Bloggers, male and female, are real and as diverse as all of the stars in the cosmos.

Do what you do best.  You are real to me.

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

• Response to the Margaret Wente column that asks why bloggers are male
• How to be a better (world builder) blogger
• A new blogging resource – The Blogging Lens
• Thought wrestling – the sport of different thinkers
• Why do you blog if not for money?

I’m a big fan of Foursquare. It’s not because of the game or even the possibility of getting deals at nearby locations when I check-in. What’s fascinating about Foursquare, and in my opinion, at the heart of its success to-date, is the fact that it has created a new, automatic user behavior.

Remember Pavlov’s dog?

Ivan Pavlov developed the concept of the “conditional reflex” after studying how dogs would salivate in response to a stimuli (other than food). Turns out according to the Wikipedia article he might not have even used a bell, although that’s what we all remember in popular culture. But anyway…

Conditional reflexes. Conditional responses. The basic idea is a reflex, response, or action that is automatic, without thinking, based on some repeated stimuli. It’s pretty powerful stuff. We’re talking mind control here. Imagine if you could condition people to respond the way you wanted, say, when they saw you in a blue shirt, they automatically gave you a $20 bill. Or, every time you clapped your hands your partner (wife, girlfriend, boyfriend, husband, roommate, etc.) would stop what they’re doing and get you a beer. Sweet.

And the beauty and huge potential with Foursquare is the fact that they’ve done exactly that; creating a conditional reflex in people to “check-in” when they go to a location. I bet if you asked people who use Foursquare what’s the first thought they have when they go into any location (other than their home), it’s, “I have to check-in.” Even if you don’t check-in (because you don’t want people to know, for example) you still think about it.

That’s a completely new behavior. And it’s practically automatic. You go somewhere, you check-in. That’s just what you do.

Creating new behaviors in people is very hard. Most of the time, if the success of your product depends on creating a new behavior you’re screwed. It’s just that hard to do. Yet Foursquare — and other mobile apps like Gowalla — have managed to pull it off.

If the “check-in” behavior sets into our brains to the point where it becomes a true conditional reflex, it will be amazing. The company that dominates that new behavior will have a significant amount of power on their hands.

I’d argue that any new mobile application will need to create a conditional reflex behavior in people to be successful, both in terms of attracting new users, but more importantly with respect to repeat usage. You want to create a situation where every time someone sees X (or X happens) they do Y (with your mobile app). Without that level of simplicity and conditioning (whether via a new behavior or not), you’re going to get lost in a sea of other mobile applications and things people can do with their time.

image thankfully provided by shutterstock

By the time my plane touched down in Texas the first half of this story was already written.

By the time I left I had thrown out about five drafts and was pretty sure it was never going to get written.

By the way, I was going to SXSW, which is basically what would happen if you took the web tech industry, spun it around in a mixing bowl and poured it out into the streets of Austin. To the extent that there are panels and events, it’s a conference, but I am sure some people say the same thing about Burning Man.

Back to my story.

I was going to write about startups, entrepreneurs, creative-types the people who shuffle out of their basement offices once a year to show off their shiny new ideas to the throngs of press, money-people and enthusiasts who fill the conference halls.

I picked this topic for a good reason, maybe the best reason. Last year what I saw was nothing short of a carnival, with everything from rapid fire pitches complete with samples of organic food-stuffs in the after-party line to one company that showered $5 bills with business cards attached on the heads of unsuspecting conference goers. Armed with these memories, I was ready to hunt down the weirdest, wackiest and most hilarious of these bits of human ingenuity and sum them up in a 1000 words or so to justify my press credentials.

Then things changed.

I don’t know when I started to feel it, but as I sat through the panels and chatted with the always awesome folks who came out, I could tell something was different. In years past you couldn’t walk ten steps without tripping over someone’s new calendar app; this year you certainly had products but many of them were well established, more complex and otherwise felt less like the basement startups of old and more like real, viable businesses.

What else did you have that was different? Grown ups.

The conference hall was filled with representatives from agencies, corporate employees and business owners all in search of some fundamental understanding of what the web has to offer. These people were there expressly for the purpose of finding ways to transform the things that we play around with into cash for their businesses, many of which represent broad cross-sections of the Forbes 100.

It was downright odd, and it left me spending far more time than I should have sitting around Value Place at 5AM trying to put my head around what had happened.

What did I come up with? It’s hard to say really, though here are a few guesses.

Let’s start with the startups.

The industry of pulling ideas out of your imagination and building companies around them is heavily fueled by venture dollars. You need someone, somewhere to believe in you enough to decide to throw large sums of money behind your musings. Last year those dollars stopped flowing. Recession economics caused many VCs to pull out of speculation and focus their shrinking war chests on making their existing projects profitable. This type of squeeze does two things — the first is that it acts as a filter, rationing dollars to ideas that seem most likely to turn into cash. The second is that it forces entrepreneurs to be more thoughtful about the ideas that they pitch. Both of these factors translate into fewer, stronger companies showing up to pitch because everyone else will have been priced out of the market.

Darwin would be proud of that particular bit of reasoning but that still doesn’t explain why SXSW nearly doubled in attendance this year. If the entrepreneurs are being priced out, who is filling their seats?

The real world.

Well, as close to the real world as you get in this industry.

It was the Marketers, PR folks, agencies and web design firms who over the last year have heard the preaching about “new media” and were finally in the position to fly someone out to Austin to bring back the good word. You also have the agencies who have been working in this field, whose corporate clients have asked them to attend to manage campaigns or speak. In short, The eyes and ears of big companies were in attendance, watching our little dance and listening for nuggets of wisdom to bring back to their bosses and integrate into next seasons campaigns.

All of these small shifts came together to create a different kind of culture — one that represents a different kind of web industry. If two years ago was about web celebrity and last year was the age of the startup, this year the most novel thing you would see when you wandered the halls was just how many large companies were paying attention, how many startups were actually thinking about their business models, and how much more focus (at least outside the panels) was being put on the fundamentals of a changing industry instead of the hype.

It was refreshing, scary, amazing, uncomfortable change and it happened because we changed. Every aspect of it is a reflection of what we’ve spent the last 365 days working on, and whether you think that’s the greatest thing in the world or a tragedy of the highest order, at the end of the day you’re responsible for it, I’m responsible for it and so is the industry as a whole.

Short list of people who helped inspire this piece in a variety of subtle but important ways –

Sunir Shah – Freshbooks
Nathan Thompson – Marketing Experiments
Ethan Bloch – Flowtown
Kenneth Lim – Sharktail
Meredith Stevens – National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
Ginger Pelz – MGA Communications
Cali Harris – Caligater
Elaine Ellis – The Art of Awkward
Matt Dickman – Fleishman-Hillard
David Spinks – Scribnia

(Images)

I caught wind of this column via a Tweet from @suzemuse (Susan Murphy of Suzemuse).  Margaret Wente, a Toronto Globe and Mail columnist, published a column called Why are bloggers male?  She makes a number of interesting assertions on how blogging is a male activity and that women communicate differently both in terms of venue and thoughtfulness.  You might want to read the column before reading any further so you can ground yourself.

I’ve written a response to her column.  I have E-mailed it to her separately but I’m publishing it here as well since I thought some of you might have some thoughtful responses to her column.

My response is a bit long, but I hope you’ll be able to read it through to the end.  I’d love to know what you think.

#  #  #

Dear Ms. Wente:

This E-Mail will discuss a (very) recent column you’ve written in order to express my reaction and point of view about that column. It is, of course, your choice to read this E-Mail. I hope you do read it (if you’ve gotten this far, there’s a decent chance that you’ll read the whole thing) and I would appreciate reading your response to my opinion in some fashion. My hypothesis at this point, lacking the ability to read minds, is that it is unlikely that you will do either, but I’ve certainly been proven to be wrong before, so there is always hope that you might choose to do both things.

I read your well-crafted Globe and Mail column (noted above in the subject line of this E-Mail and here with this link) with some interest as I’m both a blogger (I consider myself to be a writer as well but most of my output is published electronically using blogging platforms) and a man. A couple of my female contacts have expressed their disagreement with parts (if not all) of the column, but that is a small sampling of your potential audience. I could point out that you reference small samples of people when you wrote about:

• Your theory about blogging being related to “male answer syndrome”
• The experience of being “struck dumb” in being the presence of stranger
• Women have never held peeing contests – this is speculation and it’s also virtually impossible to prove a negative statement when speaking about an entire gender composed of billions of members over the millennia; I do agree that it seems a bit far-fetched since I have no evidence one way or the other.

But that doesn’t necessarily invalidate your opinions. For that matter, it doesn’t make the opinions of my female contacts incorrect either.

Your reference to Andrew Sullivan makes me think that your opinion of blogs and male blogging in particular are based on Mr. Sullivan’s blog as a typical example. Your reference to the childish and abusive behavior of blog and website commentators – which I certainly don’t dispute as being all too frequent on popular blogs and websites, although I’m very fortunate to not have to worry about such problems at present – is also another example of presenting an overgeneralization. I suspect that you are aware that you are making these generalizations because there is a lot of value to you and your employer in creating a bit of controversy and stimulating some discussion. However, on the off chance that you might truly think that these opinions are factual, I’m going to present a few counter opinions and facts.

Blogging is now used as a more generic term that when bloggers like Andrew Sullivan rode the wave of the emerging medium. Blogs were originally pages full of links with some description (hence the original term weblog, to represent an ongoing log of websites that the blogger had visited.) Over time, as blogging platforms have become more numerous and richer in functionality, it has become much easier to use these platforms to display written and graphical content, while incorporating both audio and video content. The end result is a medium which can closely mimic the layout abilities of magazines, books, and newspapers and do even more. As a result, bloggers have been gravitating towards writing longer form content. Articles published on the web are able to exceed 400 words very easily. In some cases, many bloggers regularly publish 1000 words or more in their articles and posts, accompanied with other embedded media and hyperlinks to other websites.

I’m assuming that these facts are new to you, although it’s quite possible that you do know this already. Even probable.

Let’s both be honest, OK? I think we both know that there are plenty of digital publishers out there who represent different extremes of brevity, contentiousness, depth of feeling, logical arguments, and civility. For some reason you’ve chosen to focus on a (relatively) famous male blogger whose blog posts tend to be relatively short, even compared to many blogs, plus he actually republishes a lot of other people’s content. In fact, I’m making the assumption that Andrew Sullivan is your “ideal” male blogger (i.e. the mental model you have in mind when you write about male bloggers).

The peeing contests that you mention seem to be related to the commentators that I mentioned above. Are you lumping the commentators into the same class as the bloggers themselves? Isn’t that a bit of a stretch? Wouldn’t that be like comparing you (a Globe and Mail columnist) to the people who comment on your blog? I don’t actually see a direct link to the peeing contests that you mention and the commentators. But, of course, the parallel that you could be drawing here is that the kneejerk responses of the commentators could be similar to those of the bloggers themselves, who seem to ejaculate (sorry, but it seems to be a fitting metaphor when you bring in the subject of male answer syndrome and its sexual origins) posts multiple times per day with an admirable recovery period that might make some men jealous if you apply the analogy far enough.

I appreciate the fact that your writing displays a sense of sophistication and craft that “bloggers” seem to lack in your eyes. In fact, while taking the time to craft a piece of well written opinion, you’ve managed to engage me emotionally and trigger a response. It’s amazing how you’ve managed to provoke a response, much like the opinionated male bloggers that you mention in your column. Except, of course, your method of provocation is somewhat more subtle that the typical pundit blogger that you refer to. As for me, my spelling, grammar, punctuation and tone are more civilized that the commentators that you’ve referred to: folks who are doing the digital equivalent seeing how far their stream of urine will reach and, if they’re feeling ambitious, trying to write profanity or perhaps draw crude sexual imagery with the aforementioned streams. Hopefully I haven’t mistaken your intent here, but given my gender I am occasionally cursed with an inability to appreciate subtlety. Sorry, I was born this way.

It’s interesting that you include a suggestion for creating an audience in your column. Apparently all I would have to do is to write “Margaret Wente is an idiot” and I could likely increase my subscriber and page view counts by some multiple. I could point to studies and statistics (and, come to think of it, actual web sites) which show that there is a plethora of women bloggers, many who are talented and thoughtful, but they also share the blogospheres with more opinionated members of the same gender. But, Ms. Wente, I do not think you are an idiot. Not at all.

The reason is simple: no one with the experience in old and new media that you must have could possibly believe such a stupid idea, that bloggers are exclusively male or that the desire to “blog” is a male behavior. If there’s one thing that I’ve learned over the past few years, it’s that the act of “blogging” is now a diverse activity that encompasses many types of digital publishing. Self expression isn’t a gender specific trait. It’s regrettable that you and some of your female friends had difficulty communicating in the presence of strangers. If it helps at all, it certainly isn’t a female-only phenomenon and I suspect it has more to do with personality types and social conditioning than gender. I know I was afraid to speak in front of strangers for many years and even today it doesn’t come naturally unless I feel very strongly about something. Whether it was a change in hormones or personal development, I don’t know, but at least you feel more confident and self-assured and this is a good thing.

Thank you for stimulating some thought today. I’m both E-Mailing you and publishing my response on my blog so that: a) there’s a chance that you’ll read it, as I mentioned earlier and b) other people can weigh in on this topic. Who knows, maybe I’ll finally attract a few trolls with this.

P.S. An obvious advantage of the blogging platform I don’t have the same constraints on column space that newspaper columnists do. Although I’d concede that the more you write, the harder it is to keep someone else’s attention. If you’ve made it all the way to the end of this response, then kudos to you and thank you for taking the time to do so.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Atlantic Redesign: The Medium is the Message (outsidethebeltway.com)
• Link-phobic bloggers at the NYT and WSJ (blogs.reuters.com)
• Goldberg On New Media (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Borg-like Atlantic Redesign Sparks Blogger Crisis of Identity [Redesigns] (gawker.com)
• The hardest working Blogger on the Planet (potpolitics.com)

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

• The Power of Context or EVERYBODY knows who JOHN is
• How to be a better (world builder) blogger
• A new blogging resource – The Blogging Lens
• Thought wrestling – the sport of different thinkers
• Why do you blog if not for money?

For fun, I have written four things in this blog post.  Three things are clearly in some kind of code or such.  One might not be so clear.

The first person to correctly decode all four things and leave the correct translations/solutions in the comments section wins $5.00 US (to be sent by PayPal).

Have at it!

First puzzle

Ometimessay eway aketah isthay oggingblay ingthay ootay eriouslysay.  Eway ustjay eednay otay avehay omesay unfay ceonay niay aay ilewhay.

Second puzzle

fI ew era oot tsenrae dna oot deggod ew teg siht muidem yletelpmoc sdrawkcab

Third puzzle

- …. .. … / .. … / -. — – / .- -. / … — … / – …. .. … / .. … / .— ..- … – / .–. .-.. .- -.– .. -. –. / .– .. – …. / – …. . / — . -.. .. ..- –

Four puzzle (what is the hidden message?)

Even

Normal

Jive

Obfuscates

You

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

• Why I wear eyeglasses

I did a quick presentation at the Montreal.rb meeting about startup to-dos — things you should really think about before starting companies. It’s great to see more and more developers and tech folks interested in starting companies. In places like Silicon Valley it’s often tech people who launch startups. We need more startups in Montreal and in other ecosystems that aren’t the current startup hubs. So kudos to the Montreal Ruby on Rails gang for recognizing that and pushing those ideas forward.

The presentation is below. While there are a few points in it that are Montreal-centric, they really do apply to any location.

1. Get the best support staff you can: Everyone talks about hiring the best team, that A-players are incredibly more valuable and productive than B or C-players. But don’t forget the support staff too — accountants, bookkeepers, janitorial staff, etc. These people can make a huge difference to how smoothly your business operates, and they come in very handy during big startup milestones like financings and acquisitions.
2. Get out of your comfort zone: Don’t start a company as a tech person if all you want to do is code. If all you want to do is code, then get a job coding. Starting a company means to do a lot of things you’ve never done, and a lot of things you won’t be comfortable doing. Get used to it. Make the uncomfortable comfortable.
3. Decide what you stand for and believe in: I do think it’s important for startups at the very beginning to work on determining their values and purpose, and to find some common ground amongst co-founders. A startup culture isn’t automatic or easy to build and maintain.
4. Do your homework: Although you can never really know what it’s like to start a company until you do it, you need to do your homework before you jump in with both feet blindly. There are ample resources for that: books, blogs, advisors, other successful entrepreneurs. On top of which, you need to do your homework about the industry, market, competitors, etc. You need to get out there and talk to customers before you even build a product. Do your homework. Please. Otherwise you stand a very good chance of being startup D.O.A.
5. Iterate quickly and pivot nearly as fast: Developers don’t have to be told to iterate quickly, most guys get this, but what’s harder when you run a startup is to pivot — to essentially take what you’ve done and worked your ass off on and set it aside (I don’t like the term “throw it in the garbage”) to do something different. And often what you pivot to is significantly different. You have to have the wherewithal and maturity to accept that something you’re doing isn’t working, stop banging your head against the wall and change. There’s a fine line between “good stubborn” and “bad stubborn” – be aware of when you might be crossing it.
6. Understand metrics and how to optimize them: You need to know what key metrics will help assess success or failure for your startup. It might be repeat visitors. It might be some form of engagement. It might be lifetime value of the customer. It might be all of those things. Whatever the metrics specifically are, you need to know them, measure them constantly and work on optimizing them. You’d be surprised at how small product changes (or even marketing message / brand changes) can have a significant impact on key metrics.
7. Know what milestones you need to hit: Focus is so important in a startup. You need a ton of it. And you need everyone in your startup aligned on the same milestones. I think of milestones as gates — gates that you either go through because you’ve accomplished what you needed to, or gates that are closed to you. If they’re closed you circle back and try again (and likely pivot) or stop. This warrants an entirely separate post…
8. Build a personal brand: I repeat this quite often in many different situations because you can’t ignore the power of having a strong personal brand. The great thing about a personal brand is that it lives past the life of your startup. Whether your startup succeeds or fails, your personal brand provides future social leverage in your life. And it can help propel your existing startup in lots of ways.
9. Get your ass out of X: In the slides above I say “Montreal” but really this is relevant to everyone, including folks in the startup hubs like Silicon Valley and New York. Get out of there! The universe isn’t a 5 mile radius around your office. Your customers aren’t necessarily your neighbors. This is especially true in places like Montreal, where most of your startup’s business will be elsewhere. Get your ass out there and discover the world. Meet as many people as you can. Recognize the speed at which the world is moving (cause you’re probably moving too slowly) and the power of networking.
10. Don’t raise money … until you’re ready: You raise money when you understand what you’re going to use it for (i.e. what’s the next gate you have to get through that requires funds) and when you’ve lowered the risk enough to the point that you’ll be able to raise more money at a better valuation. The longer you wait to raise funding as you’re making progress on your product, acquiring customers, etc. the better.

Following yesterday’s post on world building, I made a list of qualities that a blogger with a world builder mentality would have.  They include (in no particular order):

• Have a vision and stay true to it
• Have principles and stick to them
• Devise and implement rules that make sense
• Use a language that isn’t hard to learn
• Describe your world in detail, one blog post at a time – maps are good
• Show and tell – give examples, models, case studies, tips and tricks
• Spotlight great examples that are happening elsewhere
• Work well with other world builders – diplomatic relations
• Don’t be afraid to experiment
• Don’t be afraid to scrap a bad project or mistake
• Take responsibility
• Be a good steward
• Be a benevolent dictator
• Build great things
• Continue to evolve
• Spread hope
• Remember the Golden Rule
• Tell stories
• Celebrate
• Be thankful
• Love thy neighbor
• Offer help
• Answer questions
• Lead conversations
• Offer basic information to those who need it
• Offer advanced knowledge to those who are ready to receive it
• Collaborate
• Do your best work over and over

Do you agree or disagree with any or all of these points?  Was there anything important that I missed?

Other posts that you might enjoy reading:

• Thought wrestling – the sport of different thinkers
• What I learned during Broadcasting Brain Year One
• A new blogging resource – The Blogging Lens
• Why do you blog if not for money?
• Thoughts from Seth Godin