch was, in some ways, what started the revolution.”

[gv data="SRkFW1gjeL8" width="425" height="350"][/gv]

(3) “Political fallout — YouTube, like the Internet in general, has made it a specialty to reveal the gaffes and mistakes of the establishment.”

[gv data="r90z0PMnKwI" width="425" height="350"][/gv]

(4) “Floundering founders — When Google bought YouTube for $1.65 billion in October, YouTube founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen posted a goofy, unrehearsed video…”

I couldn’t find this one.

(5) “OK, stop — MTV turned 25 this year, but it became clear a long time ago that its programming doesn’t have room for music videos anymore. YouTube’s expanse is endless, of course, and the site turned a little-known power pop group into the music video sensation of the year. OK Go’s video for “Here it Goes Again” was made in one long take with the amateurish creativity that YouTube specializes in. ”

[gv data="GCjSwr7zYtE" width="425" height="350"][/gv]

[Via MediaShift]

This year, 94 percent of businesses will throw a holiday celebration, according to executive search firm Battalia Winston International. That’s a 7 percent increase from 2005.

If you are planning to attend the office holiday party this year, don’t be confused by the word “party”. Although office parties are intended as social events to reward employees and raise morale, in many cases, they still remain business events.

This year, I offered a helping hand in the planning of my company’s holiday party and as I searched the web for possible venues and tips on how to create a fun and relaxing atmosphere for my colleagues, I was surprised to find that there are tons of “guidelines” for how to behave at such events.

I have already broken several of these do’s and dont’s over the years and my job might be in jeopardy but it is not be too late for others.

Here are a few that I found interesting:

1. Do act as though your behavior is being observed (because it probably is).
2. Don’t pass up the invitation to an office party; not attending could be considered offensive to upper management .
3. Do be sure you know exactly who is invited to the party. Spouses or significant others are not always on the guest list for office parties. The office party is also not an opportunity for you to invite friends for free food and drinks.
4. Don’t spend all evening talking work. It shows a lack of interest in connecting with your co-workers and makes you look boring.
5. Do keep all conversations positive. Don’t spend the evening complaining about your workload or clients. It is also a good idea to avoid controversial subjects and off-color jokes.
6. Don’t feel you need to drink excessively. An open bar is not an invitation to get drunk. Moderation is key. You can always drink more after the party.
7. Do remember to avoid wearing anything too revealing or flashy. Don’t use the holiday party to debut your sexy-elf or bad Santa costume. The party is still a business function, so conservative party clothes are a good choice unless otherwise informed.
8. Don’t forget to thank the person responsible for the organizing the party.

Here is a funny video clip from NBC’s The Office of how an office holiday party should not be conducted.
[gv data="XarC0xwZze8" width="425" height="350"][/gv]

Chris Anderson, author of the Long Tail and the editor-in-chief at Wired Magazine, has written two (1, 2) though provoking posts outlining how online media might work in the future. In his second post, he outlines his vision for "radical transparency" by the media. There is some great thinking here. Describing the posts simplistically, Anderson wants to not only show readers what’s behind the curtain at Wired, but let them help control the wizard. Following are the main elements of this "radical transparency" (presented in quotes) and my quick thoughts on each:

(1) "Show who we are. All staff edit their own personal ‘about’ pages, giving bios, contact details and job functions."

Absolutely. I think another key here is to have the reporters actually interact with users via comments, posting clarifications and engaging in friendly bickering. Do this in real time, not through some delayed mailbag type of feature.

(2) "Show what we’re working on. We already have internal wikis that are common scratch pads for teams working on projects. And most writers have their own thread-gathering processes, often online. Why no open them to all? Who knows, perhaps other people will have good ideas, too."

I think it is a great idea to encourage users to submit story ideas and tips or even to ask for input in certain instances. But, frankly, as a magazine reader I don’t think I’d be that interested in knowing everything a magazine is researching. It is just sort of too much. I’d worry this would be used and abused more by interested parties (PR firms, companies, etc.) trying to impact stories before they are written than real people.

(3) "Process as Content. Why not share the reporting as it happens, uploading the text of each interview as soon as you can get it processed by your flat-world transcription service in India?"

I’m a big proponent of publications including the source documents when they publish a piece. And this may make sense for some big cover story type of thing. But in most cases I’m just not going to care. I want to read the short and sweet version and then dive into the source materials if my interest is piqued. Not the other way around. And once again, in most cases the only ones who will care are interested parties trying to slant the story.

(4) "Privilege the crowd. Why not give comments equal status to the story they’re commenting on? Why not publish all letters to the editor as they’re submitted (we did that here), and let the readers vote on which are the best?"

On the comments, no thanks. I think allowing comments on every story is enough. I’m comfortable with the comments being below the story. Of course, Anderson may have some way of doing this design wise that I can’t envision. On the letters to the editor, absolutely. This is something that came up in a follow up to our 9 Ways to Improve Newspaper Websites post. I would love to see this process opened up.

(5) "Let readers decide what’s best. We own Reddit, which (among other things) is a terrific way of measuring popularity. Why should we guess at which stories will be most popular and give those preferential treatment?"

Absolutely. This is exactly what I was hoping for when they bought Reddit. I would just say that there is a sweet spot between a popularity-based news view and an editor-controlled view that hasn’t really been hit on yet (I know Netscape is trying). How about giving the user the ability to switch between the popular and editor views of the site? This was what we tried in our redesign of USA Today.

(6) "Wikifiy everything. The realities of publishing is that at some point you push the publish button. In the traditional world, that’s the end of the story. It is a snapshot in time, as good as we could make it but inevitably imperfect. The errors (and all articles have them) are a mix of commission and omission–we hope for the best yet brace ourselves for the worst. But what if we published every story on a wiki platform, so they could evolve over time, just like Wikipedia itself? The original story would be the foundation of what could eventually become a version expanded and updated by readers."

Great idea. The web isn’t print. Let the story be a living breathing thing and not something disposable.

You can read his full post here. Let us know what you think in the comments.

Update: Netly News has a good piece exploring another problem with this approach: giving away scoops to competitors.

Update 2: Jeff Jarvis weighs in.

We stumbled across a cool “Share This” Wordpress plugin and implemented it on The Bivings Report today. If you look at the bottom of this post you’ll see a “Share This” link. Clicking on that will pop up a window that allows you to add the story to any of the major bookmarking sites and also email the story to a friend or colleague (appearance may vary depending on your browser).

We’d previously had a more limited version of this that only allowed you to add stories to Digg and del.icio.us.

Anyway, I think this is a great plugin. Thanks to Alex King for developing it (and the Popularity plugin we also use).