Welcome to this week’s Carnival of the Capitalists, which is my privilege to host for the second time.
I’ve just come back from a week’s skiing in Austria to find over 50 excellent entries in the carnival’s mail box. While I’ve duly read and mulled over each of them, I can’t help thinking that it’s a daunting task for you, the reader, to give all these great bloggers the attention they deserve in one mega-session.
So I’ve unilaterally decided to break with tradition slightly and publish one batch today and another on Wednesday. Sorry if you hate the idea, but if I’ve made your life a little easier, I’m pleased. Either way, leave a comment below or drop me an email (russell AT mobhappy DOT com) and let me know what you think, so other hosts can take board your feedback.
So, here goes….Carnival of the Capitalists - Part 1:
No Carnival of the Capitalists would be complete without a post from Jay at Accidental Verbosity, not the least because he started the whole idea. This week Jay writes about the horribly familiar problems faced by start-ups with multiple owners. I’m reminded of the quote by the late Giovanni Agnelli, of Fiat who said (I paraphrase); Boards of Directors should always consist of an odd number of members. And never more than two.
The trials and tribulations of entrepreneurship are also covered by Ego. In this instance, Hakan Lans apparently invented a “data processing system and apparatus for color graphics display” used by many computing companies who don’t pay him licenses. Sadly, many legal cases are won by the party with the deepest pockets rather than justice and right on their side. But sometimes the little guy can win - look to James Dyson for inspiration.
Open Source has to be one of the most powerful business and social concepts for the 21st century. PC4Media has been exploring how small businesses can benefit from open source, including a new way to develop commonly required software on a shared risk basis. All that’s needed, it seems to me, is a way of matching companies with similar requirements - a kind of eBay for SME software.
Corporate blogs were the talk of the Blogosphere last year as companies started to experiment with blogging, with varying degrees of success. Good Basic has a run down of the most important, ranging from Yahoo! to Microsoft. Never have “excellent writing skills” been more important for corporate execs than today.
Still on blogging, Will Pate has been writing about his blogging policy. Specifically, he wants to reassure people that he won’t post your secrets on his blog, unless you want him to - a stance shared by most of us I think. This is an important point that’s frequently misunderstood by non-bloggers, so definitely worth clarifying. Don’t assume that every blogger is like this though, so ask before blurting out anything you want keeping secret squirrels.
Jill Fallon of Estate Legacy Vaults has been pondering how marketers can use blogs to reach today’s “multi-minding” women. Jill also includes a list of her favourite women bloggers, which is definitely worth checking out too.
The Enterprise System Spectator has been exploring another new model for companies using software - software on demand. This turns software from a license model to a subscription based one. Pioneered by the likes of Salesforce.com, Webex and Rightnow, this could be the way of the future.
I normally find the world of macro-economics is a bit of a closed book to me, so it was great to read David Foster’s of Chicagoboyz post on whether we currently have a world surplus of capital and what that really means. If I happen to be sitting on a plane next to Henry Kissinger himself this week, as in the old Economist advertisement, I know I’ll be well briefed on at least one area.
Mover Mike has also been pondering economics and the implications of the US national debt. It’s currently a massive $26,347.74 per US Citizen and is increasing at $2.32 Billion per day. In this age of the Pro:Am - where amateurs can often produce work of equal quality, if not better than their professional counterparts, I was amused to see Mike correcting the Sunday Oregonian as to the actual size of debt America faces. The professionals, in this case, seemed to have exaggerated the levels by 300%.
Meanwhile, Individ has been exploring the strategies involved in investing in metals such as copper, gold and molybdenum.
Interested Participant has been looking at Libya’s rehabilitation into the international community, with a series of trade deals with Japan and Korea. Despite warnings from the US government, Libya is actually becoming a booming tourist destination for the adventurous traveler.
Catallarchy has been exploring the argument that welfare payments and positive discrimination actually harm those it’s designed to protect. This is certainly worth looking at further, even though it seems counter-intuitive at first glance.
Slacker Manager (great name) has been looking at better use of email subject lines to help manage our ever expanding email boxes. “911″ seems to be a favourite, though the meaning may be lost on non-Americans.
Better working practice is a theme shared by All Business and the author risks the wrath of her publisher by sharing a favourite tool from her book, the Results Oriented Responses Cheat Sheet. Try it and be impressed.
Keeping abreast of bureaucracy is turning into a full time job for many companies. Coyote Blog warns against inadvertently becoming a black market egg rustler in Kentucky by failing to obtain the proper permissions.
Business Pundit has been pondering why recent advances in cognitive science don’t get applied in business. Maybe it’s something to do with people thinking that this stuff applies to “them” and not us. A similar example is that most people think their use of mobile phones in public is entirely reasonable, whereas other people’s is always disgraceful. Ho hum.
WILLisms has been writing and analyzing about social security reform in the US.
Crossroads Dispatches has been looking at that vital component of success in many fields - creativity. Having great marketing is no longer enough, your products/play/book need to be “remarkable” to succeed these days. The post outlines the 4 stages of creativity with a view to joining the blogger in a voyage of creativity over the next month.
Have Wal-Mart lost the plot, asks Mad Anthony. Well, they may well have on the evidence of Target’s Michael Graves electric can opener by Black and Decker!
If you run a US based business, you could be ready to share in a $6 billion tax refund. Scrivener.net tells you why and how to claim your bonanza.
And finally, on a more light hearted note to end Part One, Window Manager has been looking at how we have to break rules in order to actually get things done in corporate life. Oh how true.
See you on Wednesday, unless I get overwhelmed by irate blog readers asking for the second half NOW. Like Harry Potter’s JK Rowling, I have written the final chapter already so I know what goodies there are in store for you.
I’m voting for “post everything now.”
The whole point of the Carnival is to offer one-stop shopping for all of the last week’s greatest hits. To turn it into a serialized affair negates that point entirely.
I think breaking the COTC apart into multiple posts is a great idea. Lots easier for me to digest, and I’m WAY more likely to actually read other entries.
I prefer all at once, for the same “one stop shop” reason as Brian.
Three important things to consider:
1. Will readership of the second post be much lower than readership of the first?
Currently the links near the top of the carnival get many more click-thrus than links near the bottom. When it’s split in two, will that effect be magnified, with links in the 2nd post getting dramatically fewer click-thrus? Or will people read both equally, with links near the top of both posts getting many click-thrus? In other words, will the click-thru pie get bigger, or will it just be redistributed? (This issue is dear to me this week, being someone whose link was apparently postponed till wednesday :-P)
2. Will the Instapundit link to both?
My experience with hosting the CotC is that 80+% of people arrive through Glenn Reynolds’s link. Is he willing to link to the CotC twice a week?
3. If he is, will this lead to other carnivals following suit?
(in order to get more readers for their carnivals). Do you really want to see a couple posts a day about the different editions of all of the carnivals? “The 3rd edition of this week’s Carnival of the Catblogging is at….”
One other thing to keep in mind: Blogs typically see their hits peak on mondays (even when they aren’t linked in CotC). My guess is that people come in to work, and catch up on blog-reading they didn’t do on the weekend (for shame). One would therefore expect the monday post to get more reads than the wednesday post. Also keep in mind that you’re competing with carnival of the vanities on wednesday.
See if I can persuade you: http://www.gongol.com/random/cotc/posttogether/
Russell,
As a professional marketer, it seems that you split the Carnival into two parts for the benefit of your blog, to see if you could force a second visit of CotC readers to your own site a few days later–not exactly putting the user first, especially if you consider the contributors as important users, too.
I hope it works for you. It definitely didn’t work for us, and we wouldn’t have bothered contributing this week had we known this would be the result of our effort.
You might not get negative feedback from those whose posts were reviewed today, (and I note that you didn’t disappoint Jay or Rob, or you might have really heard about it) and some might even agree with you that it’s not a bad idea. As a rule, most customer relationship managers appreciate that for every one who takes the time to write a complaint there are many who are likewise disappointed but won’t be bothered to let you know.
For our part, we care enough about the CotC to let you have our feedback.
Thanks for your correspondence.
Regards,
Abnu
I like to see people try new things with the Cotc, and I think hosts should have that leeway, but personally I don’t care for the double posting. The way I use it, I don’t read them all anyway. I scroll through on Monday and read all the excerpts then click through on maybe 5-10 posts that really interest me. That’s my $.02
I’m sure there are others like Bren that want it to be split. We may be able to do some different things with that so that we can have our cake and eat it too. Let Jay and I dwell on this for awhile.
Another point is that several times the Cotc has been posted Sunday night. I personally like that because that is a good time for me to peruse through. There never seems to be anything going on in my life on Sunday evening, so I like filling the time with the Cotc. That could solve the no-time-on-Monday-to-read-it problem if we made a standard Sunday evening post time.
I’m an irate blog reader asking you to post the entry *now!*
Count me in the “please post it all now” camp. I don’t see how splitting CoTC offers any benefit. We all have the ability to bookmark pages if we run out of time.
On the negative side, any entries on current events are that much less current come Wednesday.
The CoTC is like a monthly Academy Awards for bloggers, self-nominated, self-referential humor and all…
It is the one time a month we get to see each other’s best postings. Breaking the carnival into two parts does a disservice to those who contribute, to the reader, and to the host who does so without polling the contributors.
A multi-part CoTC is a bad idea. Fix it.
Another vote for a single entry, one-stop post CotC, for much the same reasons as Biran Gongol.
Thanks for all the comments everyone, including the negatives.
Most of the negatives seem to be from contributing bloggers though. And all these bloggers didn’t get into the first edition.
Just for the record, the first post selection wasn’t done on merit - I kept some of the best posts for the second issue, including my own
So there’s no need to feel slighted, if anyone does.
Having said that, this is a reader-driven issue, not a blogger-driven one. We should be focusing on what readers want, not what we have got used to.
Therefore, I’d love to hear from more readers on this.
Russell
Russell:
I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of readers are bloggers. Not necessarily contributing bloggers, but still bloggers.
Why are the bloggers who weren’t in this post upset about it? Because they believe that readership of the second post will be smaller than that of the first. If that is indeed the case, bloggers in the second one are worse off, but readers are worse off as well. Fewer people are exposed to the full range of posts out there, so they’re less likely to see posts they’ll really like.
I think one long, categorized post works the best. If it’s too much to look at all at once, we all know how to use bookmarks. And when it’s categorized, it’s much easier to pick out what interests you. For instance, I’m most interested in posts that directly address business strategy/marketing issues, and I’m not all that interested in posts about blogging or US politics. When all the links are in one place and categorized, it’s much easier for me to quickly pick them out.
If someone does a GOOD job of categorizing, the posts really aren’t all that daunting. And they’re clearly far, far more user-friendly than two semi-long uncategorized posts.
Adam
Thanks for the feedback. But I’m afraid I disagree on several points.
The latest stats I’ve seen are that about 20% of blog readers write blogs, which feels about right to me. Therefore, even conservatively, 3000 non-bloggers have read the first post and don’t feel strongly enough to comment.
I also think it’s dangerous to assume that everyone can use bookmarks, as they can’t. Someone at Microsoft told me last year that 70% of Excel users didn’t know that they could use it to add up columns/rows of figures! They just use it make figures look nice and use a calculator.
And anyone who’s ever watched user testing on a website knows that most people don’t know about or use most browser features.
But the main point I disagree with is the categorisation area. What I love about CotC is the chance to read posts outside my area of interest. I track some 200 blogs that I know will interest me. What I’m looking for CotC to deliver is some serendipity or the opportunity to stumble across fine writing outside my normal reading.
While categorisation does make it easier to “skim” it also takes away this element, which is why I prefer my CotC to have a nice flow, but not be overly categorised.
I also think that it’s nice to have different hosts/editorial styles each week, rather than follow a set formulae.
Just my opinion.
But back to my original point. Don’t any non-blogging readers have an opinion? And what do the bloggers think who *were* in the first post? Do you think it’s a bad idea too?
Russell
This was the first time I submitted to CotC and noticed that I didn’t make the first cut. Not sure if I’ll make the second cut, either. Ah, there’s always hope…
So, consider the thoughts of someone who took the time to try out CotC as a way of projecting their voice out a little further. I was sorely disappointed to find that it was being split and if I knew that this was going to be the case, I might have just waited until next week. If too many “radical” changes like this take place, it might discourage others like myself from submitting. And isn’t that the whole point of this? A way of showcasing familiar and new voices in business blogging?
While I understand your decision, I think if that’s the plan, it really should be mentioned up front. No surprises and no Monday morning backlash.
With that said, I look forward to seeing what tomorrow morning brings.
Two posts is wrong, not because of the two posts, because you did it unilaterally without notice. It’s poor practice to change the rules without notice or input. CoTC is a one day event. In great part, its success is its consistency ñ a schedule of hosts is determined, posts are submitted within a deadline, and the CoTC goes live at a predetermined day.
You expect your paper to arrive each morning at a set time and it delivered as such for a reason. If the carrier suddenly decided to deliver it in the afternoon as opposed to the morning, it wouldn’t work. It might serve the carrier better however, the subscriber is left unsatisfied.
By making a solo decision to break the norm, you served yourself and disserved the CoTC readers and the posters in the second group.