Who Killed The Internet Auction?

Read this awhile back, but loved it. James Surowiecki explains why the internet action has lost its excitement:

Why did auctions, in a matter of years, go from world-shaking innovation to seeming curio? To begin with, the experience of auctions changed over time, generally in ways that made them less appealing to both buyers and sellers. Scot Wingo, CEO of ChannelAdvisor, which consults for ecommerce companies, points to the advent of sniping—the practice of placing winning bids at the last second—as something that has alienated ordinary shoppers. “New bidders don’t understand or expect sniping, so when it happens, you see people leave in frustration,” he says. It’s not that sniping is illicit—depending on the kind of auction, bidding as late as possible often makes sense. But sniping has stripped auctions of much of their entertainment value. What fun is it to wait for seven days, only to be outbid at the last second, with no chance of competing?

The Short-Sightedness of iTunes Match

When iTunes Match was first announced as part of Apple’s iCloud initiative, many thought that the benefit to consumers would be obvious. But Rob Sevier, co-owner of indie label Numero Group, doesn’t see it that way:

The company also prides itself on making “cultural artifacts,” replete with extensive liner notes, lyrics, album art, and more. For Numero in particular, iCloud doesn’t offer any tangible benefits. “We’d rather the CD, or better yet the LP, be the backup, not iCloud,” he said.

But, there are bigger issues that could have serious repercussions for artists and labels, especially independent ones. “We could have quietly opted out and not said anything,” Sevier said. “We don’t think most of the people that read our blog really care much about the finer details of copyrights. But we know a number of other people in the industry who might go for this without thinking though all these other issues.”

Conservatism and the Death of Empiricism

Andrew Sullivan critiques the Republican party’s complete ignorance of empirical evidence:

Back in the 1980s, conservatism was a thrilling empirical, reality-based challenge to overweening government power and omniscient liberal utopianism. Today, alas, it has become a victim of its own success, reliving past glories rather than tackling current problems. It is part secular dogma – no taxes, no debt, more war – and part religious dogma – no Muslims need apply; amend the federal constitution to keep gays in their place; no abortions even for rape and incest; more settlements on the West Bank to prepare for the End-Times. Although there were inklings back then – Stockman was right; Iran-Contra should have been a warning – they were still balanced by empiricism. Reagan raised taxes, withdrew from Lebanon, hated war, and tried to abolish all nuclear weapons on earth. The first Bush was an under-rated deficit-cutter and diplomat, a legacy doubly squandered by his son.

Now it’s Levin-land: either total freedom or complete slavery and a rhetorical war based entirely on that binary ideological spectrum. In other words, ideological performance art: brain-dead, unaware of history, uninterested in policy detail, bored by empiricism, motivated primarily by sophistry, Manicheanism, and factional hatred. This is not without exceptions. Douthat, Brooks, Zakaria, Bacevich, Bartlett, Frum, Manzi, Salam, Lomborg, Mac Donald, et al. are still thinking. It’s just that many of them are now deemed – absurdly – to be liberals. And none will have or does have any real impact on the base of the party.

Photo Shoots: Grace Van’t Hof and Amanda

It used to be that my goal in life was to become a good photographer with a solid journalistic style. That all changed when I started reading the work of David Hobby. Hobby has built an empire out of blogging about mostly one thing: off-camera flash. For the uninitiated, off-camera flash is the use of a flash unit that is not attached to the camera. This sounds like a small difference, but it can make for brilliant photos that were previously thought to be impossible. As netizens, we’ve often seen the results of a point-and-shoot aimed and flashed right at a person, who has that dear-in-the-headlights look and a white, washed out face. Off-camera flash allows you to mitigate those types of photos and create true art. I had used it before for weddings, but Hobby allowed me to see it in a different, more refined way, and I’m eternally grateful to him for it.

[FYI: I’m also a huge fan of the work of Neil Van Neikirk, whose detailed blog also provides a lot of help in the off-camera flash area]

I had the ability to use some off-camera flash extensively with a couple of shoots that I did recently. First up is local musician Grace Van’t Hof, who plays a pretty mean banjo. I went over to Grace’s very-interesting-looking house and we did a lot of profile-style shots as well as some more interesting poses.

In addition, I worked with a classmate recently, Amanda, to produce shots for use in her online portfolio and website. These are almost all exclusively done using off-camera flash and shoot-through umbrellas (Lumopro 160s fired through Westcott 43″ umbrellas).

Stephen Tobolowsky on the Kevin Pollak Chat Show

Speaking of good podcasts, Stephen Tobolowsky recently appeared on the Kevin Pollak Chat Show to promote The Tobolowsky Files. It is a pretty dynamite episode, if I do say so myself. Listeners of the Files will recognize many of the stories that Stephen tells, but he also pulls out a few that even I haven’t heard yet.

The whole thing is 2 hours long, but I found it enthralling enough that I was able to watch it in its entirety within a few sittings. Also of note: around 53 minutes into this episode, Kevin Pollak mentions my name numerous times! I mean, he doesn’t know who I am or anything, but still! Stephen Tobolowsky and Kevin Pollak discussed me like I am actual person or something! Another life goal achieved.

Podcasts I Currently Listen To

I’ve been getting a bunch of e-mails/tweets asking about specific podcasts I’ve mentioned on the /Filmcast, so I thought I’d put together a brief post compiling them all. I listen to a lot of podcasts, not just for enjoyment, but because I think it’s important to figure out what makes shows work (or not work), and try to incorporate lessons learned into my own show(s).

I don’t listen to each of these every single week, but they’re all in the rotation to some extent on my iPhone. Links to reviews if I have them (otherwise I link to iTunes listing). In no particular order:

I may be leaving out a few, but that’s the bulk of them. I realize there are a lot of excellent shows that aren’t on this list, but sometimes you have to make difficult decisions in order to survive the pop culture landscape.

Is The Article a Byproduct of Journalism?

There’s been some interesting debate recently about whether or not the concept of “the article” is still valuable in an age of Twitter and Facebook. Not too long ago, Jeff Jarvis published an article claiming that the article was a byproduct of journalism, as opposed to its teleological endpoint:

The bigger question all this raises is when and whether we need articles. Oh, we still do. Articles can make it easy to catch up on a complex story; they make for easier reading than a string of disjointed facts; they pull together strands of a story and add perspective. Articles are wonderful. But they are no longer necessary for every event. They were a necessary form for newspapers and news shows but not the free flow, the never-starting, never-ending stream of digital. Sometimes, a quick update is sufficient; other times a collection of videos can do the trick. Other times, articles are good.

Frédéric Filoux wasn’t having any of that, and he chimed in with a response:

The problem is not Jarvis’ views of journalism. He’s a talented provocateur who sometimes smokes his own exhaust. But punditry isn’t reporting or analysis. Still, his talks, books, multiple appearances and knack for self-promotion are quite influential with many young journalists. They shouldn’t be misled. It’s not because news organizations tend to spend less and less on original reporting or on expertise, that those assets ought to be declared unimportant. Also, it’s not because a growing proportion of journalists are actually unable to produce high value stories or articles that the genre is no longer needed. On these matters, Jarvis is reversing cause and effect.

Jeff Jarvis responded to Filoux, saying that Filoux “willfully misrepresen” him. And he makes some good points:

First, far from denigrating the article, I want to elevate it. When I say the article is a luxury, I argue that using ever-more-precious resources to create an article should be taken seriously and before writing and editing a story we must assure that it will add value. Do most articles do that today? No. Go through your paper in the morning and tell me how much real value is added and how much ink is spilled to tell you what you already know (whether that is facts you learned through Twitter, the web, TV, radio, et al or background that is reheated more often than a stale slice in a bad New York pizzeria).