The Hype Machine

in , ,

Hype-machine-logo

The Hype Machine is a music blog aggregator that trolls the internet to find out what's hot and to give it attention. They just released their Top 50 Artists, Songs and Albums of 2008. For the last two weeks, I haven't stopped listening to the Top 50 Albums. You can find them here.

While I consider myself a music lover, I also recognize that I have terrible taste in music. I've always gone for what's most accessible, catchy and easy to get listen to. Hype Machine's Top 50 is not made up of that kind of music, not at all. In fact, I've only heard of five of the 50 artists:

  • REM
  • Beck
  • Coldplay
  • Kanye West
  • Lil Wanye

All of the others are completely new to me. I've already found a few new favorites:

  • Frightened Rabbit
  • MGMT
  • Vampire Weekend
  • M83

This music takes some time and commitment to enjoy, but it's well worth it.

Of course, the best part of Hype Machine is the Bloggers that are discovering and writing about the music.

Here are a couple of quotes that will inspire you to listen to the music and appreciate how cool this site is:

  • "...could be the soundtrack to an early morning drive down a country road."
  • "Who'd have thought the classic "American" punk album would be reinvented by a New Jersey punk band rocking out the basement circuit."
  • "Good music to listen to while jumping on a trampoline."
  • "It's dark, creepy and if it happens to be raining where you are, it'll be the perfect soundtrack."
  • "...an album best listened to alone, or at 3am at an open-minded party."
  • "It's the musical equivalent of reading someone else's diary."
  • "It's like watching the sun rise over distant mountaintops, over and over, familiar and captivating all at once."

If you haven't heard of a lot of these bands, I highly recommend giving it a listen.

Mobile News

in ,

WsjMobileReaderPhone

I mentioned in an earlier post that I use the WSJ Reader on my Blackberry which allows me to read news updates and my favorite WSJ columnists (Jenkins, Mossberg, Morgenstern, etc.) at no cost. Even better, it pulls in feeds from my favorite blogs (about 15-20) in real time. I'm convinced that I get more news and information from the reader than I do through any other medium (TV, newspaper, magazines, etc.).

Whenever I add another blog I think about how great this thing is...for me. But what's the WSJ getting out of it? Probably a few things:

  • Advertising fees (though very minimal, there's very little space for ads)
  • Click throughs: once in a while I'll wind up clicking through to their website to "get more information"
  • Branding/Loyalty: I've cancelled my newspaper subscription but WSJ remains top-of-mind for me and I continue to consume their product.
  • Word of mouth: because I'm reading columns and articles from the WSJ, I'll continue to talk and write about the WSJ
  • Upsell opportunity: they show ads for other Dow Jones products

But I think there's something much bigger and potentially brilliant going on here: The Wall street Journal has built a platform for all the news a reader could want that carries virtually zero distribution costs. Or, put another way, the WSJ Reader solves the two fundamental problems with a newspaper's business model: limited space and big costs. The jury is out on how well mobile attention can be monetized but my sense is that the WSJ is doing something pretty smart here...I'm sure I'll be writing more on this in the coming months.

Work That Matters

in

I just read a fantastic quote from Tim O'Reilly, the coiner of "Web 2.0", that I think is right on point for those of us trying to spend our time doing work that matters.

"You should regard money as fuel for what you really want to do, not as a goal in and of itself. Money is like gas in the car -- you need to pay attention, or you'll end up on the side of the road -- but a well-lived life is not a tour of gas stations."

Job Losses

in

Today's Wall Street Journal and Financial Times front pages' declare that the U.S economy lost 2.5 million jobs last year -- the most since 1945 -- and the unemployment rate hit 7.2% in December. As an optimist, I'd like to take a quick look at the bright side of this horrible news by asking the question: why have so many jobs been lost? My answer: three reasons.

1. The fundamentals of the economy are weak and companies are adjusting expenses consistent with projected revenue reductions (after all, Wall Street only rewards profits).

2. Panic.

3. Smart executives are using the credit crisis and talk of a depression as an excuse to get rid of underperforming, redundant and overvalued human capital.

The bright side comes from #3. The fact is that most large companies are extremely inefficient, and most executives know it. Most large companies could probably produce the same results (maybe better) with only half of the employees they currently have. I've heard that all of the value of a company truly comes from the top 10% performing employees.

But for a myriad of reasons (morale, fear of lawsuits, bad press, etc.) big companies can't fire people. However, the doomsday news surrounding the credit crisis has presented smart executives with a market oddity (or what they might call, an opportunity). They can, more or less without consequence, massively reduce their headcounts and, conversely, massively improve the efficiency (and eventually profits) of their organizations. Job losses are a side effect of economic cycles. Profits decline and companies cut jobs, then profits increase and companies hire. 

Because of #3, which isn't a part of every cycle (at least not to this extreme), this cycle should complete itself much quicker than it normally would. That's is, profits declined, companies ruthlessly slashed jobs -- more than they have since 1945 -- profits will increase (that much faster) and companies will begin hiring (that much faster). Predicting what the economy will and won't do is ways a bad idea but I do think the above is legitimate. Combining these realities with the bailout and the new administration, it'll be interesting (and hopefully exciting) to see where we go from here.

Art Appreciation

in

I like to write about writers that have inspired me to write more. But Joe Morgenstern, the movie critic for the Wall Street Journal, has inspired me in a different way.

For most of my life I've taken art at face value. That is, if an artist can do something that I, or the average person, can't do, then I'm impressed. If, on the other hand, I can do it, I'm not impressed.For example, the average person could never paint a landscape like Bob Ross. But the average person could easily duplicate at least half of what you see at MOMA (ok, not easily, but you get the point). So in my mind, that has been the difference between good art and bad art, lots of talent and not a lot of talent.

I've talked to a fair number of people about this that seem to agree. And I think it's pretty understandable. It's like looking at art through the same lens that one would use to look at sports; most people would pay more to see professionals play football than they would to see a 12 year old play Pop Warner. Why? Because professionals are much better than the average. More talent and skill = more quality.

I've been reading Joe Morgenstern's movie reviews for several years and I'm finally beginning to appreciate movies at a much deeper level. His amazing writing and insight into movies isn't just enlightening, it's entirely legitimate and logical. He sees things that the casual movie watcher does not. And after several years of reading his column, he's starting to rub off on me.

I now watch films with a more critical eye. I consider meanings that aren't immediately obvious, I watch how characters are built, how they make us think about ourselves, and the conflict that builds when we cheer for them when maybe we shouldn't, how we dislike them when maybe we should. I've realized that sometimes it's not the happy ending that makes the movie worth watching, often, the story itself is the gift.

From a technical perspective, nearly any film maker with the budget could make, say, Little Miss Sunshine. But very few could create a movie that connects with an audience like it did. In short, and thanks to Joe Morgenstern, I've begun to appreciate film for more than I see on the screen. I've begun to appreciate art. And I think that's pretty neat.

My BlackBerry

in

A lot has been made in recent weeks about Barack Obama being forced to go without his BlackBerry when he takes office later this month. I love the fact that we've elected a president that uses a BlackBerry -- clearly he's a hands on guy.

Anyway, I can feel Mr. Obama's pain as I wouldn't know what to do without my Curve, which I've had for about a year now.

Here are the things that I'm currently using the device for, in no particular order:

  • Phone (home and cell)
  • Texting
  • Email (work and personal)
  • Blogging (because the keyboard is so easy to use, I rarely feel the need to write on my laptop anymore)
  • News. I've setup the WSJ.com Reader on the device so I get real time news feeds from all of my favorite news outlets and blogs. I get more news through my BlackBerry than other format.
  • Personal calendar, address book, tasks and notes
  • Alarm clock
  • General web surfing
  • Facebook (I have the application though I rarely use it)
  • Camera 

And many people are doing much more than that...

There are still a few things that I still can't do on my BlackBerry that I wish I could, such as:

  • Easily view and edit MS Office docs
  • Watch video on Youtube
  • Easily use HTML email
  • iTunes (download and sync)
  • Stream live TV
  • Online radio (there's a way to do this I believe, I'm working on it)
  • Synchronize with my web browser (passwords, favorites, etc.)
  • Better web surfing (faster, more windows, flash, etc.)

Some of these things are coming soon, some require support from the service providers and some are simply limited by form factor. But for the most part I'm now at a point where I've become extremely reliant on my BlackBerry. There's a lot more progress coming to be sure but I'm convinced that the major handheld device makers (Blackberry/Apple/Palm) have built products/platforms that address the fundamental challenges of handheld computing. The development to come is simply icing on the cake.

Newspapers

in , ,

Paul Mulshine had a good column in the Wall Street Journal recently defending traditional journalism (newspapers) and criticizing the amateur bloggers that are putting them out of business.

He makes the point that because most bloggers aren't paid for their work they'll be less willing to, say, sit through a three hour school committee meeting and summarize the key points in an easy to read article. So in the future, the casual follower of events at the school will be left unaware of what transpired at the school committee meeting.

I agree with the Mr. Mulshine that, generally speaking, this is scary and would no doubt be a bad thing.

Here's where we differ: it's not going to happen.

Blogs and newspapers have fundamentally identical business models; they generate attention or "eyeballs" that can be monetized in the form of advertising fees. Some also charge nominal access fees though typically this doesn't generate significant revenue relative to ads. On a macro level it is this business model that dictates what does and doesn't get reported or blogged on. To make money, editors and bloggers have to answer a simple question: what will generate attention? If an article on the school committee meeting will generate eyeballs, then it will be reported on, or monetized.

Newspapers are disappearing not because people don't care about the school committee meeting, they're disappearing because people's attention is shifting online. Quickly. And the scalability of online advertising doesn't change the underlying business model.

Because many bloggers are unpaid, amateur, dishonest and uninteresting, Mr. Mulshine assumes that the industry will remain this way. But assuming there's always demand for information from honest, reliable sources, the blogging industry will slowly morph into more of what we know as traditional journalism, only better.

As is true with most industry changes, I think we'll find that the maturation of blogs and web content and the absence of newspapers is good for everyone -- including newspaper reporters.

2009

in ,

I'm not one for New Year's resolutions but I do set goals and think the beginning of a new year is a great time to reset. 

This year I've laid out several detailed and ambitious goals. I won't list them on this blog but, at a very high level, I want to lead my team and career to the next stage of growth, get in better shape than I've ever been in my life, be a much better friend and travel to some wonderful places and do some wonderful things. 

For those of us with big goals and high expectations there's no shortage of big challenges this year. A crappy economy; a lack of time, energy and money; rapidly changing priorities and shifting markets. Many of us are hunkering down, waiting for the next shoe to drop. 
I can only imagine how Obama is feeling as he gets ready to take over. 
But it's in times like these when the greatest things happen. When the greatest people stand out. When the greatest progress is made. There's really no better time to step up, stand out from the crowd and lead the way. If Obama and I can do that in 2009, it'll be good year.

Hard Work...

in

...isn't enough anymore. I've worked really hard this year.  Probably harder than I have ever worked in one year.  But as I look back on 2008, I realize that very little that I did this year will matter all that much for my career next year. I've made a ton of progress for myself, my team and my company in 2008 but I've gotta do it all over again in 2009.

The fact is that it's always only a matter of time before what we're doing today is outsourced, automated or assigned to someone who'll do it for less money than we're being paid now. That's progress.  And the global economy only speeds up the process of progress. In the 50's, we could think about this reality once a decade. Now we have to think about it once a quarter. To stay ahead and grow, a knowledge worker has to continuously innovate and add irreplaceable value.

This reminds me of an African proverb I read somewhere; just found it online:

Every morning in Africa, a gazelle wakes up.

It knows it must run faster than the fastest lion or it will be killed.

Every morning a lion wakes up.

It knows it must outrun the slowest gazelle or it will starve to death.

It doesn't matter whether you are a lion or a gazelle. When the sun comes up, you better start running.

The Big Three

in ,

It seems to me there are really two distinct issues around bailing out the automakers.

1. Should we save the employees?
2. Should we save the companies?

My answer to #1 is Yes and my answer to #2 is No.

It's important to recognize the distinction. Saving failing companies is bad for everybody (in the long run) and only delays the inevitable. If we're going to give away billions (in the short term), let's give it away in the form of unemployment and secondary education for displaced workers. 

We simply cannot continue to invest in or lend money to companies that lack vision, innovation and results.