Skip navigation

Category Archives: Uncategorized

Julian Dibbell certainly opened my eyes to a whole new world in “Play Money.” I have never played or participated in an MMO and so this book definitely peaked my curiousity. In my opinion, “Play Money” started off interesting but then became sidetracked in details. I wasn’t able to follow the point that Dibbell was trying to make once he got into reciting the online conversations between players and the intricacies of buying and selling fictional goods.

I also thought the cheating and trickery that went on within the games made them rather sinister and less appealing as an entertainment venue. Basically, I thought this book was kind of exposing the dirty underworld of gaming. So, I still don’t understand why people spend real money on this sort of thing. Is it for entertainment or is it a compulsion? Even Dibbell asks the question “Why would anyone enjoy it?” I still don’t know why. He didn’t even seem to enjoy it but rather to be obsessed or addicted to it.

Another aspect of the MMOs that I found interesting was the virtual materialism that motivated so many of the participants including the author. Early on in the book Dibbell discusses the confused priorities of most people today who have forgotten to play. However, I think spending such an inordinate amount of time, energy, and resources trying to accumulate virtual loot to impress strangers on the internet is equally confusing.

The MMOs also seem to be taking over many of the player’s lives. In the way it is explained in “Play Money,” MMOs seem like a form of escapism with many players withdrawing from reality. To me, this appears to be reminiscent of a gambling addiction with an addict trying to rationalize their habit. Dibbell even says, “It will surely just get easier to fall into the habit of accepting our digital “other worlds” and “second lives” as functional equivalents of the originals.”

Finally, I think MMO virtual loot trading seems like an unstable way to support a family.

On a different note, “Play Money” peaked my curiosity about Second Life, since it is the only MMO that I had heard of prior to reading this book. I did some searching and found that there is a Second Life especially for teens ages 13-17. I was glad to see that there was a protected way for young people to participate with others their own age rather than having them co-mingle with adults the way that Dibbell was with Radny.

Teen Second Life
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teen_Second_Life

In my searching I also found that subscription fees for premium memberships with Second Life can be as much as $125/month. This makes my analogy to gambling addiction even more relevant. You can see a link to subscription costs below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Life

Second Life also hasn’t missed the corporate blog effort as discussed by Scoble and Israel in “Naked Conversations.” Obviously, it makes a lot of sense for Second Life to have a blog since 100 percent of their audience is online. However, I was surprised by the corporate tone of the blog. It really appears to be a one-way conversation rather than a discussion.

Official Second Life blog
http://blog.secondlife.com/

I also wondered how many people are actually participating in Second Life. According to their usage statisics, on Sunday, December 2, they hit another concurrency high of 76,946 and log-ins for the previous 60 days crossed the 1.4 million mark. Apparently, MMO community is strong and is continuing to grow. Here is a link to the usage statistics:

http://blog.secondlife.com/2008/12/02/m-linden-second-life-update-and-welcome-to-howard-linden-aka-howard-look

Back to Dibbell’s new vocation, I wanted to know how many people are actually making a living through MMOs such as Second Life. I had difficulty ascertaining this information. However, I did find an article in Wired Magazine profiling one success story. But, it remains to be seen how many people are having this same experience.

Article from Wired Magazine: Making a Living In Second Life
http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworlds/news/2006/02/70153

p.s. The graphics in Second Life are amazing!

O’Reilly’s “What Is Web 2.0 – Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software” was very clarifying for me. Although I have gained a much greater understanding of the term through our various readings throughout the semester, this paper really solidified things for me. I think it is very clearly written and especially appreciate his willingness to not only say what is Web 2.0 but also what is not.

He is absolutely correct in his discussion about companies and organizations throwing around the term “Web 2.0” in their attempts to appear cutting edge or ahead of the curve. When you aren’t a tech person the ambiguity can be intimidating.

I thought the meme map was very interesting to see and I liked the “Web 2.0 is an attitude, not a technology” bubble the most. For me, that was where the biggest disconnect has been in the past. I kept searching for answers about a particular technology or application in my quest to understand “Web 2.0.” However, after reading all of this material from the subject matter experts, I have come to the conclusion that Web 2.0 is mainly “two way” (or more!), interactive, open sharing and discussion online. The results of all of this communication and interaction are the Flickrs (www.flickr.com), BitTorrents (www.bittorrent.com), and Wikipedias (www.wikipedia.com) of the world.

One of the other big takeaways I had from this article is that “data is the Intel Inside of these applications, a sole source component in systems whose software infrastructure is largely open source or otherwise commodified.” In considering the future of the internet, I have been wondering in what ways the companies of the future are going to make money. In our previous readings it has been obvious that things are changing rapidly and that advertising (such as Google Adsense or Adwords) will be a significant part of the revenue picture for years to come. However, I wondered how these companies are going to stay afloat if they are so busy sharing information such as intellectual property.

Chris Anderson’s “The Long Tail” offers significant insight into the profit centers of the future. Meanwhile, O’Reilly’s talk of the importance of data ownership helped me understand another new revenue stream opportunity. He does mention that “we expect to see battles between data suppliers and application vendors in the next few years, as both realize just how important certain classes of data will become as building blocks for Web 2.0 applications.” I wonder if this will simply play out as market competitiveness or if it will stifle the progress of the Web 2.0 and open source movements.

There was one thing within the article that I questioned however. O’Reilly states “you can almost make the case that if a site or product relies on advertising to get the word out, it isn’t Web 2.0.” I guess it is important to note that the author does say “almost.” However, I just don’t see why it would have to be an all or nothing situation. Can’t you have a Web 2.0 strategy and a traditional advertising or marketing strategy that combine to make one integrated plan? If your entire target audience isn’t online than a solely Web 2.0 strategy doesn’t seem to make sense. So, I searched around a little bit to find successful examples of an integrated strategy.  I found this blog post to be interesting. Jeremiah sites a number of “advanced brand” examples that utilize a social media strategy in addition to their traditional strategies.

http://www.web-strategist.com/blog/2007/08/23/web-strategy-social-media-strategy/


This semester in my Intro to the Digital Age graduate school class, I have chosen nonprofit blogging as my major paper topic. As you will notice from my earlier posts, my primary area of interest is nonprofit communication.

I am curious how nonprofit organizations are using blogging technology to advance their missions, particularly as it relates to their marketing efforts.

My hypothesis is that a small minority of nonprofit organizations are using blogs as an effective tool to expand their brands. Additionally, I believe there are many lessons to be learned from the organizations who have harnessed the power of effective blogging.

You are probably wondering why I am telling you all of this. Well, I don’t think any research or paper about social media would be complete without using the different mediums available to try to gain additional insights. Therefore, any and all feedback, ideas, or opinions you have on this topic are welcome. Specifically, if you would like to respond to any of the following questions I would greatly appreciate it.

1. Do you know of any examples of nonprofit organizations that are using blogs as an effective tool to expand their brand?

2. What do you think makes a blog effective? (links to other blogs, consistent posting, etc.)

3. Have you experienced any benefits (or consequences) as a result of blogging?

4. Do you have any favorite sites or sources on blogging best practices?

Thanks for your help!

I am trying to decide between two topics for my paper. My primary interest is surrounding nonprofit communication and therefore both potential topics revolve around this area. The reading we have been doing about blogs has been very enlightening to me and I am curious how nonprofit organizations are using this technology to advance their missions, particularly as it relates to their marketing efforts.

Potential Topic #1:

Are nonprofit organizations using blogs as an effective tool to expand their brand?

a. Use 1-3 case studies

b. Look at their blogs critically based upon what we have learned to determine if they are successful

c. Read what is being published about and by the case study organizations

d. Possibly conduct interviews to gain additional information

e. Include a broad literature review about how blogs are benefiting nonprofit organizations and best practices of blogging (5-10 articles)

Hypothesis:

A small minority of nonprofit organizations are using blogs as an effective tool to expand their brands. There are many lessons to be learned from the organizations who have harnessed the power of effective blogging.

Potential Topic #2:

Are nonprofit organizations that blog getting more earned media than those who do not?

a. Choose ten nonprofits that blog and ten that do not blog (potentially a particularly nonprofits with similar missions) and compare their earned media for a certain period of time

b. Measure via Google and Vocus and other media tracking tools

c. Watch out for “famous” or “recent crisis” bias among earned media

d. Include a broad literature review about how blogs are benefiting nonprofit organizations and the correlation between earned media and blogging (5-10 articles)

Hypothesis:

Nonprofit organizations that consistently blog obtain more earned media than those who are not actively blogging.

Examples of nonprofit organizations blogging extensively:

According to Marnie Webb on techsoup.org, (http://www.techsoup.org/learningcenter/webbuilding/archives/page9416.cfm) “Oceana’s weblog provides useful and regular information from experts pointing to studies, projects, and other information that I would not be able to find on my own. I therefore see the organization as credible, and that credibility transfers to its other efforts, including fundraising.”

http://community.oceana.org/

2008 Best Charity Blogs : http://bloggerschoiceawards.com/categories/16

It appears as thought this was a pretty small scale contest but a good resource nonetheless in trying to find successful examples of nonprofit blogs.

First Book
http://blog.firstbook.org/

ASPCA Blog
http://www.aspca.org/aspcablog/index.html

SOS News and Views
http://soscs.blogspot.com/index.html

Generation Why, by Oxfam UK – http://www.oxfam.org.uk/generationwhy/blog/index.html

March of Dimes’ Share Your Story blog

http://www.shareyourstory.org/

Greenpeace

http://weblog.greenpeace.org/

AARP

http://aarp.typepad.com/

Students for a Free Tibet

http://blog.studentsforafreetibet.org/

The Case Foundation also has a plethora of information regarding the use of blogs by nonprofit organizations. One article in particular has a listing of nonprofits that they think are blogging successfully.

http://www.casefoundation.org/spotlight/technology/10ways

I am open to any recommendations of nonprofit blogs that might be good case studies for this paper. All nominations are gratefully accepted!

In attempting to determine the media coverage for nonprofit organizations, I will also need to utilize free media tracking tools. I found the following link of 26 free media tracking tools to be especially helpful. Who knew you could do some so much for so little!

http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2007/08/26-free-tools-for-buzz-monitoring.html

Based upon the results of my literature review, which I will be finishing up this week, I will determine the best topic for my paper. I plan to utilize journal articles as well as texts that we have read in this course as sources. Any recommendations for journals that would be worth exploring are also greatly appreciated!

John Battelle’s “The Search” was a very informative and eye-opening read regarding the power of search engines and Google in particular. I appreciated the history and background of the internet and search that Battelle included in the first half of the book. It is amazing to think about how rapidly things have changed and will continue to change because of the power of the internet.

Something that was glaring to me was the need for the combination of individuals with sound business skills and others with unparalleled innovative technological talents and curiosities. An important component of this is for both sets of people to have an appreciation for the other. This is not to say that the two areas are mutually exclusive but history does not seem to indicate that they are a likely combination in one person.

A common thread among many of the search companies that emerged in the 90’s is the Stanford PhD program. Clearly the program attracts very entrepreneurial and technologically inclined individuals and fosters an atmosphere of invention and commercialization. By the way, this is wise on Stanford’s part for a number of reasons not the least of which is alumni giving!

However, it seems as though these young entrepreneurs could stand to have additional strategic guidance, coaching, and experience. At the very least, it seems as though many of these students would benefit from being taught the values of successful management, teamwork, business strategy, and marketing. This would also leave them less vulnerable to the Compaq’s of the world as they would have a base to work from in evaluating the appropriate course for their companies in the future.

On a different note, the story of Moncrief was also disturbing to me. The part about how his business went away overnight was upsetting. However, Google’s blatant disregard for their customers is inexcusable. I guess they figure that they don’t have to care because they are so powerful, but one must think that an attitude or philosophy would definitely come back to haunt you. Perhaps the need to be reminded of their mantra…”Don’t be evil.”

The triumvirate’s handling of their IPO left me with a similar taste in my mouth. Schmidt had blatantly lied about Google going public. The “geeks are in control” and “we’re different and better than others” attitude may be justified but I believe that it reeks of immaturity and inexperience. It seems as though Forbes agreed at the time in their article “Google’s Flub, Flop And Bomb.” (http://www.forbes.com/2004/09/17/cx_sr_0917ipooutlook.html)

While clearly the outcomes that Google has reaped have been unprecedented, one has to wonder if they couldn’t have experienced even better results if they were more strategic and professional in their dealings. It really wouldn’t kill them to take advice from others every once in a while. For example, any PR or communications professional could have advised them about their interview with Playboy. You would think that they would be more open to it since they received some solid advice and coaching in their early stages (while still at Stanford).

Overall, Battelle really opened by eyes about the “search economy.” I found the possibilities that are on the horizon to be tremendously exciting. The ways in which we live, work, and access information generally are changing before our eyes. “The Search” has definitely inspired me to pay attention to this sector because it is and will affect all aspects of communication.

In starting to read the second half of Scoble and Israel’s “Naked Conversations,” I was pleased to read the introductory paragraphs which asserted that there are real issues and reasons surrounding blogging and whether or not it is prudent for an organization to do so. Furthermore, they suggested that they are not prone to Pollyanna stories and that blogging has both upsides and downsides.

However, I found that in reading the pages that followed, Scoble and Israel may have attempted to address the downsides of blogging but really just presented more support for their one-sided argument that blogging is wonderful. For example, in the section where they address reasons why companies or organizations should not blog, they list the following reasons:

n “If you are a genuine bad guy, or part of an organization of bad guys, don’t blog”

n “People who have really awful communication skills should not blog.”

n “Cultures change slowly. If yours is closed, we suggest opening it before shocking the ecosystem with a blog.”

n “If your employees feel untrusted, you may need to take steps to demonstrate your faith in them before you encourage blogging.”

n “If you don’t have genuine faith that you can evolve in to a better company by listening to what your customers, prospects, investors, vendors, and partners have to say, then blogging effort will not provide you with its full value.

n If you don’t want to listen – really listen – then blogs will be thorny for you and your culture.”

In my opinion, this is a transparent and biased presentation that feeds the egos of the authors. I found a more compelling list of “10 Reasons Your Company Shouldn’t Blog” in Advertising Age. http://adage.com/digitalnext/post?article_id=131126

This list includes such reasons as:

n A blog is not a substitute for a marketing campaign. It is simply a potential part of corporate communications.

n A blog is not a substitute for advertising — if you need to fill a new hotel, or sell a product by a certain date, advertise.

n A blog is not a quick fix — the results come in the long term, the same way they do with PR.

n Blogs are not cheap. A good one requires skilled programming to set it up, a professional graphic designer to make it part of your corporate identity, a talented and dedicated writer or editor, full-time.

n You need to drive traffic to a blog. There are many ways to do that. All of them require time, effort and money.

Throughout the second half of “Naked Conversations” Scoble and Israel continue to claim that blogging can replace a PR or marketing campaign. Some of my favorite declarations include the following:

n “You have to conclude that it is a safer and wiser course to respond by blogging than to go through “official channels.” I think it depends on the situation at hand including such factors as the industry and what and who is at stake.

n “Blogging is cheaper and more effective than most marketing programs in use today.” This is a serious overstatement in my opinion, especially since they don’t offer up any proof. To me, a blog is a communication channel or tool in which to implement a marketing, PR, and communication campaign – not the plan itself.

n “Blogging is unquestionably less expensive than traditional ad and PR campaigns and keeps proving-as it did to the Firefox team-to be more effective.” Firstly, driving traffic to a blog costs money. Additionally, citing one example of a tech industry company (a web browser nonetheless) who has successfully utilized a blog as a primary marketing and communications tool as proof of blogging as the most effective ad and PR campaign is irresponsible.

Scoble and Israel go on to suggest that ROI is not necessary when working with or using blogs. To me, this is the exact reason that replacing all traditional marketing and PR with blogging is not wise. I imagine if you asked any company or organization if ROI matters to them when it comes to their marketing campaigns, they would say that it is imperative. I think the authors’ bias is especially apparent when they say “many traditional marketers are for the most part in a denial phase and refuse to acknowledge the public’s deep-seeded distaste for much of what they do in traditional channels.” Perhaps it isn’t the “denial” of the marketers but their need to address things as ROI and measurable results.

One of Scoble and Israel’s own examples illustrates this point. Joe Wikert of “Average Joe” said, “Well, I’d be hard pressed to give you any specifics here,” when asked about how blogging has helped his business (Wiley publications). That is why traditional marketing matters.

Another area that left me confused was their position on employee blogging. At one point they state, “Employees who blog need to understand clearly what they can and cannot talk about and be particularly prudent in that area.” This seems counter to the authors’ earlier arguments.

They go to suggest corporate blogging policies to check out including Sun Microsystems’s. I thought they were against this. They say employers should give employees guidelines but also freedom and incentive to become “world-class bloggers.” To me, it appears that they are talking out of both sides of their mouths.

According to Scoble and Israel, “Blogging creates a general perception of an enlightened employer, one who wants to hear constituent opinions and is willing to adjust accordingly.” Where is the proof of this?

On this same point, they say employees should be allowed to blog, not just the CEO or senior level official. “Instead of trying to speak in a single contrived voice, your company will sing with many voices, and they will sing in harmony.” Again, where is the proof of this? To make a declaration this important, some evidence is necessary as this goes against most integrated marketing and communications theory.

Finally, one small point that I thought was rather surprising. Scoble and Israel say “that risks of publishing your contact information are exaggerated.” To me, this is seems irresponsible. I don’t know if it because I am a woman that I am especially leery of this statement, but putting your email address and phone number on the internet in a public way seems to leave you very vulnerable to any number of privacy violations.

The majority of this week’s reading consistently of the first eight chapters of Scoble and Israel’s “Naked Conversations.” Scoble and Israel are blog “evangelists” who adamantly believe that blogging has and will continue to revolutionize the ways in which companies market and publicize their products and brands. Specifically, they believe that “a communications revolution is underway, moving from a controlled one-way model into a decentralized interactive one” (p.27). They also clearly state that blogs are the most efficient corporate communications medium and suggest that blogging is going to replace both PR and marketing with more organic and collaborative online communication.

Interestingly, numerous companies who have successfully harnessed the power of blogging are profiled. Their successes are analyzed and recommended for adoption by other companies. The parts of the reading I found most interesting were when the authors interviewed the CEO’s of successful companies. Their unique perspectives shed a lot of credibility to the authors’ assertions.

One area I am that I am left wondering about is the idea of corporate policy surrounding blogging. As someone who works in a highly regulated industry where privacy is paramount, I cannot imagine that this revolution is going to take place without some policy in place at most corporations or organizations for liability sake. I understand what Scoble and Israel are saying when they discuss the need for open and unedited communication, but I just don’t think it is realistic. So, I decided to do a search in the internet for examples of corporate blogging policies.

Imagine my surprise when the most helpful link was to “Groundswell,” a book that we will be reading later in the semester. Looking forward to that one! This site offers sample corporate policies and codes of ethics of companies and organizations such as Google (I guess things have changed since 2005!), Harvard, and Sun Microsystems (Apparently things aren’t as free form as they used to be!).

http://blogs.forrester.com/groundswell/2004/11/blogging_policy.html

While I found Microsoft’s embrace of blogging to be admirable, I also wonder how appropriate or realistic it is to recommend this to other companies or organizations without the resources of a monolith like Microsoft. The statement “If blogging can do all this for Microsoft, think of what it can do for your company,” seems unfair given that Microsoft has a person whose job it is to keep the company’s employee blogs running effectively and making sure that all customer complaints and inquiries are responded to.

I agree with Scoble and Israel on the revolutionary potential of blogging. However, I believe that it is a piece of a larger communications and marketing plan or strategy for any company or organization. For companies like Sun, Microsoft, and Treo, it will play an increasingly important part of their strategies because such a substantial portion of their target markets are online and blogging. For companies whose primary audiences are not in the blogosphere (or are only partially in it), abandoning traditional communication and marketing strategy not only seems nonsensical but irresponsible.

Gillmor’s “We the Media” has been referenced numerous times so far throughout “Naked Conversations.” I imagine that if we had Gillmor, Scoble and Israel in the same room we would have quite the echo chamber. It would be interesting to inject some integrated marketing and communication expertise into the mix!

In the second half of Gillmor’s “We the Media,” he starts off by discussing specific examples of citizen journalism and the way it is changing and improving the field.He elaborates on the incredible rate of speed at which the internet medium is growing, evolving, and innovating.

After the first two chapters, Gillmor delves into the “evils” that lurk when using the internet as a communication tool. Specifically, he discusses personal and corporate misrepresentation, libel, plagiarism, doctoring of photos, and the lack of fact checking that often occurs with “citizen journalism.” Additionally, “trolling” by cyber attention-seekers and need to be wary of “spin” are focused on.

Furthermore, Gillmor discusses at length the libel, copyright, and trade marking laws and issues that surround the internet. Issues of jurisdiction and what constitutes free speech in different places are addressed. What is permissible on the internet as well as cases that have led to litigation are discussed.

Finally, Gillmor addresses at length his theories regarding the “evil regime” of Hollywood, government, and big business to limit freedom of speech, enhance their bottom lines, and ultimately seriously impede the innovation process.  Here is a link to an article on Tech Crunch that shows the timeliness of this discussion:

http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/20/is-myspace-music-an-antitrust-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen/

Strangely, Gillmor wraps up his book with a surprisingly rosy outlook on the future of the internet and citizen journalism. Having just read the previous chapter about “The Empire Strikes Back,” I found it difficult to make the leap to his suddenly positive point of view.

While Gillmor regularly talks about the need for citizen journalism to keep marketers, spin doctors, and those evil PR people honest, he only lightly touches on the trust factor of the news media. He addresses the need for Big Media to be careful as they enter this online world because they could hurt their credibility. Specifically, he says, “This act, which I consider more a certainty than a possibility, will change the news media’s trust equation, at least for a time. Will it have long-lasting impact? Only if it happens repeatedly.” (p. 189) In an effort for full disclosure, I will admit that I am not a journalist but a marketer/pr person/communicator. So, I am sensitive to his tendencies. However, here are a couple of links to blogs that articulate the media distrust that I think is already rampant in our society:

http://www.bloggernews.net/114362

http://www.dyreportents.com/2007/08/poll-us-public-distrusts-media.html

I thought the discussion about zoning was very interesting. As Gillmor points out, it is not feasible for all publications or websites to make endless versions of their output, but perhaps they could do it where possible or makes sense for liability purposes. This is an area where I wish he would have elaborated more on potential solutions and the steps or protocols that organizations should follow in the meantime. Especially for nonprofit organizations, often all you have is your good name. A lawsuit in this arena could mean the end of your mission. While he says that “unfortunately, cyberspace doesn’t have a global First Amendment written in law, even if it exits, for the most part, in practice,” I wonder how realistic an assertion like that is. There is not a global first amendment period. Why should be expect there to be one as it applies to the internet? A discussion of more tangible solutions would be great here.

Finally, while I thought Gillmor’s argument about Hollywood, government, and big business impeding innovation and creativity certainly had merit, I would have appreciated a more balanced presentation of the argument. Rather than just offering up campaign donations and bottom line greed as the impetus for the “empire’s” protectiveness, explanations of true reasons would have made the argument more valid. As I mentioned, I do not disagree with his argument but I think it just would have carried more weight if there was a more balanced presentation of both sides.

In summary, Gillmor’s book opened by eyes to many things and excited me (and scared me a little!) about the potential of the internet and citizen journalism for the future. A little more “meat” rather than what seemed to be opinion, would have strengthened his assertions even more.

The Essential Blogging chapter by Cory Doctorow et al was fairly straight forward and provided a solid foundation for setting up our own blogs this week. I especially appreciated the examples included in the chapter as well as the links to other types of blogs. However, I found their definition of “blog” left much to be desired. I went on a search of my own and found this definition to be more helpful and provide additional context:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blog

I am not usually a big fan of Wikipedia for accurate information, but compared to Merriam-Webster, webopedia, and a few more, the Wikipedia definition was most helpful to me.

The first six chapters of Dan Gillmor’s “We the Media: Grassroots Journalism by the People, for the People” (2006) comprised the majority of our reading for this week. The readings provided an interesting history of the evolution of online journalism and the roles that the average citizen and professional journalists have played, currently play, and could potentially play in the process. Gillmor believes that the internet will transform journalism for the better due to the speed with which information is shared and the different perspectives that are being brought to the table.

Gillmor elaborates about how the internet has allowed the average citizen to become a journalist (using this term loosely) by publishing information at will. From Gillmor’s point of view, this has been a tremendous shift of power from the Big Media to the citizen journalists. I definitely agree with this assertion and I am grateful for it!

According to Gillmor, one of the primary benefits of this citizen journalism is that it is forcing the Big Media to be more honest or at least transparent. It is further discussed that this transparency is crucial for most all corporations and organizations. Gillmor also suggests that all organizations should have a blog and respond to all questions that are posed in the forum. I wonder if many companies or organizations who are adhering to this practice have hired people to do this. I would imagine it is very time-consuming.

There is also substantial information regarding the antiquity of the traditional newspaper business and commentary about how the newspaper business needs to embrace the online opportunities in order to stay afloat.

I can definitely see the benefits to citizen or grassroots journalism as Gillmor outlines them. From the citizen perspective, the benefits are clear. However, I am left wondering a bit more when it comes to the perspective of the Big Media, specifically newspapers. It appears to me that Gillmor has a lot to say about the need for newspapers to embrace online technology but has little to say in the way of concrete suggestions regarding doing just that.

Gillmor suggests that newspaper columnists need to all be writing, maintaining, and responding to blogs at all times. The benefits to the reporter include uncovering stories, being more in touch with their audience, and fact checking. According to Gillmor, the readers always know more than the journalist. As newspapers are struggling to make ends meat and lay off staff left and right, I wonder how the remaining reporters have the time to do additional duties (including online engagement).

It is addressed in the reading that Big Media does provide a substantial service to the public and that it is in all of our best interests for it to survive. But, in my opinion, Gillmor falls short in offering ideas allowing for the uninhibited success of online citizen journalism as well as Big Media.