"A Fred divided against himself cannot stand!!"

So people are complaining about having to trudge through all of Fred's posts about his family, his travel, and his music to get to his posts about venture capital.  Its affecting how he posts and really has him troubled.  Frankly, I think some of his readers are being obnoxious, and I'd be offended if I were him.  Fred's a nicer guy than I am.

Didn't we all agree that blogs are a conversation?  Blogs are about people...  whole people.  Even if you only post about one particular subject, if its a post from the heart its about more than just politics, technology, marketing or law.  The smallest atomic element of blog isn't a post or a category.  Its me.  I am the smallest atomic element on my blog.  To really know me through this blog is to pay attention to all of it.  Sure, you can highlight a post or sort categories to find something in particular, but to break off part of it and disregard other parts to suit your liking or, even worse, suit an argument, is taking something out of what is a lot of surrounding context. 

This whole professional vs. personal conversation matter reminds me of our mixers for the SEMI mentoring program at NYSSA.  I remember this one hot-shot quant Stern student coming up to me and asking me if I knew/dealt with synthetic derivatives while I was at GM.  I told him that I knew what they were, but since this was an after work function, surely there could be more interesting things to talk about.  I mean, we were supposed to be assessing whether you wanted to get matched up for a whole summer with someone.  I didn't choose to mentor that student.

My blog has even less posts about VC and tech than Fred's does, mostly because I'm still learning and don't feel I have a lot to add to the already great conversations that are going on.  If someone asked me to cut down on my kayaking and softball posts, I'd tell them to take a hike. You wouldn't put up with that in person.  Why should you put up with that on a blog?  Imagine if an entrepreneur came to meet with Fred, and Fred opened the meeting by saying, "You caught me at a good time, because my daughter just won her basketball game."  What do you think his reaction would be if the entrepreneur responded by saying, "Yeah, I'm really not too interested in your family.  I'd like to talk about the video blogging space and hear your thoughts on that." 

I think that's just plain rude and it doesn't seem like that's the kind of person we'd like to do business with.  I say that because that's not the kind of person Brad and Fred seem to enjoy working with.  I'm pretty sure "investing in rude, self-centered people who aren't interested in others and can't empathize with the people they work with" isn't in our investment thesis.  It takes minimal effort to listen to someone's 2 minute family shpeel and almost no effort to skip through posts with titles like "Fordham loses another softball game" if you're reading on an RSS reader.  (At least its really easy on Feed Demon, anyway.)  Someone who can't listen isn't going to make a very good entrepreneur (and I'm not saying that b/c I know about venture capital... people who don't listen don't make very good anythings...) because they think they have all the answers and, well, no one does.  I don't.  My co-workers don't.  That's why listening and paying attention to the bigger picture is so important.

Not only that, if you have any networking skills whatsoever, you won't glaze over Brad's piloting story, but you'll listen intently and note it on the back of the business card you collect from him.  "Pilots plane."  Charlie:  "Kayaks on the Hudson."  Joshua:  "Doesn't like rollercoasters."  Inevitably, you're going to need something else to talk about sometime... a way to make a sincere connection.  Otherwise, you just have your business, and then what if we pass on it?  How will you keep up the connection?  Plus, what if some major life event gets blogged about and you're just subscribed to just the VC tag?  If I knew someone was reading my posts about technology and they totally skipped over the fact that I lost my family pet, I'd think they were pretty insensitive.  When I was at GM, every single placement agent and investor relations person worth their salaries knew about Larry Rusoff's three girls.  Did they really care about how the little ones were doing?  Maybe... maybe not, but it was worth mentioning, because it would bring the best out in him.

No, this is who we are.  Get to know the people of Union Square Ventures.  Fred's a family guy who loves music.  I'm into team sports and outdoor activities.  Brad's a pilot (the things you don't know about non-bloggers...) and a sailor... and he has twins.  We don't talk about business 100% of the time, and if you want to get to know us, you need to get to know us sincerely--meaning accepting the whole us. 

I will never separate my RSS feeds into categories.  Read all of me or read none of me.  Skim what you're not as interested in, that's fine, but don't expect me to cut my thoughts/persona into little chunks to be divided out by my audience segments. 

Link: Bubblegeneration - Evil Corporations Only.

Good blog.  Great resources.  Check the sidebar for some really interesting presentations and articles on digital music and peer created content.

Yesterday, I got an e-mail from the VP of Strategy and Planning of Trylon Communications.  It was a mass e-mail with the subject "BDI Blog Event - Continuing the Conversation".  Trylon co-sponsored this blogging conference that I went to a couple of weeks ago that I really didn't find particularly interesting.   Then, on top of that, they sent me another mass e-mail today.  Basically, they're touting their services, but if anything, they're making it blatently obvious that either a) they didn't actually attend the conference or b) they don't understand blogging at all.   Here's the jist of the exchange:

"Dear Charlie,                                                 

Thank you for attending the BDI blog event on May 3^rd.  I hope you found the presentation on “Blogs and the Impact on Media Companies” to be worthwhile.   On behalf of Trylon Communications which co-sponsored the event, and our President/CEO Lloyd Trufelman who spoke on the panel, we wanted to provide some follow-up since there was so little time to answer everyone’s questions on the topic."

I didn't go to the panel.  I signed up for it, but struck up an interesting conversation with a PR person from the American Foundation for the Blind and skipped out.  Now there's a productive group.  They just published quick tips on making blogs accessable to the visually impaired.

"Accordingly, I am forwarding links to some recent articles that might be of interest.  The first, by USA Today’s Kevin Maney, reports that blogs might not be new, but rather a continuation of a press trend that began in the 18^th century! "

You don't say?  Wow, that's really... um... interesting, I guess...  if I was into bar trivia.  The other links she sent?  One from New York magazine and the State of the Media report.  Nothing like passing links on blogging written by mainstream media to someone who not only blogs, but teaches an MBA course on blogging.  But that's not even the best part!  They link to a PDF press release (eek..  a press release!  How non-bloglike!) and cite that blogs are...

"a PR opportunity that our firm noted back when Web logs emerged in 2002 and has been practicing on behalf of our clients ever since."

Hmm... So you've been at this for 3 years and you tell me by linking to a press release in a mass e-mail that I never opted-in for?  Somewhere out there, Steve Rubel's "spidey-sense" is going off and he can't figure out where the trouble is.  Its right here, Steve... in my inbox.

"Considering our firm’s track record of delivering cost-effective, tangible editorial and corporate PR results exclusively for many top trade and consumer publishing and media clients nationwide since 1990 (all without strict billable hours or long-term contracts),  there may be a future match between our expertise and your company’s needs."

I highly doubt it.

So, I replied and gave them all the reasons why they should be blogging this, maybe politely informing me of their blog, and then never contacting me by e-mail again unless I ask for it, and simply letting me decide whether or not I want to subscribe to their blog.  I also asked where the opt-out link was on their e-mail.

The response?

I get this awful thing in my inbox...

  Now I'm on their "PR Ideas" HTML newsletter mailing list.  Unsubscribe?  I have to type in my name and my e-mail and then click a box and then click submit if I want out.  So, you send me mail, then I have to type in the e-mail address you just sent me this mail at in order to stop getting it?  I'm sketched out beyond words. 

Pubsub presented at the conference.  Let's see if they subscribe to their own Pubsub feed and find this.  I can't wait to hear their response.

Lesson for the day:   Don't spam a blogger.

So yesterday, I broke 1000 hits for the first time, and I'm on track to probably do close to that again today.  I have 80 subscribers via my Feedburner feed (I can maybe name 6 of them) and lord knows how many on my Typepad feeds.

However, most of you are pretty quiet.  Most of the people who comment aren't into RSS, so I've got this population of people that I don't know who like to read.  Now, my guess is that most of my traffic comes from Fred's blog, so you're reading b/c you want to hear what's going on with Union Square Ventures or our portfolio companies.  That's fine, of course.  But I'm just sort of curious who some of you are, so if you'd like to introduce yourself for the first time via comments, to me and the rest of the crowd, feel free.  I'm particularly curious who CBT the Mac User is and whether or not there are people who know me who check this out, but don't actually tell me that they read. 

Any friend of Judith Light is a friend of mine.  Come on, you know you watch Lifetime.  Admit it.  Plus, being able to trackback someone you just saw on VH1 makes the world seem just a bit smaller, no?

BTW...  VH1 really has the formula down pat no?   Its just the same show over and over again... celebrity clip, voiceover and aside from hilarious celebrity commentator.  Whether its "I love the 80's" or "Worst career moves ever" its gold, Jerry, GOLD!

Phillip Seymor Hoffman for Robert Scoble was just too easy, but nice work elsewhere.  Link: hyku | blog - Casting "Blog" the Movie - Josh Hallett.

Kottke wrote a post called A whole new internet? (kottke.org) and basically said that the business of creation on the internet, in many places, is getting in the way of creation itself--that the people that were once community and discussion leaders, like Mena Trott (or rather, anyone fitting a Mena-like profile), are now too busy making businesses out of tools to contribute to the community in the same way.  Mena responded here. 

I'm sure it was a lot of fun when today's doers were doing things out of their basements and they had the time to be the leading voices.  But, you can't do that forever.  Things change... and they change for the better.  Would Six Apart, or blogging in general, be better of Ben and Mena were still coding out of their house?  Same thing with Joshua Schachter.  Would del.icio.us be better off if Joshua continued working a fulltime job and then slaving away late at night and on weekends building this great service?  No way!  Truth is, a little more in the way of resources and organization can do great things for a grassroots, individual effort.  Its not the solution for everyone, but it works in many situations when done right.  Maybe the niche little tech community loses a voice to a bit of distraction, but the whole non-bleeding edge community gains as a result, and their feedback, their voices, and their insight are just as valuable as anyone elses.  The Mena-likes are not contributing less now because they blog less, they're contributing MORE with their deeds.  It reminds me of when people say that you're not successful if you're only a teacher.  To me, if you've enabled the minds of others, you've used your own mind in a very positive and productive way.

As user generated content becomes more important, does identity become less important?

I was thinking about this when I was watching Scoble and Steve Gillmor talk about attention.xml in their little home movie.  Was I watching because its was Robert Scoble and Steve Gillmor?  Eh... Not really.  I mean, that's how I found the video, because I'm more likely to find things from the more popular blogs, but when I was consuming the content--watching the actual video, I don't think I really cared who they were.  In fact, I had to look it up to remember who Steve Gillmor was.  I forget "who" I'm reading all the time, especially when I read RSS feeds and they strip away the format.

I think, in today’s world, the playing field of publishing has never been more level, and it doesn’t matter if you’re the NY Times of a blogger…  your stuff has to stand up on its own.  Legitimacy comes more from being vetted and approved by the community at large than by reputation. 

What about my own content?  Does the amount of myself that I offer up to the masses make my identity more or less critical?  When I post on my blog, my thoughts, in my view, belong to everyone...they become part of a community wide conversation, to be clipped, quoted, linked to, commented on and to inspire new thoughts.  Sure its on my blog, but what does “ownership” really mean?  Do I really own my content if anyone can use it?  Google makes money off my content--a lot more than I do.  So will Feedburner, at some point...and Bloglines and whoever.  I certainly don't feel like I own it when its offered up to the public.

As for my identity, do people read my stuff because I'm Charlie O'Donnell?  Maybe some.  Do people read because they think I'm some punk analyst that has a greater chance of spilling the beans on the del.icio.us valuation than Fred does?  Probably, but again, that's about the content, not about me specifically.  They'd read the blog of Benny, the front desk guy at 915 Broadway, if they thought they'd get the same information out of him. And yet, because of all of this user generated content, we now we have more personal information about ourselves that ever before.  We know about Brad Feld's reading habits, Jen Chung's eating habits, and my cholesterol level. 

Given the old rules of supply and demand, one might argue that the more information that gets put out there, the less valuable it is, but in Web 2.0, that’s not necessarily true.  To a point, the more information you have about me, the more valuable it is.  Knowing that I am a Mets fan might be valuable, but knowing that I’m a Mets fan and a kayaker is even more valuable, especially if you’re trying to sell me a paddle with a Mets logo on it via AdSense.  However, is information like that valuable because I, Charlie O’Donnell, am a kayaking Mets fan?  Not really, because if I was the only one, you couldn’t really make a business out of selling one Mets paddle.   No, what really makes my identity valuable is the small group that I belong to—the subset of kayaking Mets fans, and blogging, social networks, Web 2.0 is all about that…  small groups.  What makes Scoble and Gilmor’s conversation meaningful to me is the fact that these two guys are connected to a subset of other like-minded people that they have not only been influenced by, but that they will also influence, and I find this group to have value.  Their conversation, in the grand scheme of the world, isn’t that important, but to an analyst at a VC firm—any analyst, not just me… the group of VC analysts—it is important.  This is what helps give value to things like the list of RSS feeds I subscribe to or the things I tag in del.icio.us.  Both put me in the context of a group and say much about me… or rather, the kind of characteristics people in my small group share. 

Sure, Charlie O'Donnell has a unique voice in that group…   or does he?  I tend to think that, more and more, its not about my unique voice, but more of the aggregate conversation my small group is having that is really meaningful.  If I’m not taking part in a conversation, then I’m just grandstanding and talking for my own benefit—not particularly valuable to anyone but me.