I can't help myself. I have to keep this discussion about blogging going.

Is blogging just the end result of someone's input into a Content Management System. Of course it is. So what. You could point a URL to a daily post in a discussion forum. It would have far better interactivity than a blog, and would be just as easy to post as often as the author would like. Does that make the output purely a forum post ? Or for those old school among us, putting up a page on a website could be a blog, a column, a report, whatever. The manner of how you post something to the web is not even worth discussing. A blog is a blog is a blog.

If you blog, regardless of what software you use, you are a blogger and what you produce is a blog. If you want to call yourself a columnist, so be it. If you are a reporter in a 1 page internet only publication, yes you are.

From there, only one question comes up. Why. Why ? Why do you do what you do. Is it because:

You get paid to do it ?

Because you want to promote something or to promote yourself ?

Because you want to start a discussion ?

Because you want to communicate with customers, fans or ??

Because its a way to say whats on your mind ?

Because you want to make money from it ?

I'm sure there are other reasons to communicate on the web. What software you use, even whether you use video, text and/or pictures, really doesn't matter.

What matters is why you do what you do.

For most of us, we start on the furthest reaches of the long tail of all content. To make money from whatever it is we produce is not only difficult, its near impossible. To get off the long tail is near impossible as well. Only a few will ever find their way to a point of generating enough consumers of our content to have any choice in whether we monetize or influence a material number of people. Others of us will still be in the long tail, but have influence in a small verticial segment important only to those who already know us, or come to know us. Its possible to be a big player in a small pool, and get paid for it, still reside on the long tail.

The hope by all on the longtail is that the "quality" of the publication will garner enough consumers to move them off. Like the artist whose art is better, the band or musician whose music is better, the producer, director or actor whose video is better. Everyone hopes that quality of content is the final arbiter of attraction and success.

The worst part of it all is that when you are on the long tail, it takes a lot of money or luck to get off and 99.99pct , never get off. Which is exactly the definition of the longtail.

Thats for individuals.

For corporations who publish on the web (as opposed to aggregate 3rd party content), again, regardless of what content management software they use, or what they call themselves, the longtail is death. If you are a blogger, and you work for a major media company, you are born with a silver spoon in your mouth. You are granted a platform with traffic. Thats the good news. The bad news is that you also have ratings. If you can't hold your traffic or build upon it, you better hope you generate sufficient value in other places, or your days of publishing on the web may be numbered. For those of you who haven't noticed, paid bloggers do come and go from media websites if they don't produce. But wait, there is worse news.

The media companies that have traffic foundations and can dual purpose people so that they can publish off line and online come with their own set of problems. They are paddling as fast as they can to retain their offline businesses. Newspapers, to continue to use them as an example, are pushing as hard as they can to sell papers and retain advertisers. For those who think that a newspaper is just like a newsletter, you have never been a paperboy.

To try to maximize online traffic and resultant revenue, newspapers turned to blogging. Saul Hansell of the NYTimes commented that blogs are used uniquely and thoughtfully by NYTimes reporters to communicate new information and create discussion. That's great. It's a way for the paper to drive readers to their website, keep them as readers and hopefully add more readers. It's using whatever content management system they use to give more value to readers. Wonderful.

Unfortunately for them, they are now in the same old grind that they are in with the newspaper business. Their articles, I mean blogs, vs everyone elses' blogs. They hope that readers believe that their content is better and that brings them back. They hope like the new TV show following the hit, that they can retain audience. An approach which puts them on the exact same content treadmill as even the smallest blogger. . For some on the NYTimes website, as with any and every other newspaper website, they will manage to stand out from the crowd. The majority will not. They will bump their way down to where everyone else is. Such is the nature of the content business. No matter what anyone at the NY Times thinks.

That is the endgame I see for newspapers that publish complimentary content on their website. You can call it blogging. You can even call it something else. The point I didnt make clear enough in my previous post, is that it has to be something else. No matter the quality of the writer, its just another stab at an audience in a medium where there are no barriers to entry. Its just one more example of the newspaper business following everyone else onto the web and doing exactly what everyone else is doing, but expecting they will be better because they are "The big paper". Thats a huge mistake.

Call me crazy, as many out there have, but I would have made every effort to be different in a way that leverages brains, technology and size. I would have sat down and tried to figure out the answer to the question "What leverages our strengths and pre empts every blogger out there so that people perceive blogging as the low end and our presentation as the future of the medium"

You wouldn't have to get it right out of the gate, but you could send a message that you are striving for more and those with "merely a content management system for blogs" will not be able to do what you do.

This is the bias that comes from 25 years in the technology business. A feature that anyone can add is not a sustainable differentiation. Since you can easily add it anytime, like everyone else, instead, always look for what can set you apart and pre empt the competition

Or you can following the pack. The longtail is there waiting for those who do

First, let me offer a great big thank you to Youtube from me and everyone on the internet, including many small businesses. Im just guessing here, but based on reports coming from Compete and others, I don't think its a stretch to say that Youtube subsidizes the cost of more than half the user generated internet bandwidth consumed in the United States.

Yep, you read that right. If you thought that the internet only used free as an incentive back during the Bubble Years, think again. I'm sure I speak for 10s of millions of us who have hosted videos on Youtube when I offer much gratitude to Google for their generosity. Never could even I have imagined that when they bought Youtube it would be such a costly mistake. If buying a company in order to subsidize the video bandwidth of the internet isn't crazy.., I dont know what is.

Fortunately for Google, they have unquestionably the world's best network and most likely the world's lowest bandwidth costs. So if anyone is going to be able to afford that cost, it would be Google.

As long as their stock price doesn't fall another 50pct that is. At that point even the most forgiving shareholder may ask about the wisdom of subsidizing all things video on the internet. Particularly when they realize that they have forgotten to price in the overhanging risk of the legal copyright challenges still in play against Youtube. Those lawsuits have not gone away, and the risk certainly has not been reduced. They simply are not front of mind to shareholders these days.

But they may be front of mind at Google. Maybe It's just the cynic in me, but I think the primary reason behind the enhancement of Youtube APIs and the removal of the Youtube watermark have more to do with copyright than anything else

You see, when Youtube offers their API and allows users of all shapes and sizes to host video on their own sites, rather than on Youtube or Google, the copyright risk to Youtube disappears. At that point Youtube is truly just a service provider and they have no idea what content they are hosting. That gets them legal.

Currently, Youtube is not allowed to know what content is being uploaded and available on their website unless it is content for which they have a signed deal. Pundits like to attribute the lack of ads around content to advertisers concern for the uncertainty of proximity to who knows what kind of video. I don't see it that way. There is always a price advertisers will pay for Run of Site ads. The risk is not the advertisers' its Youtube's. They can't place ads according to user uploaded content because they aren't supposed to know what or where that content is.

So back to the APIs.

If a website uses the API to post a video on their own site, they assume all the copyright risk. Youtube is in the clear.

Pushing the copyright risk to the site using the API is great news for Google. They now control that's website's video economics because they are still assuming 100pct of the bandwidth costs. Because of this 1999 style generosity, Google is hoping that the website will now take advantage of any and all of their advertising programs that generate revenue for the site and of course for Google. I think thats a trade off most sites wanting to host video will make. Particularly with all the options that Google/Doubleclick can now offer and of course the fact that their Terms of Service include the following preclusion from selling advertising in and around the Youtube hosted content:
"the sale of advertising, sponsorships, or promotions targeted to, within, or on the API Client or YouTube video content;"

So because of the API, Google goes from not being able to generate more than trivial revenue on Youtube to being able to generate limitless revenue on 3rd party sites.

Now that is not crazy. Thats a smart move if they can get traction with it.

In fact, a some point in the future, don't be surprised if Google makes it more and more difficult to upload video on to Youtube by REQUIRING you to sign a license for the content first. Thats a heck of a lot cheaper than paying 150k dollars per infringing download.


If I am MicroSoft, I'm freaking out realizing that something needs to be done to pre empt this move.

Your move MicroHoo.

Much is being made of my decision to ban bloggers from the locker room. To me its pretty amusing. In particular I find it amusing that there is a presumption that if a blogger works for a big company, they must be better. The logic extends to the conclusion that if only I would evaluate the different blogs and make a qualitative selection, then big newspaper bloggers would be chosen as among the best. Let me just say, that should I go that direction, that I find quite a few individual bloggers to be far better than those earning a salary to blog . In fact, some of those blogs are written anonymously.

Which leads to my firm belief that newspapers having "bloggers" is easily one of the many bad decisions that newspapers have made over the past 10 years.

Much of what I am about to say can be considered semantics, but guess what, marketing and branding are all about semantics and perception.

Consider this a rule in marketing that could be added to my Startup Rules.

Never, ever, ever consider something that any literate human being with Internet access can create in under 5 minutes to be a product or service that can in any way differentiate your business.

If you feel that you must offer this product or service as a means of "keeping up" or as a checklist item that you must have for competitive reasons, then do everything possible to brand the product or service in a manner that segregates it from the masses. Perception is reality. If you can leverage your existing brand to create the perception that yours is different from the masses in some meaningful way, then you must do everything you can to do so.

Creating a perceived differentiation can take the form of promoting better execution or quality of the product or service, or it may be something as simple as just branding it with a different name than the mass product or service.

Failure to do so will pull your brand down to that of the masses or elevate the masses to a position of being better able to compete with you.

A blog is a blog is a blog is a blog. The NY Times Blogs on their website are blogs. People who have blogs have a hard enough time coming up with a definition of what blog is. Potential or even current readers have no real idea of what the term blog reflect in terms of quality or content.

I'm sure the NY Times, like all major media outlets hopes that because it is branded a NY Times blog, that readers will have the perception and expectation that it will be of a higher quality than say, Blogmaverick.com .
That when readers actually read the blog, they will see that its of a higher quality than say, Blogmaverick.com. It may well be that some do. The marketing reality however is that there is a significant risk that they will not. That rather than assigning the brand equity of the NY Times to the blogs hosted, they will take the alternative path of assigning their perception of what a blog is to the NY Times, there by having a negative impact on the brand equity of the NY Times. That's an enormous risk for any mainstream brand to take.

If I worked for the NY Times, or any other media company with any level of brand equity, I would have done everything possible to define the section of our website that offers ongoing as anything other than a blog. I would make up a name. Call it say.....RealTime Reporting.

RealTime Yankees: Catch in depth, up to the minute reports on the Yankees as only the NY Times world re known staff of Sports Writers can bring up

RealTime City Hall: The NY Times has more journalists covering the action at City Hall than anyone else. Catch in depth, up to the minute reports on NYC politics as as only the NY Times can.

Brand it RealTime. Brand it anything. Make sure you market it as having the characteristics unique to your staff that NO ONE ELSE on the net can bring.

if I were marketing for them, I would be doing everything I could to send the message that "The NY Times does not have blogs, we have Real Time Reports from the most qualified reporters in the world. Like blogs we post continuously , 24x7x365 to keep you up to speed, unlike blogs, we have the highest level of journalistic standards that we adhere to. A copy of which is available at....." You get the picture.

I would also market it as an extension of the print version. All the news that cant fit in print. In the sports world, I think this is where main stream media really has dropped the ball. There is no shortage of speculation and opinions on the net. There is an incredible lack of depth when it comes to game and team coverage.

Maybe its my own prejudice as an insider. I would much rather read any article on 82games.com or even some of the stuff that John Hollinger writes (although I think that the PER stuff is meaningless, i like how he tries to go in depth to analyze performance) than the stream of consciousness riffs that we find on every blog, regardless of host.

When I see content branded as a blog, I'm probably not going there unless its via a link from some other source. If I happen to find my way to a given blog multiple times, Im probably going to subscribe to the RSS feed. Even the, I don't ever consider a blog an authoritative source. I don't ever expect that all sources were confirmed and facts were check. Regardless of who hosts it. That's not a good thing for newspapers. They still have a chance to assign some level of authority to what they produce for their websites and calling it a blog is a huge mistake

Remember, there is TV , and there is HBO. A blog is a blog is a blog

Should bloggers be allowed in the Mavs locker room ? Conceptually its not a big deal. A blogger, a beat writer, a columnists. The medium they use to deliver their content should be irrelevant. No question about it.

But then there is the question of realworld constraints. This is a picture of our locker room. This is the area the media conducts their interviews post game. As it is now, between reporters, photographers (both still and video), trainers and the players, it gets pretty full.

Right now we have a situation where a blogger that works for the Dallas Morning News would like continued access to the locker room. Prior to last week, I had no idea this person's primary job at the Morning News is to blog. I hadn't seen or read it. He was just one of the 4 or 5 people from the Morning News in the locker room post game. When it was brought to my attention I immediately made it an issue. Why ?

Not because I don't want this blogger in the locker room doing interviews. What I didn't like was that the Morning News was getting a competitive advantage simply because they were the Dallas Morning News. I am of the opinion that a blogger for one of the local newspapers is no better or worse than the blogger from the local high school, from the local huge Mavs fan, from an out of town blogger. I want to treat them all the same.

Unfortunately, there isn't enough room to allow any and all bloggers in the locker room. There also are no standards that I have been able to come up with that differentiate between bloggers to the point where I should or should not credential one versus the other. My experience in reading blogs has favored bloggers not affiliated with major media companies, but that could be my unique bias.

When I told the newspaper we would no longer allow their blogger in the locker room (he would still have access to everything else), they got upset. They took the path that their live blogger was no different than a feature article written on a website. They used Marc Stein of ESPN as an example. i explained to them that Stein not only wrote primarily features on ESPN.Com, but also was a TV commentator, and those two elements of his job differentiated him from what their blogger did. Do they not know the difference between a blogger and someone who actually writes feature articles on a destination website ?

A blogger is a blogger is a blogger. If I were to ask for media credentials as a blogger on this blog, I would expect to be treated exactly the same as any other blogger. No better or worse.

Of course my "discussion" with the Morning News did not stop there. As a blogger and a sometime commentator on the newspaper business I had to share my opinion. So when presented with the following:

" Gilbert Bailon, president of the American Society of Newspaper Editors, says blogging is now "part of the base job of being a beat reporter" at a newspaper. He acknowledges your need/right to control press credentials but thinks you're off base when it comes to banning bloggers from major news organizations from your locker room. He says this seems like a policy aimed at one reporter, Tim MacMahon, because he wrote something you didn't like.
(Note: Bailon is editor of the editorial page at the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and previously was a top editor at The Morning News.)"

My response:

"If he is correct and blogging is part of the base job of being a beat reporter, thats a sad commentary on beat reporters. They get 500 words in a story about a game or event, if readers are lucky. If there is excess time, I would imagine that time could be spent offering indepth analysis and access rather than throwing up hundred word commentary on a blog. If there isn't space in the paper, then in depth analysis that takes advantage of the minimal marginal cost of publishing feature stories, IMHO, would be a far better use of a beatwriters time and serve as a far stronger differentiation that would attract readers.

Instead , we get bloggers from mainstream media. Newspaper blogging is probably the worst marketing and branding move a newspaper can make. The barriers to entry for bloggers are non existent. There are no editorial standards. There are no accuracy standards. We bloggers can and do write whatever we damn well please. Historically newspapers have set some level of standards that they strived to adhere to. By taking on the branding, standard and posting habits of the blogosphere, newspapers have worked their way down to the least common demoninator of publishing in what appears to be an effort to troll for page views.

As far singling out mr MacMahon, I havent read what he has written, so that is not the case. its an issue of fairness. As a blogger, and someone very familiar with bloggers and the blogosphere, I recognize that a fair policy would apply to all bloggers. There is nothing superior about a blog produced bysomeone in the employ of The Belo Corporation. So there is no reason to give them preferential treatment. Where there is physical room to fairly credential any and all bloggers, Mr MacMahon is welcome. Where we can not accomodate all bloggers, he will be excluded."


So post my little newspaper rant, it comes down to something very simple. A blogger is a blogger is a blogger and there are millions of us. . The name on your check, if you get a check, is irrelevant. BlogMaverick, Belo, xyz.blogger.com, we is what we is, and as long as there is limited space in our locker room, we is going to be outside in the Press Interview room getting comments

One last little thought. Some out there will take this as my not "liking" blogs. Ridiculous. its the exact opposite. What I don't like is unequal access. I'm all for bloggers getting the same access as mainstream media when possible. Our interview room is open to bloggers. We take interview requests from bloggers. I'm a fan of getting as much coverage as possible for the Mavs. What I'm not a fan of is major media companies throwing their weight around thinking they should be treated differently.

As has been the case since this blog started, I wont pull any punches in sharing my feelings or starting conversations about how media does its job. Its a topic I find interesting and fun. It's a reason why I enjoy HDNet so much. Expect more of it.

In school, there were two kinds of tests. The regular kind where you learned and memorized all you could and then did your best on the test. The 2nd kind was the Open Book Test. Where you could use your notes and text books to figure out the answer to a question.

The 2nd was always preferable to the first because it was always a lot easier to prepare reference than to memorize.

Come finals time, a schedule of traditional tests meant packaging hours and hours to study. It was the ultimate experience of Information Overload. It also was the quickest way to forget everything you just learned the minute the tests were over. In fact, if you hung out with my friends and me, the minute tests were over, every penny we had was destined to be spent on beverages that killed more than a few braincells.

Today, life is so much simpler. I can't remember the last time I had to go to the library or bookstore to search for a book on a topic that was important to me. I can't remember the last time I HAD to invest the time to read a book as opposed to choosing to read a book that I wanted to read.

There was a time when I would scour online forums looking for any information that would give me an edge. Those days are long gone.

Today, I still read a ton of magazines that I both enjoy and which give me a solid foundation of information that help me professionally and personally, but I don't stress that I might miss something. I don't stress if I don't read an issue immediately when it comes out, or if I'm out of town when its delivered. I used to.

Two things have changed dramatically over the past 5 years. The first is that search engines have matured to the point where just about everything is indexed, from webpages to books to videos. Life has become an open book test. Between Google for News, video and web, Live.com for images, Icerocket.com for blog and RSS and Amazon for books, its pretty easy to find everything and anything from anywhere. It doesn't matter if I'm in front of my PC, or sitting on an airplane or just with my phone at a game. Information is available.

The 2nd is the threading of information. Sites like Techmeme connect articles so that its easy to not only keep up with technology topics of interest, but to follow related conversations. Techmeme like sites are popping up for most vertical categories, so keeping up is far far easier than the old days of waiting for your PC Week , InfoWorld and Computer Reseller News !

Information overload is having to read everything and remember it. Open Book life means knowing where to look to catch up when you are ready to catch up.. I will take the Open Book Life anytime

My buddy Jason had a GREAT post about rules for startups. Read it, love it learn it.

Of course, anyone who has started a company has their own rules and guidelines, so I thought i would add to the meme with my own. My "rules" below aren't just for those founding the companies, but for those who are considering going to work for them as well.

1. Don't start a company unless its an obsession and something you love.

2. If you have an exit strategy, its not an obsession.

3. Hire people who you think will love working there.

4. Sales Cures All. Know how your company will make money and how you will actually make sales.

5. Know your core competencies and focus on being great at them. Pay up for people in your core competencies. Get the best. Outside the core competencies, hire people that fit your culture but are cheap

6. An expresso machine ? Are you kidding me ? Shoot yourself before you spend money on an expresso machine. Coffee is for closers. Sodas are free. Lunch is a chance to get out of the office and talk. There are 24 hours in a day, and if people like their jobs, they will find ways to use as much of it as possible to do their jobs.

7. No offices. Open offices keeps everyone in tune with what is going on and keeps the energy up. If an employee is about privacy, show them how to use the lock on the john. There is nothing private in a start up. This is also a good way to keep from hiring execs who can not operate successfully in a startup. My biggest fear was always hiring someone who wanted to build an empire. If the person demands to fly first class or to bring over their secretary, run away. If an exec wont go on salescalls, run away. They are empire builders and will pollute your company.

8. As far as technology, go with what you know. That is always the cheapest way. If you know Apple, use it. If you know Vista... ask yourself why, then use it. Its a startup, there are just a few employees. Let people use what they know.

9. Keep the organization flat. If you have managers reporting to managers in a startup, you will fail. Once you get beyond startup, if you have managers reporting to managers, you will create politics.

10. NEVER EVER EVER buy swag. A sure sign of failure for a startup is when someone sends me logo polo shirts. If your people are at shows and in public, its ok to buy for your own folks, but if you really think someone is going to wear your Yobaby.com polo you sent them in public, you are mistaken and have no idea how to spend your money

11. NEVER EVER EVER hire a PR firm. A PR firm will call or email people in the publications, shows and websites you already watch, listen to and read. Those people publish their emails. Whenever you consume any information related to your field, get the email of the person publishing it and send them an email introducing yourself and the company. Their job is to find new stuff. They will welcome hearing from the founder instead of some PR flack. Once you establish communications with that person, make yourself available to answer their questions about the industry and be a source for them. If you are smart, they will use you.

12. Make the job fun for employees. Keep a pulse on the stress levels and accomplishments of your people and reward them. My first company, MicroSolutions, when we had a record sales month, or someone did something special, I would walk around handing out 100 dollar bills to salespeople. At Broadcast.com and MicroSolutions, we had a company shot. Kamikaze. We would take people to a bar every now and then and buy one or 10 for everyone. At MicroSolutions, more often than not we had vendors cover the tab. Vendors always love a good party :0

These are all off the top of my head. But they have worked for me so far.

Every day I get at least one email from someone proclaiming that they are "destined to be" XXXXX. You can fill in the blank with any number of dreams the person has for themself, be it rich, famous, the best this or that. Of course they aren't emailing me just to tell me, they email me to ask for money to enable them to be whatever it is they dream of being. For me, its a good problem to have. But it leads to questions. Do we know what we are destined to be, or do we find it through experiences ? Are each of us really good at something, and its just a matter of finding it ? Do we all have something that we would love to do every day and do we inherently know it, or do we have to find it ? Will what you love to do always be what you are great at ?

Personally, I always have enjoyed business, but I never knew that I had an aptitude for technology until I got a job at Mellon Bank that lasted all of 8 months. But during the many hours of boredom, I found myself sitting in front of a mainframe teaching myself a scripting language called Ramis and loving every minute of it. Which lead to me buying a TI/99A I think it was, for 99 dollars, attaching a tape recorder as a drive (how is that for dating myself) and teaching myself basic. Which led to... You get the idea. I loved every minute of it. Maybe I wasnt the best programmer in the world, but in combination with business and sales skills, I found something that was a blast to me that I could and did do 24 hours at a time and not miss a beat.

Personally, I don't think people "know" what they are destined to be until they try it for the first couple times.

Going to college should be about experiencing as much academically as you possibly can, but more importantly, it should be about learning how to learn and recognizing that learning is a lifelong endeavor. School isn't the end of the learning process, its purely a training ground and beginning.

IMHO, once you have learned how to learn, then you can try as many different things as you can, recognizing that you don't have to find your destiny at any given age, you just have to be prepared to run with it when you experience it.

Of course there is always a caveat to destiny, and thats obligation. The greatest obstacle to destiny is debt, both personal and financial. The more people you are obligated to, the harder it is to focus on yourself and figure things out. I'm a blg believer that getting married is about finding yourself first, which makes it a lot easier to find the right person. If you can't stand on your own, it's impossible to successfully be part of a couple.

I'm also a big believer that financial debt is the ultimate dream killer. Your first house, car, whatever stuff you might want to buy are going to be the primary reasons you stop looking for what makes you the happiest.

How crazy is it to settle for a house , car or ?? over what it is you would like to do on an hourly or daily basis ?

Never Settle and there is no reason to rush. If you aren't happy with where you are at, simplify your life and go out and try as many things as it takes to find what you may be destined to be. If there is such a thing.

Sometimes you got to brag. Tuesday nights on HDNet is News Night. We lead off with Dan Rather Reports
Dan has brought back real news with a full 60 minutes of reporting on news that matters. If you haven't yet, check out some of his reports that we are streaming online

DRR leads right into HDNet World Report. World Report, which is produced by Dennis OBrien doesn't get the visibility that Dan Rather Reports gets, but it knocks out great stories from around the globe week after week. Today, HDNet World Report finally started to get some of the recognition it deserved. Today, at the 74th annual National Headliner Awards, sponsored by The Press Club of Atlantic City, N.J. HDNet walked away with first place winners in TWO categories !

The first was for Documentary or Series of Reports: HDNET, "The Forgotten Front: Terrorism in the Phillipines; beating out CNN with their amazing "CNN Presents: God's Warriors;" and CNN for their , "Children of the Storm."
Our 2nd win came for News Magazine Program: HDNet World Report, "Uganda's Silent War ( a co production with Newshour with Jim Lehrer);" finishing ahead of 2nd and 3rd place finishers, Dateline NBC, "To Catch a Con Man;" JumpStart Productions/NOW on PBS, "Casualties of War".

You don't have to be the biggest to beat the best, but you do have to outwork the bigger players. Congrats to everyone at HDNet and the entire World Report team for doing amazing work and making us proud.

This is just the beginning and we promise the best is yet to come !

For a while there, it looked like North American sports teams owners were going to take over European Soccer. The biggest Premiere League names were getting bought up. Then a funny thing happened. The US Dollar turned upside down against major currencies making deals that once looked tenable, all of the sudden seem very, very expensive.

But as is the nature of currency exchange, for every Yin, there is a Yang, or in this case an Abramovich or any number of wealthy Europeans or Russians who are coming to the US in search of bargains. Of course there are also the exploding number of Chinese Billionaires with global aspirations as well.

A quick trip to NYC to shop for currency induced bargains need not stop on 5th or Madison Ave. It is just a matter of time, and maybe not much of it, before we start to see our sports teams gobbled up. With the international
flavor of both the NHL and NBA, is there a better way to "mainstream" a person, product or service into the US than through the purchase of a sports franchise ?

With the lack of Salary Cap of MLB, why couldn't or wouldn't an ultra Wealthy (as in guys or girls who make me look poor) Sports Fan take advantage of the fall in the value of the dollar and come in and buy an Iconic or even mid market franchise and spend spend spend ?

With the price of NFL franchises now past a billion dollars with half the Dolphins apparently selling for more than 550mm, how many individuals in this country that don't already own a franchise actually afford to buy an NFL team ? Compared to those who count their wealth in Euros , for whom the price of NFL franchises in their local currency has actually declined ?

I bring this up not only because its an interesting question about the impact of globalization in business, but because it could raise some fascinating cultural questions as well.

It's going to happen. The money will be too big for a current owner to say no to. The potential thrill of a free spending owner Will be too much for the fan base to say no to, particularly in baseball.

Then what ?

Unlimited choice seems to be the defacto "nirvana" when it comes to any and all things video. We all want what we want, when we want it, how we want it, for free if at all possible.

The reality is that even though we may index everything and anything digital and use search engines thinking we truly have access to everything, that is far from the truth. Google users "choice" goes as far as their search algorithms take the first results page. Rare is the search that goes beyond the 1st page. Which is exactly why SEO is so important to so many

We don't hunt through pages and pages of Digg or any other "wisdom of the crowds" engine. in fact, I've begun to use Mahalo (disclosure, Im an investor) more and more simply because it has a real person extend options beyond the basic algorithm.

Advances in storage technology have taken us to the point where we can and do put everything and anything on a hard drive and then make it available online. The choices far exceed our capacity to consume.

So how will we find new stuff ? New entertainment choices ?

Will it be purely from friends on social networks ? Will we verticalize and go to movie and music sites (or any other interest we may have) and join their social networks ? Will we just continue to trust Google and search engine algorithms to get us "the most relevant:" options with a suggestion here or there? Will it be a combination of the two ala Mahalo ? Or will we find "trusted brands" to guide us.

I know that TV networks want to be brands that we look to for specific types of entertainment. Spike wants to be for boys, USA Networks is all about crime, etc, etc.

At HDNet we focus our content on Men, 25 plus. Those who have graduated for the most part from Spike and want a mix of smarter programming and presentation. From Dan Rather to Torchwood to our brand of MMA, HDNet FIghts. We try to go older and smarter than other networks. But how do we get more people to connect. How do movies get people out of the homes to connect ? How does any tv show, let alone a tv network. What about a book ?

Is Oprah the best model ? Is she really a social recommendation engine with an outreach network of millions ? She obviously is a brand trusted by millions, are there others that could be as powerful ? Do they require a hit TV show ? A website , a blog, a Youtube channel ? What is the inflection point of impact in terms of numbers ? Or could Facebook or Myspace pages truly turn into trusted recommendation points that actually lead to purchases on a repetitive basis ?

If Mark Cuban on Facebook lists my favorite magazines, books, movies, what have you, will anyone care ?

I just don't think that people searching and results based on algorithms or context is the future of advertising and marketing.. There is another answer out there, the question is "what is it "?

I read a ton. Online, magazines, newspapers. I troll the newsstands for new magazines just trying to see if there is something out there Im missing.

I also get asked all the time what magazines that I do read. I'm not going to go through the list, but I'm going to list two that are must reading for anyone who has an interest in technology. Why ? Because they often cover in technical detail just how 99pct of the bandwidth available to the home is managed, planned and maintained.

It's amazing to me how all the "internet pundits" truly have no understanding that 98pct of the bandwidth to most people's homes is not allocated to the internet, its allocated to everything else digital and analog and managed quite differently than the internet bandwidth that you receive. Not understanding the difference between the two (internet and non) pretty much eliminates your ability to understand the future of broadband technology to the home.

To help the uninformed, I decided to share my 2 faves:

Communications Technology

ScreenPlays

These are the 2 magazines that I save every issue of and that I get excited to learn something new.

check em out

Ok, so I was pissed to see Coach Sampson bought out. I completely understand that the rules are the rules and he violated them. I can't even argue that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Coach Sampson appears to be a repeat offender. What I have a problem with is the NCAA and this situation is emblematic of exactly what is wrong with the organization.

The NCAA is an organization that supposedly prides itself on making sure that athletes are students and attend college with the intent to be students. What the NCAA fails to understand, IMHO, is that often students attend college with a specific goal or dream in mind. It may be to graduate and become an accountant, a musician, an artist, a teacher and any number of other professions. Every student who goes to school, post high school is given every opportunity and encouraged to maximize their effort and optimize their resources to achieve their goals. Unless of course they happen to attend a school that is a member of the NCAA and their goal is to be a professional athlete. In those cases, the NCAA does everything it can to make sure that the athlete is not a typical or traditional student.

For these student athletes, rather than doing every thing possible to excel in their chosen field, they face rules and restrictions that are exceeded in quantity and complexity only by the US Tax Code.

One summer I visited Indiana and there were some players working out and playing on the Assembly Hall court. After watching a few minutes, I walked in the hall and there were a bunch of other players just standing outside. Waiting. I of course asked why they weren't on the court with their teammates. Turns out that no more than 4 players could be on the court at one time. Imagine telling a cello player they couldn't practice with more than 4 members of their school orchestra. This was just the first of a list of inane rules that the compliance officer who was at the gym went on to list.

yes, there was someone there who was in charge of enforcing the NCAA rules.

I wasn't able to find exact numbers, (hopefully a reader can provide them), but I would hazard a guess that many Division 1 schools spend more money on NCAA analysis, presentation and compliance than they do on many of their academic programs. How sad would it be if my alma mater Indiana University, spends more money trying to deal with the NCAA and its rules than it does on its history or math programs ?

Which takes me back to IU. Every few days or so, I get an email from a current or former student asking why I don't donate enough money to build a state of the art arena on campus. Now you know why. The chances of me giving money to any school that doesn't offer the opportunity for their student athletes to accomplish their dreams are slim and none. Withdraw from the NCAA and we can talk.

Of course that won't happen. The NCAA money (which as I am told, funds more athletics and not academics) is bigger than a check I could write and what fun is it not having anyone you can play against. For now.

At some point, hopefully someone will spend the time to put together sports alliances completely outside traditional high school and college ruling bodies that will allow students to be passionate and work hard for their dreams both on the court and field and in the classroom. Which is exactly what happens overseas in most sports.

The supremely talented and promoted can still prosper in the current system, but for those who are willing to make up for whatever they may lack in natural gifts with hard work, and good tutoring, the NCAA doesn't make dreams come true, they do their unknowing best to kill dreams.

Coach Sampson deserves his share of the blame, and he is accepting the consequences. When are we going to realize that the NCAA deserves more than its share of blame. They are dream killers, not enablers. Thats reason enough to end the NCAA reign.

I can say without question that this was the most amazing, annoying and difficult deal we have ever done since I bought the Mavs.

The annoyance. One agent who made a truism of the saying that "no good deed goes unpunished". That said, I have nothing but respect and admiration for Devean George. He told me that he would trust his agent as he had done for the last 10 years and take whatever may with that decision. He had the balls to stick to it. Even with people yelling and screaming at him. That said, as I write this, I really have no clue why the agent made the decision he did.

The dirt. Peter Vescey's ridiculous assertion that Avery asked me to trade Dirk. Even in the Nellie years where we discussed trading every other player on the roster, Dirk was never mentioned. There has never been a discussion of trading Dirk during my tenure, EVER. Vescey's source is an out and out liar.

The thing about dealing with the media in this business is that they thrive on rumors and get bored with reality.

For example. Several local media outlets had no interest in sending anyone to New Orleans to cover the All Star game or Dirk's appearance there. That changed once the trade rumors started. Then all of the sudden, every media person they could find was there. Newscasts led with the rumors. Newspapers speculated and comments on the impact of the rumors if true or not true. There was reporting on rumors about rumors. All of which is fine. I get that and in many many ways, its good for the Mavs and the NBA. It drives interest.

My job, Donnie and Avery's jobs include trying to protect the team from those rumors. The fact of the matter is, we are going to "love our team" no matter what. Every team can be made better with the right deal. We are always going to be opportunistic and try to improve, but we are not going to add any fodder to the rumor mill. Until this deal, we were always able to keep things quiet. To their credit, the NY media takes things to another level, or low, depending on your point of view.

The difficult. Saying goodbye to Devin, Gana and Trenton. All 3 are great guys in every way. On and off the court. It was far from an easy deal to make. We know that all 3 will continue to grow and get better and like other players we have traded or lost, come back to haunt us in some manner. That comes with every and any trade of players who are talented and work hard at their profession. I also think this will be a great chance for Mo Ager to start fresh.

The amazing. We think that Jason Kidd will immediately make the other players around him better. He is a different kind of point than Devin is. There are certain things that Devin does that JKidd can't. No question about it. That said, through experience and talent, we think JKidd can make the game easier for JET, Dirk , Josh, Damp, Stack and all of our guys and as a result make our team better.

The business side. I think we were stagnating some. I think the spark and excitement that JKidd will bring is more than just what his talent offers. There is a reason why Kobe and Lebron were lobbying management to bring JKidd in. We think he will recharge the batteries of not just our players, but the organization, fans, media and even merchandise and advertising sales.

That's the reality of this business. Wins and losses are not just about talent, its about energy and teamwork. The best leaders recognize when a spark is needed and are honest enough to admit it, and get it. Even when things are going well, its sometimes hard to sustain the energy of being a start up or of levels year past. In business it might be an acquisition, or a sale that may not be the perfect transaction, but its the most impactful. We have been discussing this now for at least a month. We think this deal will have impact.

I've said before this was the best NBA season ever. It just got a little better.

There was a lot of discussion about my previous posts here and here. My point is that the internet is a stable platform. Its a utility. Its evolved to the point where you can count on it and develop applications for it without much fear that its going to change.

What confirms my point is that with all the talk of a possible or existing recession, not a single mention is ever made about how increases in productivity from technology will pull us through. That is counter to the recessions of the past 25 years. Whether it was the early 80s, the 90's or even the post bubble , economists and others pointed to technology as a catalyst to productivity that would help pull us out of our economic doldrums.

When there were boomtimes , as we saw from about 91 to 2000, technology was given the lions' share of the credit.

So where are the claims of further productivity enhancements from technology ? They are no where that I can find.

In fact, we can start to make arguments to the contrary. That technology and in particular social network and video sites can be a hindrance to productivity in the workplace.

Further arguments can be made that the MSFT YHOO potential merger is further evidence that the technology industry is maturing.

It is what it is.

They say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. So why is it the American people allow our politicians to do the same things over and over and we believe them and expect results different from previous elections ?

I've looked at the websites of current and previous candidates to get an understanding of their platforms. They all have positions, some of which I agree with , some of which I don't. But there is one thing that is missing from each and everyone of them, any manner of implementation. Health care, spending cuts, retaining or repealing tax cuts, keeping or removing troops, the soundbites with pretty numbers never end. Not a single candidate provides details on how exactly they are going to accomplish anything. Don't they realize that economists exists to make lottery ticket buyers look smart, not presidential candidates ?

It reminds me of business plans I get from kids who tell me about their vision and project all kinds of numbers leading to grand results. They can site historical facts and figures, but when it comes time to get into details of exactly how they are going to execute on their plans, the response is basically that they will figure it out as they go. I wouldn't invest in a business that is winging it any more than I want to vote for a presidential candidate that is winging it.

Unfortunately , they are all winging it. i have no question that they have every detail about how to spend their campaign contributions on advertising planned out. I have yet to see details on how they plan to accomplish all their great promises they are making to voters. That scares me.

It also scares me that despite claims of not being an "insider" or wanting a different vision for America, every remaining candidate spends more energy campaigning to their party than to the issues. I got sick watching Clinton and Barack argue about who was less of a "Reaganite" during one of their few lively debate exchanges.

I actually started to get a little bit excited about McCain. Then he went on the warpath to "mend his riff" with the Republican Party. I can only speak for myself, but the fact that he had a "riff" with the Republicans is exactly why i started to get excited about him. No, he hadn't presented any more details on his plans than any other candidate, but there was a glimmer of hope that he was a candidate that thought for himself.

(And before all the comments start, Ron Paul is the worse of all the candidates when it comes to detailing how he would execute on his promises. Just saying you are going to cut and eliminate everything doesn't mean you know how to do it and/or could get it done.)

So here we are, our country has the same problem we have every four years, our remaining candidates are politicians. They know how to spend other people's money. They know how to assign responsibility to someone else. They know how to beg for other people's money. They know how to campaign, schmooze and kiss babies. They have no earthly idea how to accomplish any of their promises.

So here is my hope. My hope is that the entire primary process is just the preseason. That its nothing more than an expensive introduction to the Republican and Democratic candidates and once they have picked their winner, a wealthy individual will nominate them self to compete with the 2 parties and run for President.

Are you listening Mayor Bloomberg ? For less than the cost of opening a tent pole movie, you can change the status quo . I'm not saying that I'm going to vote for you yet. As I said above, the devil is in the details. But, I'm betting that unlike the current choices, you recognize the difference between politics and results.