Tony v. Om

Interesting discourse going on between Tony Perkins and Om Malik about what constitutes a blog and whether Michael Powell's columns on AlwaysOn constitute a blog or not. I can't resist adding my 2 cents.

First, Michael Powell is fantastic. I was privileged to spend some time with the Chairman and I think he is right on almost all of the issues. Lest this damn him in the eyes of my detractors, I ran into Marc Canter, a man I have respect for but who hardly can be said to share my political POV, and he too said that he’s a fan of Powell—we both want him to be President! I think a father/son presidential ticket in ’08 could be very hot (though, alas, it won’t happen.)

Second, Tony is to be commended for getting Powell to communicate in this way. It’s definitely a step in the right direction, regardless of how profound the content may or may not be to different people.

Third, there are millions of “blogs” out there and trying to come up with a set definition of what is and what is not a blog may be a lost battle—and I’m not sure it’s one worth fighting.

Fourth, Om has a point. Chairman Powell has done something unusual here which is that he has chosen to publish his views via a media brand, instead of via fcc.gov, or some forum that is impartial from a media perspective. This means that AlwaysOn will always have the “scoop” and be the primary media outlet for Powell’s posts, because they appear first on AO. This is good for AO, but it may prevent other media outlets from covering Powell’s posts because a media player has already reported it, in essence. I have to say I found it an odd choice for Powell to use AO rather than fcc.gov to house his “blog”—because it does indeed position Powell as an affiliate of a media brand, rather than an independent voice.

I think Tony has an interesting idea, which is sort of a hybrid of a media brand and a service provider for “bloggers.” Salon.com hosts users blogs and various other media folks are certainly evaluating whether to with blog tools and hosting. Certainly media sites that allow their users to comment or participate in discussion boards are doing much the same thing: providing a tool for their readers to “publish” online while being wrapped in or at least associated with a media brand.

However, IMO, we are in fish/fowl territory—that once you are associated with a media brand you are in essence a writer or columnist FOR that media brand, whether that column is in “blog” form or not. I think AO is in fact a media brand, and a good one, and therefore can’t really be an independent (ie media neutral) hosting service as well, unless it separated the two. Certainly the way AO has wrapped the Powell content in its site demonstrates that Powell is affiliating himself with a media brand, AO, in a way he wouldn’t be affiliating himself with, say Six Apart, if he were to use Movable Type. I don’t think there is anything wrong with this: Powell is better off that he was before because he has another platform to communicate his views, AO is better off because they landed some great, unique content, and the rest of us are better off because something useful now exists that didn’t before. Perhaps one could argue that it would be better for Powell to be independent from a media affiliation—but hey, Tony put a lot of effort in getting Powell to do this in the first place, I’m sure, so let him and AO benefit from that effort through this affiliation.

Let me point out that Tony has been very good at doing things that are neither fish nor fowl—and while folks can point out logical inconsistencies in it, I think it’s a useful form of innovation. When he was at Silicon Valley Bank he was part of a valuable kind of financing that was a blend of debt and equity, which although it was a hybrid was very helpful some important tech companies, such as Sybase. Certainly Red Herring was always in fish/fowl territory (excuse the pun). We never fully made up our minds when we launched whether it was a magazine or a newsletter, for example. We were always stretching it in unconventional ways that had logical inconsistencies, and rarely worried about the consequences. I think the name itself was a tacit acknowledgement--and perhaps a warning--that this contradiction existed. As a result of our reckless indifference to conventionality we did a lot of innovative things that more measured publishers may never have even thought of. And while that strategy didn’t always pay off, I think the company and the sector was better for it. I call this the Reece’s Peanut Butter Cup approach to innovation: sometimes combining two distinct things that don’t seem to belong together creates a whole better than the sum of its parts: peanut butter DOES go well with chocolate. Who knew?