• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
Danny Brown

Danny Brown

podcaster - author - creator

  • About
  • Podcasts
  • Journal

Guest Posts

Why We Bloggers Are Ignorant

Elephant Painting

This is a guest post by Ari Herzog.

I confess guilt.

When I recently shared how to write a blog post, I specified the noun, “post.”

That was wrong of me. I should have echoed Phil Gerbyshak and specified the noun, “article,” as in, how to write a blog article.

Are we ignoramuses for interchanging the verbs used for publishing blog articles with the nouns used for the articles themselves?

I don’t think this is about semantics.

The blog, according to Wikipedia, is an ongoing diary or commentary and each entry is popularly called a “blog post.”

Why is each entry, this entry, any entry called a blog post?

Use the word as a verb and it makes sense, as in Danny posted his thoughts about elephants, but use the verb as a noun and you need a new verb. You can’t have it both ways. I suggest the term is overused and should be stricken from our lexicons. Interchange “posted” with “published” if you insist, but substitute “post” with “article” for the thing being distributed.

More to the point, if a blog is indeed a serial publication and qualifies for an International Standard Serial Number, then why not use the same terminology as other publications? Does the New York Times or Le Monde say they just posted something, or they wrote a news post? Of course not. Why should bloggers be different?

Let’s treat a blog as a part of media. Who agrees?

Thanks to Venson Kuchipudi for photographing the elephant.

Ari Herzog is a policy and communications specialist south of the border. He works dually as a new media consultant for public organizations and as an elected councilman. To learn more about him, check out his blog at ariherzog.com or follow him on Twitter at @ariherzog.

Lessons from an Entrepreneur Turned CEO

Gini Dietrich

Gini Dietrich

This is a guest post from Gini Dietrich, CEO of Arment Dietrich, Inc.

Nearly three years ago I had to make the transition from working in the business to working on the business. It was a difficult transition (sometimes still is) because no one tells you how to do it. When I asked my peers, friends, and family what a CEO should be doing, no one could give me a straight answer.

I read a ton of books. I read every article I could find. ?I brought it as an issue to my Vistage group. I asked other entrepreneurs turned CEOs. I kept a list of things I thought I should be doing as a CEO.

It turns out being the CEO of a company you founded means different things to different people. What is important to me may not be important to other business leaders, which is probably why I couldn?t find the magic answer in all of my searching.

Following are some of the lessons I?m learning in my journey to the top:

  • Cash truly is king.
  • Debt isn?t bad, unless there is a recession and you can?t get access to capital because you already have debt.
  • Big is not always better; profit is always best.
  • Leadership is not about being the first one in and the last one to leave the office, nor about working the most hours.
  • Employee communication should happen only in person; internal email sucks.
  • Just because you have three letters after your name does not mean you have to be all business all of the time, if it doesn?t fit your personality.
  • If our clients aren?t happy and want me working on their accounts, it?s because I haven?t done my staff coaching and mentoring job well enough.
  • My time is best spent on innovation, coaching and mentoring staff, landing the whales, and being the face of the company.
  • It?s okay to say no, if it?s for something not in the four areas listed above.
  • It?s good to shake things up every once in a while, in an effort to stay ahead of the trends.
  • It?s great to have friends who run competitive companies; if the relationship is set up correctly, we work very well together.
  • People like working for a company that stands for something and lives its values.
  • My gut is ALWAYS right.
  • Engagement, connection, and transparency are the most important communication tools ? with employees, with clients, with prospects, with talent candidates, with vendors, with partners, and any other stakeholder.
  • Bad news does not go away and it does not get better with age; no matter how much I hate conflict, sometimes it?s worse in my head than it is in reality.
  • Having fun with my colleagues, and connecting with them as people, is what I truly love about getting up and going to work every day.

What have you learned? What do you do that is not on this list?

Gini Dietrich is the founder and chief executive officer of Arment Dietrich, Inc. and the author of Spin Sucks, the 2010 Readers Choice Blog of the Year, a Top 42 Content Marketing Blog from Junta42, a top 10 social media blog from Social Media Examiner, and an AdAge Power 150 blog. You can subscribe to Spin Sucks or connect with Gini on Twitter or on Facebook to learn more.

The Most Powerful Weapon in the World

Powerful images by Debbi Morello

Powerful images by Debbi Morello

This is a guest post from Debbi Morello. It follows my recent post about child privacy and safety online, and draws on Debbi’s personal experiences to offer her take on the use of the image in that post.

After reading Danny?s post and insightful comments on ?Could This Be Your Child??, I got to thinking about the provocative image used with the post and some of the reactions to the image.

So, I wanted to speak to the power of images, whether they are shocking and controversial, stunning and serene. Certain images become iconic for one simple reason – they convey a powerful message or tell a story in a way that words never could.

You see, I believe in the power of images, no matter what the debate, or the controversy an image may raise – the adage ?a picture is worth a thousand words? is true. Iconic images have changed the world and many photographers have risked their lives to make them.

Danny?s choice to use the powerful yet grotesque image to depict child abuse was not an easy one. Most editors in today?s publishing environment would have taken the politically correct route to avoid the wrath of readers and parent companies.

However, one cannot argue there have been hundreds of thousands of images since the invention of the camera. If not for a particular image, or a body of work, outcomes or events would have been different.

I know about pictures that touch you in such a way it is impossible not to take action. I became a photojournalist because of the powerful effect pictures had on me. Soon I would understand how children are the most vulnerable of victims and yet, children are still our greatest hope.

I was struck by the devastation in the countries I worked – the horror of war, disease, natural and man-made disasters. I worked with NGOs and news organizations and time and time again, it was the pictures coming out of those situations that led to action.

UNICEF, other UN organizations and many NGOs now have programs to meet the needs of children affected by wars and disasters.

Sadly, despite international law to protect children, the laws are repeatedly broken; children are abducted, turned into child soldiers, sexually abused and exploited in other ways. Yet while we can read many reports and news stories, I believe nothing compels someone to act more than one image that says it all.

With today?s technology, communications and information is able to move around the globe in an instant. It is much more difficult to commit abuses and atrocities without touching the world?s conscience. It is also difficult for governments and civilized nations not to act, though we know oftentimes that the response falls short.

Powerful images have had the ability to mobilize a nation, move societies and the world to take notice. “Still photographs are the most powerful weapon in the world,” AP photojournalist Eddie Adams once said. Adams? image of an officer shooting a handcuffed prisoner in the head at point-blank range had great impact on the attitudes of Americans about the Vietnam War.

While we know the importance of images having a powerful effect for change, it is impossible to make those images without feeling the pain and grief of others.

When a photographer?s images make people feel the pain of others or motivates a community or the world into action, then perhaps we have made a difference.

Perhaps the picture worth a thousand words has changed the world. Just a bit.

Debbi Morello photographerAbout the author: Debbi has had an eclectic career path, including cause marketing for a little paper that was just getting started called USA Today. Inspired to pursue photojournalism, she spent nearly 15 years working for news organizations on several continents and winning international awards.

For the last 10 years she has combined her keen eye and storytelling skills as a communications and outreach specialist for humanitarian organizations, U.S. government and UN agencies worldwide. You can see Debbi’s work at DebbiMorello.com, connect with her on Twitter at @debmorello and read more of her thoughts at www.debmorello.amplify.com.

image: Debbi Morello

Why Tech Already Has Women (And Why They?re Better Than Arrington)

Women in tech better than Michael Arrington
Women in tech better than Michael Arrington
By Geoff Livingston and Danny Brown. Cross-posted on Geoff’s blog.

Contrary to Violet Blue?s disappointing stance about women in tech in 2010, this year saw a terrible new trend, the outright enforcement of the glass ceiling in technology.

First there was Michael Arrington?s terribly ignorant rant, followed verbally by the likes of Robert Scoble and Ms. Blue, as well as the visual use of boobs to sell copies of WIRED by Chris Anderson and crew.

Before opining too much, here are some statistics for you (the first three were originally cited by Allyson Kapin in F@st Company):

  • Women-run tech startups generate more revenue per invested capital and fail less then those led by men, according to New York Entrepreneur Week.
  • “Companies, including information technology, with the highest percentages of women board directors outperformed those with the least by 66%,” according to research by Catalyst.
  • “Gender diversity [is] particularly valuable where innovation is key,” according to studies by Illuminate Ventures.
  • Women own 40% of private businesses in the U.S. (including ? of Geoff?s company Zoetica).
  • Generally women outpace men in their use of social technologies. For example, 10% of women use Twitter, while only 7% of men do.
  • The European Center for Women and Technology is a perfect example of women leading the way in innovation in the technology field.
  • Microsoft Canada is recognizing women?s importance in technology with Canada-wide conferences advancing women in technology and their roles within companies.

In spite of the statistical advantages of women in tech, negative trends towards male speakers and executive leadership continue. Worse, reading this negative enforcement of sexism in tech has been a damn shame.

Working with great women in tech — Susan Murphy, Beth Kanter, Kami Huyse, Allyson Kapin, Amber MacArthur, Sarah Prevette, Lisa Kalandjian and Cali Lewis to name a few this year — has been a phenomenal experience for both of us, and they demonstrate every day how brilliant and capable they are.

In fact, these women are better than the likes of Arrington and crew, because they would never allow themselves to demean an entire race, gender or religious sect of people on the Internet. Even if they had such feelings (which we doubt), they would rise above this kind of baseless attack to offer solutions.

Then again, perhaps that shouldn?t come across as too surprising. TechCrunch is hardly the purveyor of common sense and good ?fights,? as they?ve shown continuously in the past with their attacks on PR, CEO?s, bloggers — basically anyone who doesn?t bow to Arrington?s missives.

There are certainly issues for women, as pointed out by Allyson Kapin in the above articles as well as many other women who discuss this issue. Men have a role in it, too, as evidenced by this year?s newest glass blowing experiences. Moving forward, men need to be more active about providing solutions to create a more level playing field. For example:

  • Actively support women in business, both through choices of partners, vendors and employees, and in promotion.
  • Support men and women trying to help women. Whether it?s Girls, Inc., supporting female entrepreneurs abroad, efforts to highlight Women Who Tech, or a host of other efforts, support women.
  • Stop trashing and reacting to women trying to succeed. Rather than get into throw downs about how women create their own problems in tech — or worse revert to past bad practices like conferences for men — work to create an inclusive balanced playing field for every human being.
  • If you are a man and you don?t like these types of actions against women — posts, magazine articles, speaking rosters — say something. When both genders actively voice dissatisfaction in this matter, it becomes a powerful statement.
  • Instead of supporting old structures for speaking — such as soliciting speaking submissions from chest beating male A-Listers — build an editorial mission for the conference, and seek out great male and female speakers beyond the comfortable and immediate social network.
  • Stop thinking with the mindset that ?women? and ?success? are two words that — together — are news, and start thinking it?s the norm.
  • Think of the challenges your great-grandmother, grandmother and (possibly) your mother went through to be someone. Then ask if you?d want that still, and add your wife or daughter into the mix. Would you want them to be viewed as ?unique? because of their industry choice? And that?s ?unique? in a negative way, not in a good one-of-a-kind way.

To be fair, this isn?t an isolated issue with the technology sector. Think of a lot of industries, and you?ll find that women are often viewed as second-best to their male counterparts. They may have won the vote but it?s clear that women still trail men when it comes to advancement, recognition and financial reward compared to their male peers in too many industries.

But it?s even more evident in the technology sector, where too many geek overlords want to keep the sandpit for themselves, and maybe the women can solder a chip or connect a conference call between the male kingfishers.

And it?s just plain stupid. For every Michael Arrington there?s a Bindi Karia; for every Robert Scoble, there?s a Gina Trapani; for every Chris Anderson there?s a Stephanie Agresta. And with new innovators being sponsored to come through from India, and developing countries making women and technology one of their key focuses, these names (and others like them) will only be added to.

Frankly, an argument can be made that most of the modern gender imbalance issues are rooted in men not consciously looking for great women, as opposed to them not existing. 2011 can be a year where forward progress can be made — by both women and men. Let?s hope the community joins together in working towards that goal.

Given how great women are in business, why wouldn?t you?

Geoff Livingston is the co-founder of Zoetica, serving nonprofits and socially conscious companies with top-tier, word-of-mouth communication services. A social change agent, Geoff is the author of Now Is Gone and the forthcoming book Welcome to the Fifth Estate.

“UPDATE: Robert Scoble believes our comments are taken out of context, and has offered this Cincast on his views about women in tech. We appreciate Mr. Scoble’s participation in this important topic, and wish to encourage all parties to discuss the matter.”

“UPDATE: Robert Scoble has shared his thoughts on Women in Tech over at Geoff’s blog. You can view his take here.”

image: Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com

Why Bloggers Deserve to Be Deserving

value of a blogger to a brand

Danielle SmithThis is a guest post from Danielle Smith and is a follow-up to my recent post about PR and blogger relations.

Danielle is a former award-winning Television Anchor and Reporter who has turned her attention to the online sphere. She is the founder and primary author of ExtraordinaryMommy.com, a vlogger, online TV host, speaker and author.

More important than anything she is a mom to two sweet and sassy small people and is having the time of her life.

You can find Danielle on Twitter at @DanielleSmithTV.

I’ve said it before.

I’m not easily offended. I respect that many of us have different opinions and often feel peaceful enough about my place in the world…. that I can simply smile when we differ and walk away.

But sometimes, as was the case with the recent anonymous post from ‘Sarah’ on MomBlogMagazine, I felt as though I, as a blogger, was being baited. Sarah, an “actual employee from an actual PR company; one you have heard of if you’ve heard of any”, wrote a post titled, “Why PR People Get Paid, and You Don’t”.

Never mind that Sarah seems to think I use jealousy and misplaced entitlement as a barometer for gauging what I should be and shouldn’t be ‘getting’ in the blogging world. (That theory was inane enough for me to ignore) ** see her references to Annie A-List and Thanksgiving Dinner

Never mind that Sarah also seems to believe my blog is a whim that I may or may not choose to play with tomorrow or the day after. See this quote:

Let?s stop pretending your blog is a world-changing event and recognize it for what it is?something transient that may be gone tomorrow if you flake out or change your mind or your Uncle Vinny finds your blog and you realize you don?t really want him to know where you live because you still owe him money.

What I truly take issue with is one little word.

Deserve.

According to Sarah, I don’t DESERVE a damn thing. I’ve chosen to work at home. I’ve chosen to have this transitory-may-shut-down-any-day-blog. I’m not required to show up in an office, dressed in business casual, ready for a day of meetings. There are apparently a slew of bloggers who work much harder than me and my site may or may not be ‘ugly’.

To quote:

Make sure your number is based in reality, not what you think you deserve. Actually, if you?re using the word ?deserve? at all, you?re already sunk. You don?t deserve anything. There are hundreds more bloggers out there that are willing to take a cold, hard look at what they are producing now and how they can improve in the future. Those are next year?s Annie A-Listers?a list that no one deserves to be on, but one that women work like dogs to get on.

I find this paragraph confusing – because on one hand, Sarah is right….. any number I give, any compensation I request MUST be ‘based in reality’. By ‘based in reality’, I imagine Sarah means that I do, in fact, KNOW what my time is worth… that I do, in fact, KNOW what my quality of work is worth – and NOT that I am arbitrarily assigning a ‘what-would-I-like-to-get-paid-today’ number when asked to be involved in a project.

Now, here is where things get slippery. The very next two sentences say, “Actually, if you?re using the word ?deserve? at all, you?re already sunk. You don?t deserve anything.”

Yes, Sarah, I do. But not because another blogger has been compensated. Or because I’m jealous. Or because ‘you’d pay me if I was a guy’. And not because ‘PR professionals get paid, therefore I should too’. This is not a game of comparative analysis.

I deserve to be compensated for my work as a blogger.

I deserve to be compensated for the work I do because it is work.

I deserve it because I work hard and because I believe my time is valuable.

I deserve it because I provide a product (a post, a video, a campaign, etc) that benefits someone – a PR firm and/or a brand.

I deserve to be compensated because the platform I have created for myself, beginning with my blog is actually worth something. And fortunately, I know that my ‘numbers’ are based in reality.

And while Sarah is apparently not JUDGING me for…

“choosing to be a stay-at-home mom who makes money or gets stuff for the kids and family by blogging or decides to be a blogger because they were laid off and wanted to create a portfolio”

it certainly sounds a lot like judgement and an absurd over-generalization to me… Did all bloggers, or in this case ‘stay-at-home-mom-bloggers’ decide to start blogging because they were laid off? Or wanted to create a portfolio? I know I didn’t.

I understand from Sarah’s comments that she intended the post to be ‘funny’. I think it is challenging to be ‘funny’ on an average day, but on this topic? I think a more ‘serious’ tone might have been more beneficial.

How about you – do you feel deserving?

  • « Go to Previous Page
  • Page 1
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 10
  • Page 11
  • Page 12
  • Page 13
  • Page 14
  • Interim pages omitted …
  • Page 18
  • Go to Next Page »
© 2025 Danny Brown - Made with ♥ on Genesis