does twitter improve memory?

Last month I read an article in Wired about a woman who remembers everything. You name a date and she’ll tick off hundreds of events that have happened to her on this date. The publicity eventually attracted  Wired. The article reached the new conclusion that the reason she remembers so much is because she has a form of OCD that makes her take detailed notes on her life which she feels compelled to re-read.

I found this interesting because I kept a journal back around 2000 for a few years. When I go back and read the detailed entries about my day, things that had all but completely disappeared from my mind rush back. Stories and events that were such a big deal, then doomed to be forgotten, are revived. Nostalgia aside, I think it’s helpful. Seeing how I thought about things, reacted to events, people, challenges, successes, etc is helpful for me to compare and contrast where I am today. It’s easy for me to think that everything is different in my life now. While , it’s in some ways true, in many others, the same themes are still present and powerful. Events change, but the themes have been constant. Without my record, it’s easy for me to remember that past very differently.

As I think about the Wired article’s conclusions: that memory is strengthened by how we treat, record, and revisit it, I wonder how memory is changing. With our Facebook status updates, blogs, and Tweets, millions of us are constantly sharing details of our lives. Will this act of recording, sharing, and commenting on our lives enable us to remember better? Whereas previously, we had to live in the moment, today, we constantly stop and “document.”

Then again, if all of our social posts contain little substantive contemplation of our lives, it’s doubtful any of it will be very useful 🙂

facebook, twitter and corners.

Back in the day, around age 10, I went door-to-door selling greeting cards, candy, and other random things from a catalog. We’re talking big money here: I probably made $2 for every item sold. Things were going well until the day I got the newest catalog in the mail and then canvassed my neighborhood.

A curious thing happened at the first few houses. At first I thought it might just be an anomaly. It wasn’t. Someone was moving in my territory. People were telling me that “my partner” had already stopped by and/or they had already place an order. From previous years I knew that there were other people selling the same stuff in my development. We seemed to have naturally settled into defacto boundaries to make life easier on all of us. That is, until now.

So what happened? When the next catalog came out, I rushed out to sell way into his territory. With my beloved mother backing me, I had my competitive advantage of no money down (she fronted the cash allowing me to not ask for money up front, reassuring prospective customers that I was not a 10-year old scam artist) allowing me to hustle some new volume. Within a few cycles, detente was reached. This was sort of the G-rated version of people getting popped over corners on The Wire. OK, maybe not.

What the hell am I talking about? Facebook and Twitter, of course. This post is mostly for my friends in the Valley. In the normal world, no one really cares about battles between websites. Here we live for this stuff. But I digress… As many of you have no doubt already experienced, Facebook launched a completely new home page among other things.

Two things spell out the declaration of war:

The adoption of the Twitter stream look:
Naturally, the public (especially social media “experts” and the media) have caught on to the fact that Facebook has jacked Twitter’s flow and incorporated it. There’s not much to say here, as the visual similarities are so clear.

Making Facebook the place where celebrities want to broadcast.
I think that one of the biggest drivers of Twitter’s surge in mainstream adoption has been the influx of celebrity users. I follow Shaq. Ashton Kutcher, Demi Moore, Britney Spears, Barack Obama’s campaign, and a ton of other notables have used twitter to broadcast snippets from their “lives.” This kind of direct connection would have once only been possible through watching TV or reading a magazine. It can be powerful stuff. Facebook has, until now, only had extremely limited “Fan Pages.” But now, with these pages becoming much more like regular profiles and allowing public figures to broadcast information in a uni-directional manner similar to Twitter, Facebook has moved to head off one of Twitter’s most popular aspects. With this new page functionality, and vanity URL’s (soon to come?) it’s clear that FB means business. Facebook want to be the platform of choice for public figures, and they want them badly.

Facebook has some of the smartest talent in the Valley. It’s safe to assume that they’ve analyzed how many people are piping their tweets into their facebook statuses. With that number growing, that makes for unhappy Facebook’ers. It’s a strong sign that you’re in danger of being disintermediated. If you’re facebook, that can’t stand. Strike one.

Strike two: Twitter was becoming the service de jour of celebrities. You could practically see it. It seemed like every other day Stewart or Colbert was mentioning them or a new celebrity was signing up. Shaq has even been encouraging interaction with his fellow twitteroni’s. I can hear the conversations now. johnny: “Why would I want to sign up for Twitter?” miguel-ramon: “Because I talk to shaq, diddy, and a bunch of people we know on there.” It’s a dead-simple, pretty cool value proposition.

The Facebook crew watched Friendster get eclipsed by MySpace, and then they, themselves, did the dirty to MySpace. Seeing a near hockey stick growth curve, a lot of twitter action within their own service, and the popular media/celebrities fawning over Twitter is a recipe for higher highs, and so facebook tried to, apparently, buy twitter. No deal. So now facebook has decided to come for that corner.

Battles aren’t fought in one direction though. Can Twitter stand pat and wait for Facebook to bludgeon them with their near 200MM active user advantage? By the way, they’re *adding* 5MM users a week. That means they’re adding a Twitter every week to their user base. So, standing pat probably isn’t the play. So what is? I’ll suggest going after Facebook’s corners. Facebook makes it killer easy to efficiently share information, content, photos, etc (I’ve been a die-hard facebook fanboy/addict for years). Twitter should allow you to link/import your content shared elsewhere on the web. I post photos to flickr and link it to my twitter account and my followers get a tweet. I upload a YouTube video? My followers get a tweet. I comment on a blog using my twitter identity? My followers get a tweet. I buy tickets to a concert and want to tell my friends. All of this is opt-in (so relax!) Tweet. You get the picture. If this clutters up the Twitter stream, why not add a second tab for shared content? Wow, wait a minute, that looks like Facebook! Oh, and while you’re at it, why not auto-create a classification for me of “friends” (people who follow me back) vs me and Shaq who it’s clear that I’m not friends with. Privacy matters to many, and this would allow granularity of who gets to see these updates. Wait a minute, information sharing is starting to look very similar…

Will this happen? I have no idea. But I call tell you what Avon, Stringer or Marlo would have done…OK, maybe not Stringer. I still remember back when he was trying to explain to a recently-returned-from-prison-Avon why they shouldn’t be worried about reclaiming their corners and focus on the bigger picture. But, I digress.

Oh, and if I was twitter, I so would not be stressing monetization right now. The future of communication is at stake! (sic)

attention & value.

One of the reasons I love writing is that it makes me form coherent thoughts. This process sometimes ends up changing how I view a topic. My previous post on what we value has ended up being one of those times.

We live in a world of insane inattention. For me it started with AIM back in ’96. You signed-on and messaged people whenever you wanted. Eventually you just never shut it off. Next, email became indispensable. Then I not only IM’ed friends, but checked their away messages every little bit to see what was going on (the *original* status message!) Blogging. Facebook. Twitter. Brightkite. Google Lattitude. Nowadays it’s more the ridiculously awesome content freely available & constantly updated: drudge, nyt, espn, huffington, politico, message boards, list, goes, on, and, on. All of these things compete, relentlessly, for my attention.

My original post was really about the meta and questioned how we viewed life. This eventual impacted me in 15 minute increments. Tim’s written well on this topic and is what his book is all about. 43 folders has always been about this whole philosophy. Here’s my take and thoughts:

1) I’m using BubbleTimer. It sounds kind of anal. OK, I guess it *is* kind of anal. The premise is that you define a set of things that you want to and actually spend time on. You then bubble in where you actually just spent that last 15 minutes.

One, it holds you accountable. When focused, fifteen minutes is a ton of time. It’s harder to get sidetracked when you realize that you’re documenting your weaknesses. It actually reminds me of one of the few things I still remember from 4th grade. Our teacher taught us this cool hack where when things got too crazy busy and we felt overwhelmed, we should stop what we were doing and just stare at a clock for 60 seconds. Doing nothing else, helped you realize how much time we actually have.

Two, you get great data visualizations back which like using Quicken, Mint, or Smallspend for your money will help you make some choices to improve things. I’ll see where I spent too much time, too little time, etc.

Three, it helps with goal setting & tracking. We each set high-order goals around New Years. Go to the gym. Talk to Mom more, etc. Well, you can set time max and min’s here. If you don’t bubble in the necessary time here, then you’ll see that you failed. Pretty good for that accountability thing.

2) I’ve given up on email. Sort of. I turn off my Gmail notifier and don’t constantly check my work email anymore. If you’re like me, you feel an urgency to respond to everything asap. I hate to leave someone hanging, so I end up spending way too much time responding to emails. Aside from the raw time of email, it also interrupts my workflow. It might start with checking and responding to an email. But I eventually end up on espn.com or on the couch watching House M.D. (how awesome is that show, btw?) So I’m doing email at set times and trying to ignore at all others. Many of the really sharp, productive people I know do this. I’ve finally gotten on the bandwagon. For now. I’ve tried and fallen off a number of times on this over the years. I’m also paring back substantially on twitter, facebook, linkedin, IM, and my other social indulgences.

3) Everything is a draft. This is probably the most singularly meaningful change I’ve made. It came from this post: Accept that everything is a draft. It helps to get it done.

It’s only been a few days, but this has been a ridiculously liberating line. I’ve always had some amount of trouble pushing things out there. Why? Probably because I was used to get reprimanded as a kid for stuff that wasn’t done right. I guess this produced a fear of failure. I’ve thought a ton about fear of failure and it’s impact on my life from a macro level, but not in the micro. Since I was nervous about not creating perfection, I dreaded starting and  sharing my work. Now, what I try to do is get something done as quick as possible and reassure myself that it’s just the roughest possible draft. I try and judge it like that. It’s freed me up to just do it, and then figure out the rest later. If you’ve ever felt this pang, repeat the mantra of “everything is a draft.” So great.

4) Do it or kill it. From the same list: Banish procrastination. If you wait more than a week to get an idea done, abandon it. Married together with #3 above, this is a recipe for just getting stuff done. I’ve always had a million ideas bouncing around in my head. But since I want the perfect way to do them, it often takes me too long (if ever) to get them out there. When my alternative is to do something within a week or never, it spurs action.

In this world of realtime sharing, our attention is more precious and in demand than ever. I could spend half my day reading my Google Reader feeds, responding to emails, seeing what my friends are up to, reading magazines, etc, or I can control my attention and try to marry that up to what I value.

So I’m seeing two stages:
Stage 1: On the day-to-day, what matters? What do I consider high value and things that I’m satisfied I did at the end of the day? What’s not?
Stage 2: At the 1000 foot level, and specific to how I want to go forward, what matters to me? What would I be disappointed I never did in my life if I only had a few years to live?

Stage 2 informs stage 1, but gaining more control of your minute-to-minute will embolden and free you for the higher order thinking. Hopefully this ramble wasn’t too theoretical. It’s past 1 at night and I’ve been sort of distracted talking to arjun on IM 🙂 Oh, and forgive poor grammar, this is a published draft.

could vs should.

For the past few years the one thought that has never been far from mind is my “could vs should” debate. Essentially, I think we’ve become a society that has stopped asking if we “should” do something and instead default to if we “could” do it. “Can we get away with it?” has become our guiding imperative. In fact, asking if we should actually do something, when we’re able to do it, will probably cause people to wonder if you’re nuts.

Think about this example. It’s imperfect but might work: You’ve worked for years and are fortunate to make enough money to build some savings. Now, say bad times hit and you get laid off, but you have your savings to fall back on for now. Do you collect unemployment insurance? Of course, you could collect it. One on hand, this is what you’re supposed to do (it’s expected, right?). You and your employer have paid into the fund. On the other hand, should you? You know that lots of people are losing their jobs, and the state really doesn’t have enough money for everyone in the end. You have your savings, so you don’t really need it. But is that fair you might ask? The reason the guy down the street who lost his job doesn’t have any savings is because he spent all his money on a BMW and a flat-screen while you saved. So should you? Based on my small sample of friends, it’s an insane question to even ask.

I’ll note that the question of how to think about could vs should is something I’ve been chewing on since college, but really only hit close to home in the past few years. I found The Apprentice to be the ultimate personal experience with could vs should. Why? Because the whole experience is sort of like life on steroids. It’s so much of our everyday just compressed into a finite time period. The goal was clear, last each “week” until you get “hired” as “The Apprentice.” With this goal in mind, everyone did everything they possibly *could* to win. This included undermining one another, lying, ganging up, sabotage, and whatever else you can think of. In fact, this is what got under my skin during filming. The entire time we were taping I was practically a monk in my calm. My fellow contestants were always remarking at how quiet and even keeled I was. That is except after episode five when almost everyone around me decided to forget what actually happened and said whatever they thought would give them the advantage. I was livid (though, in retrospect, how naive was I to expect any different?). I got back after the boardroom and tore into my “teammates” asking them to not lie, and reminding them that they all had jobs, family, friends to go back to after the show was over and that they should remember that as they lived in this little lord of the flies fairytale world. Anyway, before going on the show, I thought long and hard about could vs should and did my best to only act in ways that I thought I should. Could I get away with a lot more? Oh, yeah. But I knew I shouldn’t and I let that guide me.

Bringing this home, I find that this problem starts not just with individuals but the institutions around us. We’re not asked to do the right thing. To sacrifice. To really, truly help each other. To ask ourselves if we should be doing something. Instead we’re told to always act in our own best self interest. That this is what a great American capitalist would do. That in doing this, and taking it to its extreme, we maximize all of our mutual self-interest and outcomes. Perfection ensues. I think this is a load of horseshit. As I look around me and a horribly battered world economy, I can’t help but conclude that this is the result of these ideas to their natural conclusion.

Of course that mortgage broker didn’t ask if he *should* be trying to approve the guy who’s making minimum wage for his $500K mortgage. The broker just asked if the guy *could* be approved. I mean everyone was doing it. Why wouldn’t it be OK? How about a level above him, the investment bankers who were chopping up these securities into tranches and selling them off to whoever. Should it make sense that you could make risk completely disappear from subprime mortgages? Not really, but who cares? The market said you could do it. Could the US as a whole continue to consume waaay more than we produced? Why were we or our government not asking if we should be? The list is endless.

I was reminded of this simple debate in my head as Barry Schwartz spoke at TED on our loss of wisdom. And that’s really what this is, isn’t it? Asking “should” is really using wisdom instead of defaulting to arbitrary limits.

As one thinks about could/should, you are naturally led to decisions. When you ask should, you’re really making yourself think hard about countless decisions that you might otherwise default to whether or not you’re allowed to/what everyone else is doing. And that brings me to the conclusion. Some thoughts on how I make decisions.

In my first position at P&G the head of our group, would always boil decisions down to principles. She’d ask what’s our principle here? If we had a principle in place, than we’d reason through it that way. If we didn’t, we’d find our way towards creating a new one. Making our decisions based on principles was a great way to do the right thing and not get caught up in the BS. Is it common sense? You bet. But since then, I’ve been lucky enough to observe literally thousands of people and business situations. And in 99% of them expedience (the “could”) dictates what gets done. Virginia, in her graceful way, always strove to avoid could and instead ask the should question. So that’s one of my decision criteria: What’s the principle here?

I’ve made really bad decisions in my investments. I’ve invested in the stock market since like 11th grade, and I think I’ve lost money almost every year. Just terrible timing and decisions. But out of these bad decisions came a pretty good principle for decision-making. When deciding whether or not to sell a stock, I found the most effective guide was asking myself “what would I regret more a year from now?” If I found that I’d regret not selling at a profit because I was greedy for more, than I’d sell. If instead, I found that I’d regret more missing out on a stock that could go through the roof, than I wouldn’t sell. Putting myself in my future shoes, and picturing which would cause more regret made my decisions so much easier.

My last big decision making tool is my newest. And, I guess, it’s not even really a decision tool. Basically when I’m stressed about a decision, or when I’m in a really, really bad situation, I ask myself a really simple question. “5 years from now, when I look back on this moment, how do I want to remember handling it? What will I be proud of myself for?” Usually a pretty clear image of what I’d actually be proud of comes to mind, and then I try to focus on acting in that way. A whole bunch of decisions automatically get made and I get to work. I think it’s my version of Jack (LOST reference!) letting the panic overtake him for 5 seconds, counting it down, and then purging it from his mind.

This was a long, meandering post that I’m sure no one made it to the bottom of. But as I look around at the world around me, I can’t help but think we’d be in a far better place if, as a society, we valued decision making more. If we valued the long term, and the collective best interest. And to me, all of these things come back to “could” vs “should.”

Oh. And maybe this is burying the lead. But it’s not lost on me that this was the year of “Yes we can!” Ironically, I think it should be “Should we?”

a better stimulus plan?

I meant to post on this last week when Friedman’s op-ed in the NYT hit, Start Up the Risk-Takers. Friedman, not surprisingly, beats up on the US autos among others, and says that instead of giving them more money, we should instead turn to venture capital. He proposes giving the top VC’s (top 20%) a slug of money to invest in new technologies and then collect a share of the profits (80%) in exchange for this seed capital.

Fred Wilson, one of the most well respected VC’s in the business, responded on his blog: No thanks. Basically, he asserts that the problem isn’t a lack of money but that too much dumb money came in. Now we’re getting the crap washed out of the system, and the strongest investors still have money that they are putting to work.

While this little dialogue was interesting, I was troubled that this was even being talked about. It’s like the obvious was invisible to everyone discussing the topic. While money is important (and may or may not be the issue depending on who you believe), the bigger problem is complexity and bureaucracy.

The government should be making it far easier for people to start companies. Bottom line.

What if the Obama administration proposed a dramatic set of new rules intended to jumpstart new business creations?:

1) Minimize the complexity for forming a company. Today there seem to be about 8 different types of business types that you form (LLC, Inc, partnership, etc) and in any one of the states all with rather bizarre differences. How about a single, simple filing type which gets a company off the ground and “formalized.” It gives you the flexibility to finalize the specific type of business you want to be after your business gets traction. Why worry about tax treatments, etc upfront? Let people start the thing, and sort out the details later. Put the form online so that anyone can fill out the one page web form and in a matter of hours, their business is formally created. We need to cut the red tape.

2) Eliminate the complexity within a business at the start. Everything from hiring more employees to expanding office space is supported through the SBA or another body. Let’s make it as easy as using TurboTax to figure out how to add new employees, etc. I can picture an online form that asks simple questions and gives you the advice you need, makes changes to your corporate structure as a result, and recommends who to use if you need to use a vendor.

3) Health Care. One of the major (non-monetary) costs of our current health care system is that it is tied to employers and stifles innovation. Health care plans & costs for small companies is often prohibitively expensive. I’ve long argued that the reason we needed to see massive health care reform is not on moral grounds, but because it was such an impediment to the creation of small-businesses and entreprenuership.

The new economy that is going to have to be built to sustainably drive the world forward from here will, in my opinion, have to be driven by entrepreneurs and small companies. Technology has set us up for a world where david can regularly take on and beat goliath. This is awesome. As a country, we need every last drop of creativity and entrepreneurial drive we can wring out of our citizens. To tap into that we need to make it turnkey easy for anyone to start a new business. From there, the government can help create a transparent marketplace for these companies. The private sector will take it from there, and investors such as Fred Wilson, Reid Hoffman, Paul Graham, Andreessen and the slew of other great minds in the space will provide money and the advice needed to build great companies.

It’s disappointed that everyone’s answer to everything has become MORE MONEY. The black hole that is our financial system will continue to destroy more than its share of money for some time to come, so let’s think broader (and more intelligently). Let’s create more efficient and effective government that does it’s part, gets the hell out of the way, and allows individuals to unleash what’s best with themselves.

the reporting business.

Time magazine writes an article this week on “How to Save Your Newspaper.” Their conclusion? Micropayments. Basically, allow people to pay a small fee, like 5-25 cents for every article they read. The dominant platform for this doesn’t really exist since Paypal charges fees too large to make this viable. I used to think that this was a perfect business for Google to be in: you Google something, see the price (if any) for the content, and click the credit button on your Google toolbar to pay for the article/result. But, regardless, even with a good platform for micropayments I don’t think it’ll work. Why? Because I don’t think I’d pay to read an article ala carte that I’m not sure I’ll like. I imagine the abandon rate on articles is very high. Though, I suppose this might be because it’s free, but I don’t think so.

So what would work for the reporting business?

1) Content wants to be free on the web. Or, rather, we want everything to be free on the web, but we also want it to be valuable. That’s why I believe the sustainable future for deep reporting (magazines + newspapers) will lie in the device. This might mean the Kindle and the evolving world of smart subscriptions. Might I pay, say $2 a month, for the NY Times on my Kindle? I say definitely. In fact, I’d probably pay higher. But at the $2 pricepoint, and with an variable distribution cost of near zero, I’d bet that we’re talking many millions of people who would pay that amount. The economics of print– delivery, printing presses, etc are zero’ed out and we’re left with a far more efficient cost structure. This should translate into a more economical cost, which, I would think, will increase the number of people who will opt to pay. Would I pay to read this on my Mac over the Interwebs? That feels tough to me. Would I pay to have the NY Times “delivered” to my Kindle every morning and auto-updated as the day goes on? Oh yes. Now it might not be the kindle. Maybe it’s the iPhone or whatever other device comes next. Which reminds me that I’m baffled why the NY Times iPhone app is free. It is positively insane. Charge a couple of dollars up front or a small recurring charge. The app is pretty damn amazing (it downloads the content locally so you can read from the plane, subway, etc!).

2) OK, so micropayments might actually work. But not the way everyone talks about them (as basically small debit card payments). I think it could work if we give people credit for doing things on the web. Say I take a survey or watch a commercial. This should give me some credit points that I can use on articles or whatever else. This seems pretty damn obvious to me. Why can’t the NY Times offer a choice of 15 second “commercials” on their site, and I have to watch one of them in order to have access to the site for a session? Or credits to use on articles. This is kind of a no brainer to me. In fact, I should go start a company that does this across the web. Why the hell am I updating my blog when I should be working on this idea?…

the rebirth of the long.

Up on the Tom Peters site there’s a good note on the “Generation Gap.” The idea is that his generation was handed a functioning business world with solid fundamentals, and that they took it created a world of stilts, which the current generation has now been bequeathed. Today those stilts are being knocked down and we’re trying to figure it out what the hell to do now.

The obvious answer is that we need to start rebuilding. I’m more convinced than ever that the problems of the last twenty years will have to be fixed by building companies that are driven by the new technologies that are transforming everything. Though, as TP’s post points out, the business world’s current guiding ethos also need to change.

We need long term thinking. The TP post talks about too many MBA’s in charge, too much greed, and confusing profit with value. To me, these are all different ways of saying, as a business community, we’ve failed the long term. We measured things in fiscal years and quarter-to-quarter and found the long term something that was hard to fathom.

We’re already seeing some of this (apparently) change. Google when they went public stressed acting for the long term instead of sacrificing to attain the short. (I’ve got a longish rant on public companies and whether or not Google lives up to this saved in drafts that I need to finish). Facebook throughout their history has emphasized the long term vision of “transforming communications” (or something like that) over the noise of the next 10 minutes. Clearly this has done extremely well for them. And throughout startup land, smart investors and founders have been stressing building transformative products that create killer value as the only priority and short-term profits as an afterthought. This is often laughed at by pundits as signs of the last dot.com bubble. But there’s a difference between doing something stupid like raising a $100 million dollar to sell hundred pounds bags of dogfood through the mail and looking at an idea that will disrupt a market that people are getting value from today by leveraging technology to make it better, more efficient, or just cheaper.

Millions of people looked at Obama as the guy who was going to lead us out of the doldrums. But, really, we need to look at each other. And my generation specifically needs to figure out how to create the next generation of business that will get the economy growing again. Things are incredibly nasty out there. And, personally, I don’t see things getting better for a while. There are no quick fixes when you dig as deep a whole as we’ve done. So what’s left is for us to look around at the tumult, change, and turmoil around us and ask how can we help? In some cases this might just be volunteering, in others there are business opportunities to help create value, and in the process create jobs and help be a part of the solution.

I know what I’ll be spending part of my weekend doing.

google newspaper.

Almost 2 years ago, I mentioned to some folks at Google that they should rethink their branding of Google Reader. For those who don’t use it, Google Reader is their RSS product (and, by far, the best on the market). Most of the people I know don’t understand or use RSS, and I’ve beendumbfounded that RSS hasn’t caught on more. Especially since it’s been one of my favorite uses of the Internet for the past few years. It’s an amazing way to get news from hundreds of sources pushed to you, that you access whenever you want. It’s incredibly efficient and elegant. And so, I couldn’t resist begging that Google rebrand it as “Google Newspaper.” Why because my RSS feed is really my daily newspaper assembled on the fly with all of the stories pushed to me that I’m interested in. Everyone’s newspaper is unique to them and made just for them. I thought this was a pretty simple way of explaining how it worked.

Anyway, I thought of this today when I saw in the Times that someone is actually printing blog entries on newspaper print and selling ads. It’s sort of coming true.

Learn more about Google Newspaper…ahem…Google Reader…and get started here. Make sure you sign-up for my blog’s feed to get you started 🙂

(Yeah, I do get that since everyone is accusing Google of killing old media, that this likely wouldn’t make them any friends in print. But details, details.)

blogging from the plane.

Once you get a fancy iPhone, the next thing you get are some apps. I’m testing one of the apps, wordpress, right now. Blogging from the iPhone? I guess between facebook, twitter, email and blogging from the phone, we’re free to over-communicate. I suppose this is my contribution.

On another note, though excited to be heading back east, I’m not sure about the -50 degree temperature change.

Since this is being typed on a plane, I thought that I’d observe that i think continental is the beat run of the major domestics. Free food, good service, and (cross my fingers) typically on time departures. More evidence to me that nailing the basics is the building blocks of effective marketing.

(edit: wow…the formatting was bizzare. i’ll have to figure that out before posting future entries)