this blog just got way more micro (I'm talking about Twitter)

I just checked out the Social Media Breakfast. Was cool, thanks Bryan.

The thing was basically a huge Twitter lovefest. It helped me to think a little deeper about the service.

1. Often I want to blog here, but my thought is "too small" for a blog post, or maybe a bit off topic. Reason to try Twitter.

2. Facebook status updates are fun, and I have previously been of the opinion that they killed the need for twitter. But now I'm understanding that the whole game of twitter is VOLUME.

You COULD do a high volume of status updates in facebook, but that's not really quite what it's for and your friends are likely to get bummed. Twitter is designed more to be high volume.

Actually this scenario is similar to Linkspank - you can post a link on facebook, but you can't do it in high VOLUME efficiently (i.e. without spamming your friends). Enter Linkspank, and your world is awesome - more content, bigger brain, bigger laughs.

Anyway, I'm going to try the twitter things for people who for some reason think it's interesting to follow the individual firings of my synapses. That place will be

twitter.com/bitchell

I'll still blog here, of course - when it's more than just a snippet.

You can see that I used my (sort of) real name rather than "linkspank" as my twitter handle. The reason: twitter is not about companies, but rather people. A huge portion of what I do is "Inside Linkspank" type stuff. But there will be & has to be other junk in there too, because when you go high volume the line gets blurry between this & that. Some people raised an eyebrow at the user name "bitchell." I raise an eyebrow back at them. I'm like hey, What do you expect from a person who names a site Linkspank? ;-)

The Death of Business 2.0

I got my last issue of Business 2.0, which has been canceled. While I didn't consider it a paragon of journalism, and did find its predictions of "What's Next" a little repetitive, I am still quite sad to see it go. I joined the Facebook group to save the magazine but to no avail.

bye

What will I miss? I can put it in these terms. One of my entrepreneurship professors presented our class with a series of new businesses, a great many of which turned out to be no-go's. When asked if this was a dirty trick to fool us, he explained that we are too accustomed to studying success cases, and ignoring failure cases.

One thing I liked about Business 2.0 was that it reported on not-yet-successful cases-- so, as in my entrepreneurship class, you got a flavor of the failure in with the success. That was a good thing. On the other hand, the magazine had a tendency to depict everything it reported on with glowing optimism, which was not realistic (and maybe the opposite of realistic). Reporting with more skepticism would have improved the usefulness of the publication to everyone (except maybe the companies being covered).

I guess now I'll just have to read even more blogs as a substitute. Sigh. Maybe blogs are the way of the future, but it's a pretty disorganized shuffle right now. Maybe Linkspank can help someday...