June 7th, 2010 §
I often hear “I can’t read longer articles on the Internet” from friends. While that’s clearly due (in part) to the low resolution of PC monitors, frankly, most ad-supported sites are hideous.
Blinking, flashing and talking banner ads compete for our attention, and even if you stave off the need to click, you simply can’t avoid seeing the stuff out of the corner of your eye.
That’s why the Readability browser add-on caught my eye. An arc90 “labs” project, it strips away everything but article itself, shearing away the distractions and leaving only the story.
Example?
Here’s a screenshot of your average New York Times story:
The ad at the top is animated, and yes – it’s designed to interrupt your visit to the page. As is pretty much everything else.
Install the Readability add-on (you drag it to your browser toolbar), click, and this appears:
It’s a nifty tool – especially if you’re reading longer articles online.
It’s also another example of an attempt to de-clutter an increasingly cluttered online environment.
Most writer’s blogs have at least one post dedicated to things like clean-screen text editors, and eliminating distractions in the midst of the writing process.
Why not afford your reading time the same courtesy?
A “Clean Screen” Internet?
In the same vein, the always-provocative (and thoughtful) Carr wondered if the in-story hyperlink wasn’t the bounty we assumed it was, and asked if it shouldn’t be relegated to the end of the article.
Interestingly, the Readability folks incorporated just that suggestion into their tool, which will gather all the links and place them at the end of the story if you’d like.
The reaction to Carr’s suggestion wasn’t exactly what you call wholly positive, though it’s hardly surprising that a-list bloggers would resist such a change.
For many on the Internet, a link isn’t information as much as it is currency; a way for a less-trafficked blogger to gain the attention of an alpha dog, who can then return the favor.
In the larger sense, perhaps it’s time we recognized the limits of hyper-connectivity (and hyper-clutteritis).
You’ll note I didn’t gather the links at the bottom of this post. I think it’s an excellent idea for longer, less “how-to/what-to” pieces, but not really needed in a short, 500-word article.
Keep writing (and reading), Tom Chandler.
June 3rd, 2010 §
May 27th, 2010 Comments Off
May 27th, 2010 §
In the world of mega ad agencies, new business pitches are intense affairs; jobs hang in the balance (and more importantly, egos).
For a freelancer or consultant, losing a new business pitch isn’t the same kind of catastrophe.
You’re never happy, but then, you probably don’t have hundreds (or thousands) of hours at risk (like a big ad agency might).
Just yesterday, I got the news about a small website project RFP I’d contested.
I lost.
The Project
As losses go, this doesn’t rank anywhere near my Top Five Most Painful New Biz Failures.
It was a small job, and I didn’t invest a lot of hours in the proposal.
And yes – I approve of the vendor the prospect eventually did choose. Nothing hurts worse than losing to the marketing equivalent of a charlatan, and local vendors almost always enjoy an advantage (this prospect was located at the extreme far end of the country).
Still, it was a project I wanted – an interesting project for an interesting client.
How do I profit from the loss?
Learn From Your Failures
Honest feedback from the prospect can only be useful in future pitches – provided you’re getting useful feedback instead of a simple brushoff.
If you’re on good terms with prospect – and receive any opening whatsoever – then it’s OK to ask a few questions, like:
- What aspects of the competition were the most critical?
- What did the winners do that led to the win?
- What aspects of your pitch were off the mark?
We learn more from our failures than our successes, and what you learn this time will lead to success the next time – provided you take the feedback to heart.
(Helpful hint: a common mistake when responding to an RFP involves misreading the RFP or project spec, and missing the mark as a result.)
Second, Position Yourself to Profit
Profit? You lost, right? How do you profit?
Simple.
Projects rarely go as planned. Should the winner’s project hit a brick wall – a reality I’ve benefited from several times in my career – you may find yourself on the receiving end of a phone call.
For that matter, the project might be gone, but other projects beckon.
Aside from the local angle, one reason I lost this simple website project because I focused too much on the bigger picture stuff – the overall online presence.
I stressed content flow, integration of a stronger email program with social media, re-purposing content across multiple media channels and other concepts.
But I didn’t offer enough detail about the site project itself (I did offer several recent examples of similar projects, but that wasn’t enough).
The opportunity here?
The winner is a small design firm. They’ll do a good job on the CMS. But once it’s done, they are too.
I’m keeping in touch with the client (I asked for permission to do so during our conversation). After the site’s launched and things have settled in, it’s time to remind the prospect – preferably by demonstrating success with another client – that his membership-based nonprofit needs a stronger email program.
And while we’re at it, let’s get the social media ball rolling.
In other words, I lost the website battle, but I can still win the larger marketing war.
Keep marketing, Tom Chandler.
May 21st, 2010 §
You can’t get a better guarantee of soft, formless mediocrity than to assign a creative project to a committee – especially those expressly designed to avoid controversy.
In this case, we’re confronted with the Power of The Group to Do The Wrong Thing in the form the 2012 Olympic Mascots (apparently, if you can’t create one good mascot, make two really, really bad ones).
Brilliant design move? Or shocking example of England’s Growing Drug Problem?
Reaction has not been positive; even AdAge opened fire with:
Graphic designers continue to weep openly in the streets. Schools have brought in crisis counselors to comfort frightened youngsters. Many Webkinz have reportedly formed suicide pacts as fears spread that — what were their names again? Warlock and Mandible? whatever — the monsters are part of a robot master race that has come from Planet Focus Group to stamp out cuddliness and cuteness on Earth.
Those in the fetish community are simply scratching their heads (as a commenter who goes by Murray Hewitt noted on the Deadspin blog, “The blue guy put his assless chaps on backwards”). And at Advertising Age headquarters in New York, those of us who didn’t go home sick yesterday ended up forming an impromptu prayer circle in the conference room — and that includes the atheists among us. Afterward, I manned the internet barricades, carefully recording reactions on Twitter to the attack of Warlord and Matlock. Click through the slide show below for the voice of the Tweeple.
What happened?
For those with little experience, committees often deliver results like the above; the unwanted byproduct of an illicit three-way love triangle featuring a drunken alien, a fetishist politician, and a foam pillow.
Welcome to the power of the committee.
Obviously, this is not the first time this has happened.
I once sat in a room filled with intelligent people brainstorming their company’s new tagline.
A truly spellbinding idea was circulating (not mine), and was within seconds of acceptance – when another writer (we all take the hit for this one) fired off an idea so convoluted and potentially damaging to the brand that I knew immediately it was destined for acceptance.
Later, the company happily “unleashed” (actual tagline verb [shudder]) their new tagline – which largely equated their product to the family pet – and I could only shake my head in wonder.
Six months later, it was quietly killed in a much smaller meeting.
To see such a thing happen before your eyes is like watching a train wreck, only in slow motion and slathered with the highly flammable, sickly syrup of good intentions.
Good creative work can die a painful a death a hundred different ways, yet the “committee” has to feature at the top of the list.
At least that’s what Wenlock and Mandeville keep telling me.
Keep writing, Tom Chandler.
May 20th, 2010 Comments Off
May 20th, 2010 §
Yahoo just purchased Associated Content – one of the leading article farms – for a cool $100 million.
For just a moment, I wondered how much of that payout is headed for the folks who actually populated the AC’s site with content.
And then I smiled.
Silly me. The answer, of course, is zilch.
As Nicholas Carr of Rough Type has pointed out, content creators have become the sharecroppers of the digital age, and those who create for the “greater good of the community” are likely to discover their community’s about to be sold for the “greater good of the owner.”
Obviously, benefits can accrue to those working in organized online communities.
Yet those benefits need to be balanced against the unhappy negatives.
Handing over control of content – which means investing time, money, and energy into someone else’s proprietary “community” – is only smart if you already have a plan to turn the largely intangible benefits of social media into tangible ones.
For example, do you “own” your 5,000 Facebook fans?
If Facebook killed your presence today, how many of those fans could you contact?
And if Facebook crumbled in the face of a sexier, less-predatory replacement, would you simply move on – leaving your massive time investment to crumble with it?
Could you reclaim your data (and your hard work)?
Open, My Ass
In what some are calling a new era of openness, it’s ironic that we’re seeing the resurrection of closed, proprietary platforms.
They’re very good at converting the work of the “community” into sky-high paydays for their owners.
Yet to do that, they aggregate the work product of many – often delivering only low-quality relationships in return.
Which is why I recommend implementing email programs before starting social media programs. (And integrating e-newsletters with blogs, and WordPress over Blogger, and open over closed…)
Are you converting social media “currency” into real dollars for your business?
Or are you simply chasing useless stats – feeding your ego, but not your bank account?
Are you turning followers into horrifyingly old-school email addresses? Fans into conversions?
Or are you simply sharecropping?
May 13th, 2010 §
May 13th, 2010 §
Social media, blogs, enewsletters, websites and other forms of online marketing are evolving faster than you can say “Tweet me.”
Evolving right alongside them are the tools developed to help online users get the most from the online space.
With one critical exception.
Where are the modern word processors for today’s online copywriters and marketers?
The simple, intuitive Bluefish editor interface.
Where is the text processor designed specifically to help today’s online copywriter craft web copy, blog posts, enewsletters, landing pages, tweets, online articles and other projects – and then get it where it needs to be with a minimum of fuss?
Where is the ultimate online text processor?
In case you’re wondering, that editor would include features like:
- Speed
- Toggled HTML markup (toggle between code and live views)
- Toggled “cleanscreen” for fire-hose writing
- Enough formatting to prettify documents for clients (including sample landing/Web pages with graphics represented)
- File and project management (“projects” or “sessions” are a good start)
- Live word/character counts
- “Post to blog” feature (including category/keyword/SEO stuff)
- “Post to social media” feature (Twitter, etc)
- Killer window controls (cleanscreens, notes, split screens, synchronized scrolling, folding, tiled views, etc)
- Note/URL management (organize research)
- Integrated time tracking/management (admittedly optional)
- Integrated submission tracking (nice, but optional)
- Powerful text manipulation tools
- Macros, snippets, word completion and all those other useful toys
- Cross-platform capabilities (Mac, Windows & Linux versions)
I’m sure there have been a few others I’ve thought about and then promptly forgotten, so feel free to add your own ideas in the comments section.
What Are Writers Using Now?
I danced around this subject in a post touting the programmer’s text editor as the best writing tool for today’s online copywriter.
I suggested the programming editor’s lightning-fast response, simple HTML markup tools and the “session” feature – which opens and manages multiple files at the same time – offered online writers the best tool available.
It’s still true.
Which is really too bad.
We need something we can call our own.
Blog editors help make blogging easier, but fail everywhere else.
A programmer’s editor makes online writing easier (basic HTML tagging), but they’re not aimed primarily at writers, and it shows.
And full-blown word processors format your text nicely, but are essentially closed systems, and do a poor job of preparing copy for the web.
They insert all sorts of web-unfriendly formatting codes, and their reliance on a “paper” model doesn’t really meet the online reality.
In simple terms, they’re great writing tools – and they were perfect when I wrote copy and sent it to clients, who printed it and passed it around – but increasingly, they’re becoming relics of the paper era.
Which is not what this post is all about.
The ugly truth is this: Writers have yet to see a single “online writer’s editor” that offers everything really needed by today’s online copywriter.
It Almost Exists… Almost.
All the above bits and pieces already exist.
Just not in the same piece of software.
Komodo Edit is the closest I've come to a real online copywriter's editor
For example, Windows Live Writer is a good blog editor (despite a funky interface).
Yet it falls far short for most other tasks (like writing website copy).
Some word processors can act as virtual databases for the files, notes and links related to a single project (Scrivener on the Mac), though they seem better suited to longer works (like novels or white papers) than online copywriting.
Hosted processors (like Google Docs) offer some of the above, but I find them irritatingly logy at times, and lacking in the text-manipulation power features I’ve come to love.
And while programmer’s editors (I’m writing this in one) offer many of the target features, they’re often complex, offer features writers don’t need, and lack refinement (you can’t send a client a formatted .rtf document for review).
And I haven’t found one that simplifies posting directly to a blog or microblogging service.
In other words, we’re not there yet.
The Power of Projects For the Online Writer
Most programmer’s editors offer a “Project” or “Session” function, which allows you to define groups of files, opening them all at once.
That’s incredibly useful for today’s online projects, which are composed of many discrete bits of copy.
I recently worked on a product/web launch project, and as I wrote new copy for the project (or added notes from meetings), I’d add the new file to the project.
In the morning, I’d simply open that project, and voila – every file associated with the project opened in its own editor tab.
I didn’t have to dig for notes, or to see what I’d already written – a huge timesaver over the course of the project.
I could even keep multiple projects open in separate editor windows.
Is There a Future For the Online Writer’s Editor?
Of course, no writer thinks their word processor/editor/pen is ever exactly right, which is one of the neuroses that defines us as writers.
(That’s just the way it is.)
And since I run my writing business on Ubuntu Linux (instead of Windows or Macintosh), my choices are limited compared to most.
I can’t guess at the size of the online writer’s market, though I have to believe there’s potential for some entrepreneur – or a truckload of good karma for some group of developers who go the open source route.
And the person that gets there first will enjoy an early adopter bonus.
Here’s What I Want
When I write a blog post (or email, or web copy, or landing page, or…), what I really want is something that stays largely out of the way – until I need some help.
In other words, I want to write the text quickly (maybe on a cleanscreen), massage it, quickly insert HTML tags where needed (including formatting, links and images), and get the text where it needs to be.
That copy could be cut and pasted into a web page, posted to a blog, or turned into a passably attractive pdf file for a client.
If it’s an article, then I want – with a click or two – to record the date it was submitted (maybe to a magazine, but possibly to a group blog).
Along the way, I’ll want to quickly check my notes and related files.
Perhaps use some of its more powerful features (macros, snippets, etc) to edit the text. Even add ideas I stumble on along the way to an idea “tickler” file.
And then record the time invested writing it.
The tool to do all that simply hasn’t been invented yet.
And I’m starting to wonder if it ever will be.
And in truth, I’d be satisfied with a text editor that toggled between HTML code/live views, made applying formatting easy, helped me manage project files, and then simply got out of the way.
A Few Programmer’s Editors
I’m writing this post on Cream – a friendlier version of the very-hard-to-use, steeper-than-Everest learning curve VIM text editor.
Cream does many things wonderfully, largely adheres to modern interface standards (like command keyboard shortcuts) and it’s fast.
It also can’t quite hide the powerful-yet-user-hostile VIM engine underneath the hood, so it’s not exactly user friendly.
Old school, but powerful: the Cream editor puts a friendlier face on VIM.
In fact, it’s decidedly old school in function and appearance – not a deal-breaker for old geezers, but a tougher sell with today’s crowd.
Others (Komodo Edit, Bluefish, Ultraedit, Kate, etc
Active State’s Komodo Edit: Komodo offers many of the bullets listed above, though at the expense of speed and footprint (it’s a little slower, but can be configured to do almost anything).
Komodo’s available on Mac, Windows & Linux, and like Cream, it’s free. (Gotta love open source.)
Bluefish (Linux/Windows HTML editor): A fast, easy-to-use html editor with a streamlined, intuitive interface, Bluefish might be the best choice for writing posts and web pages.
Kate Editor (Linux only): Writers using the KDE desktop in Linux might find exactly what they need on their desktop; the Kate editor is a sweetheart, but a powerful one.
I’ve also tested the low-cost UltraEdit (another cross platform programmer’s editor) and found it a good choice (lots of folks love it).
Some jokers will no doubt suggest the granddaddies of powerful text editors: the original VIM or EMACS editors. Admittedly powerful – and configurable enough to do almost anything – both offer what I’ll term “user-hostile” interfaces along with a learning curve you’ll appreciate the very first time you fire one up.
In other words, we’re still waiting.
Today’s online writers and copywriters desperately need something that’s keeping pace with our changing needs. When will we see that editor?
Keep writing, Tom Chandler
An “I Forgot” Update: Matthew Stibbe of Bad Language also touched on the editor vs Great Big Word Processor subject a while ago, and pointed to the blog of a noted sci-fi author who uses a programmer’s editor, went astray, but now finds himself back behind the wheel of Vim (the text editor running beneath the Cream editor mentioned above).
May 6th, 2010 Comments Off