Alberta Business Marketing

Gab Goldenberg feels that Seth Is Wrong On Paid vs Free Journalism.  I am not clear on his reasons for saying that since I feel that Seth Godin would agree with much of what Gab has written.  For example Gab list the reason journalists used to get paid was that:

1. They didn’t mostly leverage the branding that broad distribution got you. Only syndicated columnists typically did well enough to have book deals and speaking gigs that made them any decent money. This was wasted branding, imho.
2. They covered stuff that most people would find it a chore to write up, like municipal politics (Oh no, they’re moving trash day to Sunday!) or that others were not vying to report and for which there was thus no competition (eg Watergate).

He goes on that nowadays, newspapers are mistakenly filling their pages with wire content. This commodifies them. As suggested previously, the path to saving newspapers is more journalism, not less! More research, less rehash!

It all sounds like the same hymn sheet to me.  Perhaps the title was to catch the eye just as that of Seth Godin’s was with Malcolm is wrong.  Seth Godin starts off as follows:

I’ve never written those three words before, but he’s never disagreed with Chris Anderson before, so there you go.  Free is the name of Chris’s new book, and it’s going to be wildly misunderstood and widely argued about.

The Malcolm referred to is Malcolm Gladwell, author of Blink, and someone who is always worth listening to. Seth Godin too is a little wide ranging in his diatribe but his final paragraph is the real meat:

Neatness is for historians. For a long time, all the markets for attention-based goods are going to be messy, which means that there are going to be huge opportunities for people (like you?) able to get that most precious asset (our attention) for free. At least for a while.

Indeed I think messy will now describe the Information space for ever.  There is essentially zero cost and zero barriers for anyone who wishes to add to this Tower of Babel. Two factors will dictate whether anyone can make money out of this. 

1. Some (authors) will do it because they can stand out from the crowd and gain a following.
2. Others (search engines) will make money because they can highlight what others may wish to find. 

Unfortunately for so many others who cannot get anyone’s attention, they will waste their sweetness on the desert air.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Free and Cheap on the Internet (telegraph.co.uk)

Related Posts

• May 18, 2009 — Being Asked Beats Asking (0)
• November 7, 2008 — Crikey! Right Between The Eyes (0)

Post from: The Other Blokes Blog

Buddy, Can You Spare A Dime Or A Minute

Tags: Chris Anderson, free, Internet, Malcolm Gladwell, Seth Godin
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off

Talk about jumping the gun! Alderman Joe Connelly has decided, despite the fact calls for a Developer Panel to discuss Plan It targets are already outlined in the omnibus list of 76 (or so) amendments to Plan It sent to administration two weeks ago, that what they need is a Developer Panel. And he’s making a motion to get things going now, instead of waiting for Administration to digest what they were just sent.

Here’s the text of his motion:

WHEREAS the Plan-It project has produced a visionary document which will establish the “blueprint” for growth and transportation for the next 60 years with an impact on our city that cannot be understated;

AND WHEREAS the assumptions in the Plan-It document suggest a significant change in consumer and commuting behaviors which may or may not occur;

AND WHEREAS the measure outlined in the Plan-It document were seen to be too prescriptive and, in some cases, impossible to achieve;

AND WHEREAS given the challenges of predicting the future, a prudent and cautious approach to the Plan-It strategy should be employed.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the measures being prescribed in the Plan-It document be removed and be developed in the implementation phase of the project.

AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that a committee of industry stakeholders be struck to determine by consensus, measures that can realistically be achieved together with an implementation strategy and make recommendations to Council through the Standing Policy Committee on Land Use Planning and Transportation by 2009 December 09.

I was made aware of Ald Connelly’s motion yesterday in a phone call from Metro Calgary. They asked for my opinion on it. What they basically mentioned to me was Connelly was looking to set up the Developer Panel. You can read my comments in their article but I wanted to go into a little more depth here. (Sound bites only provide so much explanation.)

I had three points to Metro:

1. I agree with Ald. Connelly, we need to get the targets right. This is an important document that helps set out the future of our city. I don’t think anyone wants to delay it any longer than need be. Let’s get on with the process of ‘doing’ already.
2. After more than a year of public consultation (where hundreds of citizens provided their feedback) and a week of public hearings (where almost 200 people signed up to speak to council in the middle of a work day) what more could anyone possibly have to say? If that is not enough time for them to have had their say, how much time would ever be enough?
3. If the development industry did not feel they were given a voice, shouldn’t every other citizen be in the same boat? Why create a panel represented by only one industry? I believe it was Ald. Farrell who said during the hearings that if a panel absolutely had to be struck – thereby admitting the consultation the City has undertaken for the past year was not good enough and that one group of citizens IS more important than another – then there were several developers on the pro-side (such as the developer of Garrison Woods) and many other intelligent citizens (such as Chris Turner and Neil Keough) with exceeding knowledge of such things, who would have a lot to add to that discussion and should be included on the panel.

In short, how many times does council need to do the same thing over and over and over again? Let’s finish the process we’ve already started instead of beginning a new one.

However, what the folks from Metro didn’t tell me was the first part of Connelly’s resolution: that the targets be scraped and be created during the implementation phase. This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a while, and I can’t help but want to laugh and cry at the same time.

What would be the POINT of creating a visionary document, laying out the future growth of the city of Calgary, that does not have any measures indicating how we would do that?! That would be like going on a diet without changing your eating habits or ever stepping on a scale to see if you’re losing weight. (Strangely enough some would argue this would be similar to the odd council plan that has come before and is part of the reason we are on the current issue-riddled path.)

How does one even set goals while already implementing a project? I can’t imagine having built the fence in my backyard without having a plan first. “Let’s just start building a fence and see where it ends up. Once we’re done we can decide if we should have had a goal before we started.”

On the topics of asinine ideas and doing only what the development industry wants, I’m reminded of a comment made by one of the presenters during the Plan It public hearings that went something like this: The development industry tells us they build only what the people of Calgary want. Studies have shown what we want is un-sustainable and will eventually cause taxes to skyrocket or potentially the City to go broke. There are solutions, but when the developers keep offering us the cause of the problem, we’re going to take it because we want it. It is like offering a child a bowl of ice cream for breakfast. They’ll take the bowl of ice cream every day, unless a responsible adult steps in and helps them make the healthy decision – the right decision for the child’s future.

PS – I don’t think the development industry is evil like many on the pro-side of Plan It. For an alternate point of view, where I defend the development industry’s rightful hesitations, see my Think! Alberta posts.

Share/Save

Tags: Calgary, calgary city council, city planning, Joe Connelly, Metro Calgary, Politics
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off

Talk about jumping the gun! Alderman Joe Connelly has decided, despite the fact calls for a Developer Panel to discuss Plan It targets are already outlined in the omnibus list of 76 (or so) amendments to Plan It sent to administration two weeks ago, that what they need is a Developer Panel. And he’s making a motion to get things going now, instead of waiting for Administration to digest what they were just sent.

Here’s the text of his motion:

WHEREAS the Plan-It project has produced a visionary document which will establish the "blueprint" for growth and transportation for the next 60 years with an impact on our city that cannot be understated;

AND WHEREAS the assumptions in the Plan-It document suggest a significant change in consumer and commuting behaviors which may or may not occur;

AND WHEREAS the measure outlined in the Plan-It document were seen to be too prescriptive and, in some cases, impossible to achieve;

AND WHEREAS given the challenges of predicting the future, a prudent and cautious approach to the Plan-It strategy should be employed.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the measures being prescribed in the Plan-It document be removed and be developed in the implementation phase of the project.

AND FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that a committee of industry stakeholders be struck to determine by consensus, measures that can realistically be achieved together with an implementation strategy and make recommendations to Council through the Standing Policy Committee on Land Use Planning and Transportation by 2009 December 09.

I was made aware of Ald Connelly’s motion yesterday in a phone call from Metro Calgary. They asked for my opinion on it. What they basically mentioned to me was Connelly was looking to set up the Developer Panel. You can read my comments in their article but I wanted to go into a little more depth here. (Sound bites only provide so much explanation.)

I had three points to Metro:

1. I agree with Ald. Connelly, we need to get the targets right. This is an important document that helps set out the future of our city. I don’t think anyone wants to delay it any longer than need be. Let’s get on with the process of ‘doing’ already.
2. After more than a year of public consultation (where hundreds of citizens provided their feedback) and a week of public hearings (where almost 200 people signed up to speak to council in the middle of a work day) what more could anyone possibly have to say? If that is not enough time for them to have had their say, how much time would ever be enough?
3. If the development industry did not feel they were given a voice, shouldn’t every other citizen be in the same boat? Why create a panel represented by only one industry? I believe it was Ald. Farrell who said during the hearings that if a panel absolutely had to be struck – thereby admitting the consultation the City has undertaken for the past year was not good enough and that one group of citizens IS more important than another – then there were several developers on the pro-side (such as the developer of Garrison Woods) and many other intelligent citizens (such as Chris Turner and Neil Keough) with exceeding knowledge of such things, who would have a lot to add to that discussion and should be included on the panel.

In short, how many times does council need to do the same thing over and over and over again? Let’s finish the process we’ve already started instead of beginning a new one.

However, what the folks from Metro didn’t tell me was the first part of Connelly's resolution: that the targets be scraped and be created during the implementation phase. This is perhaps the most ridiculous thing I’ve read in a while, and I can’t help but want to laugh and cry at the same time.

What would be the POINT of creating a visionary document, laying out the future growth of the city of Calgary, that does not have any measures indicating how we would do that?! That would be like going on a diet without changing your eating habits or ever stepping on a scale to see if you’re losing weight. (Strangely enough some would argue this would be similar to the odd council plan that has come before and is part of the reason we are on the current issue-riddled path.)

How does one even set goals while already implementing a project? I can't imagine having built the fence in my backyard without having a plan first. "Let's just start building a fence and see where it ends up. Once we're done we can decide if we should have had a goal before we started."

On the topics of asinine ideas and doing only what the development industry wants, I’m reminded of a comment made by one of the presenters during the Plan It public hearings that went something like this: The development industry tells us they build only what the people of Calgary want. Studies have shown what we want is un-sustainable and will eventually cause taxes to skyrocket or potentially the City to go broke. There are solutions, but when the developers keep offering us the cause of the problem, we’re going to take it because we want it. It is like offering a child a bowl of ice cream for breakfast. They’ll take the bowl of ice cream every day, unless a responsible adult steps in and helps them make the healthy decision – the right decision for the child's future.

PS – I don't think the development industry is evil like many on the pro-side of Plan It. For an alternate point of view, where I defend the development industry’s rightful hesitations, see my Think! Alberta posts.

Tags: calgary city council, city planning, Joe Connelly, Metro Calgary
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off

That’s the question on every fundraiser’s mind right now. So what impact has the global recession had on direct mail fundraising in 2009? Recently, we undertook a study of our Client’s 1st quarter acquisition and retention activity to find out and there were some interesting results.

The first significant finding was that our Clients reduced their efforts to acquire new donors via direct mail during the 1st quarter of 2009. Total outbound solicitations dropped 42%, while responses and donation revenue dropped at an even greater rate of 73% and 60% correspondingly. One bright note however – those prospects who did respond donated more on average. While the reduction in new donor acquisition likely saved fundraisers money in 2009, it could have a significant impact on their ability to fundraise in 2010 and beyond.

Surprisingly, there were 13% fewer solicitations to house files in the 1st quarter of 2009 versus 2008. Those donors that responded contributed more than in previous years. The average gift climbed by almost 3%, resulting in an increase in the gross revenue per mail piece. However, as with prospects, existing donors responded less frequently than in previous years – although the decline in response was no where near as severe as with prospects.

So what can we take away from these results? There seems to be no question that fundraisers were cutting campaigns in early 2009 as a result of the recession. However, given the results from the mailings that did occur, it’s unclear whether that strategy was the right one. In the case of house mailings, response rates stayed relatively consistent with the previous year while average gift increased indicating that those fundraisers who cut back on their house programs left money on the table. In the case of prospect mailings, results were down. However, those fundraisers who did prospect will be in a much better position to take advantage when the recession ends as they’ve added to their house file. So while it appears that Canadians are giving less in 2009, those organizations who continue to fundraise will stand to benefit during a recovery when Canadians begin to open their wallets again.

Authored by Kamy Zarbafi, Vice President Publishing Services/Fundraising Services at
Cornerstone Fundraising

Tags: Not-for-Profit
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off