With anything we write one of the goals is to get people’s attention, headlines are intended to do this in a newspaper. By avoiding what we call editorializing, that’s sharing one’s opinion beyond being objective and credible, writers and editors find catchy ways to get readers’ attention to read stories, even if it’s only the first few sentences of the story, or the lead. Scan the newspaper and see what, by headline alone, catches your attention. By the same token, when writing headlines for your blog posts try to make them catch, you have to think that with the millions of pieces of information available on the Web, if you get your content in front of a potential reader the title or headline is where conversion takes place. Granted, this takes some practice but will ultimately be one major way to get a good strong following from more distant readers (people who may not know you and simply come across or stumble onto your blog).

I was looking at Engadget the other day and this headline just jumped off the page at me,

What a headline, he got the gist of the story across, threw his twist on the story to get my attention and it worked. Compare this with “My thoughts for today” and unless I know you I probably won’t click on your blog to read about your thoughts.

My Two Cents: Although I think that user-generated content is what makes the Web great, I also think we can do a better job overall. Not only will writing more thought-provoking, catchier headlines cast a better light on us the writers, but it could also potentially drive traffic to our site.

• It confirms that the things we search for most are actually on the Internet–online services;
• It confirms that consumers want Web access to traditional brick and mortar stores;
• It shows that people are looking for interaction online;
• It may be proof that social networking sites are more than a trend;
• It proves that Yahoo! is more searched than Google–my bet is people are “Googleing” Yahoo!, what an irony.

Here’s the top ten list according to Hitwise:

1. MySpace
2. ebay
3. Yahoo!
4. Mapquest
5. craigslist
6. WalMart
7. Google
8. Target
9. match.com
10. Bank of America

My Two Cents: Does this list represent anything significant? To some degree, I would say yes. The survey was based on data from 10 million Internet users, and although that is a statistically significant number, to be sure we would need to compare lists over the years. At the very least, this list serves as great case studies or best practices for anyone who wants to become successful on the Internet.

My Two Cents: Web 2.0 is still evolving and it behooves us to figure it out before it becomes Web 3.0.

According to Eliason, Meosphere relies on users’ life experiences through various (read: eventually thousands) of lists that can be commented on and shared. Eliason says, “Everyone loves a list,” how true that is. Eliason and Meosphere have just closed a second round of funding, predominantly from Utah angel investors.

In order to participate, users share experiences through lists. One of the goals of the site is to encourage users to “get offline and become immersed in the real world.” In essence, this is the life list of the Web 2.0 social networking movement.

My Two Cents: As much as I tend to cringe at yet another social networking site, this site really make sense. I almost see this as a step up from the blog, which is sort of Journal 2.0. I like the concept because it combines non-computer/indoor experiences with the Internet, I am curious to see if it actually has the power to encourage users to get out of the house or office and experience life and the world. I think if it can pick up the traction, it has potential to become a great site.

From Daily ‘Dog: “The new website, called Wallop, is bound to make a splash in the competitive pool of friend-collecting websites. Microsoft’s tagline for the site, which will offer a wide range of tools and features that will hopefully set it apart from similar pages, is ‘the exclusive social experience.’”

My Two Cents: I have seen a couple of articles mention Google and how it is playing catchup, well, I think it’s safe to say that Microsoft is playing the same game (read: Zune & Wallop). Hopefully for Bill Gates and company it isn’t a day late and a dolar short. We’ll see how Wallop fares and the Zune in November–which, by the way, it was announced this morning will be priced almost $1 more than the equivalent iPod.(Read the Reuters article here on CNN.com)

It turns out that this person writes a blog/column for an industry in which I am very involved. I could link to this person in order to get press or publicity, so I wonder if I should accept this person’s invitation to swap info on Linkedin or whether I should use the service strictly as a means to create meaningful relationships and network with professionals–genuine relationships rather than a means to an end.

Anyone out there have a suggestion?

A number of people of have commented on using Digg. Read Greg Hartnett’s post and comments; Steve Rubel’s thoughts and responses; another post here and here.

My Two Cents: I recently had a good friend Digg a news release about a client. At first I felt this was a misuse of Digg, but after further thought, I think to Digg one’s own release is just a step beyond putting the Digg link on the release page. I mean, with so many news sources on the net, why not cut through the clutter and get the story in the communications channel? Where I see it being a problem is if the entire agency and client Diggs the article and creates a pseudo-popularity and I think crosses a line. What are your thoughts?

I am probably one of the last to hear about youtube and the lonelygirl15.com hoax/stunt??? It was brought to my attention by Mike Pogue of the New York Times.

My Two Cents: This youtube event reminds me of the .com vs .org discussion wherein we need to know the source of information to determine credibility. I am not familiar with thelonelygirl15 story but from the sounds of it, it’s pretty innovative, regardless of who is promulgating the videos and site. The danger I see is that, in an era when trust and transparency are in more and more demand, events like this can blur the lines and hurt credibility. Time will tell, and again, this is part of the learning curve.

What do you think? How important is disclosure in advertising? Do you see this as detrimental to corporate or brand trust?

As a communicator, I really get a kick out of the new communications channels the Internet has provided, and podcasting is cool because it is tech-heavy, i.e., it requires a little bit of techknowledge in order to put it out there. The problem I have is this: How many people are going to use/listen to my podcast?

My gut tells me that tons of people know what a podcast is, thanks to Steve Jobs’ iPod. But I think, and my good friend Russ Page agrees, the curve for adoption from there drops off big time. Now ask people if they’ve listened to a podcast, probably a pretty good response, but then get into “Do you listen to the podcasts you subscribe to on a regular basis?”; “Do you know how to subscribe to a podcast?”; “Do you know how to create a podcast?” I base much of this off of my own experience, I listen to podcasts from time to time, I even subscribe to a handful, but because my work is thought intensive, I really can’t listen to the podcast during the day, and that doesn’t leave a lot of other time for me to listen to the podcast.

I think podcasting is a valuable tool, but it needs a little more education to speed up the adoption process. According to the Pew Institute, an April 2005 report stated that more than 22 million Americans own an Ipod or an mp3 player, of those, 29 percent have downloaded a podcast. that’s 6 million people. Definitely a lot, but the study doesn’t show repeat use, and can’t say for certain if the podcast was actually listened to–which as a communicator is very important. The research was also limited to those older than 18.

Here are some other interesting points:

• There are no differences between men and women owners of iPods/MP3 players
when it comes to podcasting. They are equally likely to have downloaded
podcasts.
• Nearly half of those who own iPods/MP3 players between the ages of 18-28 have
downloaded podcasts, compared to about 20% of the owners iPods/MP3 players
over age 29 who have done so.
• Somewhat surprisingly, there is no notable gap between those who have
broadband access and dial-up users when it comes to podcasting. Some 33% of
the owners of iPods/MP3 players who have broadband at home have downloaded
podcasts and 28% of those who have dial-up at home have done so. This is not a
statistically significant difference.

My Two Cents: I think it is still an evolving channel and given the adoption rate thus far, it may prove to be a quickly growing channel that is growing exponentially. At the very least, I think that a podcast can be a great additional resource, I would use a podcast to compliment a fact sheet or bio, it would add some audio that investors or journalists might be interested in listening to.
What do you think? Have you had success/failure with podcasting? Do you think it is a viable channel?