The Proverbs get around
I was gratified to hear from so many people about the Entrepreneurial Proverbs piece -- it really seemed to hit a nerve (uh, in a good way). One of those people was Todd Lappin at Business 2.0, who asked to include one of the proverbs (the one about user testing) in their June cover story, How to build a bulletproof startup. Thanks much to Todd and the others at Business 2.0 for including me in the piece. I agree with David that much of the advice seems geared towards older-style startups, and that many of the successful startups we write about on Radar don't seem to fit most of the article's recommendations. If I have time next week, I'm hoping to write up a longer reaction to the article, focusing on advice I would give to someone who came to me with the plan laid out in the article, and what I would do differently. There are definitely some good ideas in the piece, but there are also some things I would strongly advise against.
Being in Business 2.0 was flattering enough, but I was even more, uh, amazed, to see the Proverbs make it into The Village Voice. Didn't you see it? Oh, you have to scroll down to the "Gemini" listing. Yes, the piece was referenced in the horoscope section of the Voice -- not exactly how I would have hoped to make it into the U.S.'s leading free weekly newspaper. But who's complaining? I guess this goes to show that Wisdom McNuggets travel well -- even to the stars!
tags:
| comments: 20
| Sphere It
submit: 
0 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/4697
Comments: 20
The problem is, Marc, the web 2.0 issue reflects on all that you guys do over there, and while I appreciate you wish to leave that aside and talk about other things, it just looks like you are avoiding the issue. On the other hand the posts from your Coms VP are no better, they try to clarify a position that the public either see as indefensible or have already made their mind up about.
I seriously suggest you just keep all your outputs to a minimum until Tim gets back. And when he returns, I suggest you all help assure that he does a colossal U-turn on this issue to save the rapidly falling reputation of ORA.
Delete or not as you like, this is as much a message for you guys in the company as a comment.
Yup, shutup and fold seems like a good idea. I had been a regular reader of the Radar, but not any more. The Web 2.0 thing was just so distasteful.
Yep, might be better not to post anything to Radar until we know where O'Reilly corporately and Tim personally stand on this fiasco over Web 2.0
As any new topic post will probably be seen (cynical though it may appear) as an attempt to move people away from the more important issue of the PR disaster over Web2.0
Thanks for the comments. I don't see any of the comments above as trolls (unlike the one I deleted earlier).
I understand that there is a large group of people who are not interested in hearing anything from the Radar blog or anyone else at O'Reilly until Tim returns and, I assume the hope is, apologizes for the Web 2.0 service mark issue. I think the original Radar post on that topic has more comments than anything else we've posted, and certainly has accumulated them far faster than ever before. Nearly all of the commenters feel the same way. You'd have to be blind not to have gotten the message from that.
The problem from my side is that I know the most outraged of those comments -- the ones that talk about burning O'Reilly books, firing people, closing the company, and so on -- certainly don't represent a universal view, and I doubt they represent anything near it. I've received quite a few private email messages that have expressed contrary views, and some people have posted comments on those posts saying clearly that they disagree with the extreme reactions. I've seen other people blog about their views on the topic, some agreeing with the service mark, some disagreeing, and some unsure. And I know that while five of you have commented on this post asking me to keep quiet until Tim returns, another several people added positive comments to the Proverbs piece after this post, or sent emails to me about it -- more than one of them saying that they'd missed it earlier and appreciated the link. As it turns out, at this point (and I'm sure measuring this will change it), I have an even number of positive and negative responses to this particular post. Not everyone feels the way the commenters above do.
Thousands of people subscribe to our RSS feeds. Hundreds of people, now, have expressed negative opinions on the service mark posts. What to do? Shut down the blog? The company? Stop everything until Tim returns, as you all suggest above?
You, as readers, certainly have every right to unsubscribe from our RSS feeds and stop reading the blog. I'm amazed that those of you commenting above haven't done just that, given the strength of the opinions you've expressed. But it's also clear to me that some set of Radar readers believe one of the following views instead:
- the C & D was a mistake, but Tim deserves a chance to express his views before we villify him
- the C & D issue is complicated and worthy of discussion
- O'Reilly and CMP were well within their rights and people who disagree don't get it; or
- O'Reilly and CMP were wrong, but the issue is not worth the vitriol it has attracted.
It might well be that people in all of the camps in that list would not expect us to shut down the Radar blog until Tim replies to the comments. In fact to me, that would be a craven and pathetic approach.
I think the Radar blog posts -- and O'Reilly books and conferences, and the O'Reilly Network, and Make, and all the rest -- are valuable whether O'Reilly and CMP were right about the service mark or not. I personally don't agree, at all nor even close, that O'Reilly and CMP did something unforgivable, and while I wish they'd taken some steps differently, nor do I agree, at all, that angry mob justice should silence everyone working for or associated with O'Reilly until Tim returns and expresses his views. (For the record, I don't work for O'Reilly any more, and haven't since February.)
So, no, I'm not trying to change the subject so people will forget anything happened -- I'm not so stupid as to think anyone would fall for that, and that's not my intent. And no, I'm not going to just sit quietly until Tim returns -- I think there are people who do not see this issue as the end of O'Reilly and are interested to see other topics posted on this blog. This doesn't mean I'm ignoring the opinions expressed in the other comments -- it just means I can't do anything else about those comments now, and I think it would be cowardly and pointless to hide in the corner until Tim addresses the issue. If you disagree, feel free not to read my posts.
I think one possible issue is one of scale - you posted a puff piece blowing your own trumpet about what you describe if you follow your own link as " a talk at ETech on Monday called "Entrepreneuring for Geeks." I've given this general talk a few times now"
If you think in terms of comparative scale between O'Reilly shooting itself in the foot and a piece of self congratulating fluff about a "general talk" I think looking you could take the view that its a topic that could have waited.
I think contributors of new topics should honestly weigh up whether posting fluff is worthwhile in the face of what is shaping up to be a PR disaster.
I don't want silence, I just don't want new topics of limited worth in the face of what is a more important issue.
Marc I'm generally in the "support" camp, feeling this is greatly overblown by detractors (which is part of why blog land is so enjoyable).
But don't fiddle while O'Rome burns. This appears to have struck a strong chord and you'd be well advised to lay the groundwork for a retraction which is the logical step by Tim.
Copyright is copywrong in this case since you are protecting more long term profits by ... NOT fighting for this as an O'Reilly mark. Think of the blog response if you actually went to court on this issue !?!
Marc, well said.
"I don't want silence, I just don't want new topics of limited worth in the face of what is a more important issue."
Jonathan, who the hell do you think you are? Any of you, to come into this space, this weblog and demand that the writers write on topics you determine they may write on -- or stay shut up until then?
The whole issue of the conference trademark has, to me, become secondary, compared to the astonishing number of _demands_ from people about what you at O'Reilly will or will not do.
Or else.
Whatever moral grounds you thought you had at one time, you've lost them now. Whatever O'Reilly or CMP has done, pales in comparison to the behavior exhibited by many in these comments.
I'm also off-topic, and for this I apologize Marc. But I am so amazed, and saddened, by what I've read in these posts.
Personally, I hope Tim O'Reilly doesn't say a word. Because you know, he doesn't have to say anything. Last I heard, weblogging was supposed to be about freedom of expression.
As for your piece appearing in the Village Voice, that's is pretty cool. Something that some of the commenters have forgotten is that webloggers like to share nice events in their lives. Please don't let the others tarnish your moment.
(PS: I'm a writer for O'Reilly, though I don't always agree with Tim O'Reilly. In this case, I must admit to being completely indifferent to CMP's trademark of Web 2.0 for conferences, though I can understand this is upsetting to many of you. And as Marc said, you can and should be vocal about your unhappiness, and exercise your rights as a consumer not to buy anything from O'Reilly...but don't ever tell another weblogger what they can, or cannot write, and when they can or cannot write it. Ever. )
Shelley cool off, you actually contradict yourself, you promote freedom of expression twice in one post and then attempt to tell others that they cannot
" ever tell another weblogger what they can, or cannot write, and when they can or cannot write it. Ever."
If people want to ask that OReilly contributors temporarily refrain from posting, whats wrong with that ?
Shelly: "Jonathan, who the hell do you think you are? Any of you, to come into this space, this weblog and demand that the writers write on topics you determine they may write on -- or stay shut up until then?"
Presumably a person who believes, like you, that "weblogging was supposed to be about freedom of expression."
You can't have it both ways...freedom of expression is unconditional, with the possible exception of having to abiding by local legislation.
It's difficult for me to take anyone seriously who signs themselves "less moral outrage", but I'll answer in response: if I contradict myself, I'm joining a long list of people associated with these events doing no differently.
You come into this spot after telling Marc to shut up, and then when I tell you don't tell a weblogger what to write, you bring up your right to your freedom of expression. How bloody sad can this be?
What you're really saying is that you want to control what is or is not said. Why? Because you are the Commenters, the Audience, the Readers, the customers of the weblog. And you've all been told you're now the king, been catered to in Cluetrainish fashion for so long, you've forgotten the most basic human qualities of courtesy and respect.
By all means, express your disappointment at the cease and desist letter and the trademarking of Web 2.0 for conference use by CMP. You are, also, free to demand explanations, and stop buying O'Reilly books, or attending O'Reilly conferences. Unsubscribe from the O'Reilly Radar, burn the link, and salt the ashes.
But how much will you kick the so-called principles of Web 2.0 in the teeth in order to defend it?
I imagine this whole experience will end up at sessions at most web 2.0 conferences in the future. And someone will say isn't it great? After all, this is the true 'power' of Web 2.0: power to the people.
But what's changed by all this uproar? Where will society have been improved by such displays of outrage? How many marketing savvy people will seek to turn this to personal advantage?
Oh, lighten up Shelley. I sound pedantic. I take this too seriously. It is, after all, just a game.
Way, way off topic. Marc, apologies again.
Shelley - it seems to me that Jonathon just suggested (not told, or demanded) that in the middle of a PR disaster it's probably wisest not to post a puff piece...especially something with '2.0' in the title.
As far as I can see you're the only person actually telling people what they can and cannot post here.
Interesting too that you suggest that those who post comments are merely "Commenters, the Audience, the Readers, the customers of the weblog." Sounds very web 1.0 to me. The collective community led nature of web 2.0 points to the fact that these comments constitute as much to the weblog as the original authors'.
I just come here to read a follow-up on "the issue" by Tim (and I assume so do many others), but I don't think you guys don't have a right to cover other topics anymore... you do...
Dear O'Reilly Radarers,
As part of the baying mob, I urge you to continue with your daily O'Reilly lives, blog posts and all. Altering your heartfelt actions for publicity reasons would be lame and unfreespeechy.
I have learnt a lot from your books and MAKE - my hunger for your wisdom is way greater than my pocket book.
I took the time to join the baying mob because I thought you might listen, yous all seem pretty decent.
IMHO, profiting from restricting knowledge flow is like stealing unknowable time amplified amounts from the future. Conversely, how to keep the presses rolling and authors fed? As with most things, a chaotic equilibrium.
Thank You for causing this excellent debate.
Jason Malcolm-Herzmark
jmhz
P.S. please try and be perfect in the future ;-)
Relevant comment: Marc, am I missing something, or does the village voice's mention consist _entirely_ of them misattributing a Steve Jobs quote to you?
Finite: Heh, no, they paraphrased four of the 'proverbs' and made them into astrological advice.
I just fwded the the proverbs to all my friends and they all found them useful pieces of advice. I am looking fwd to your reaction to the B2.0 piece.
Marc - I just went back and read the original post about the proverbs and they are great!
Post A Comment:
STAY CONNECTED
RECENT COMMENTS
- Jude on The Proverbs get around: Iwant a proverb about t...
- Joseph Hunkins on The Proverbs get around: Marc - I just went back...
- Ken Rossi : CivilNetizen.com on The Proverbs get around: I just fwded the the pr...
- Marc Hedlund on The Proverbs get around: Finite: Heh, no, they p...
- Finite on The Proverbs get around: Relevant comment: Marc,...
- jmhz on The Proverbs get around: Dear O'Reilly Radarers,...
- Philipp Lenssen on The Proverbs get around: I just come here to rea...
- Andrew on The Proverbs get around: Shelley - it seems to m...
- Shelley on The Proverbs get around: It's difficult for me t...
- Andrew on The Proverbs get around: Shelly: "Jonathan, who ...
RADAR TOPICS
Marc Hedlund [05.27.06 09:32 PM]
I deleted a troll comment from this post; if you want to express unhappiness about the Web 2.0 service mark issue, please feel free, but please do it on one one of the two posts on that topic. Thanks much.