Dan Blank: Publishing, Innovation & the Web

Guest column by Peter Welander, Control Engineering process industries editor.

Last week, we discussed some technical considerations for recording high-quality podcasts. Once you’ve set down that path and are getting ready to invest in a digital recorder, how can you tell if a specific model will help your efforts or be a waste of money?

Jeff Weinstein at Hotels Magazine likes his Zoom H4. His advice is to get close to your subject for best sound.

First, my own experience: Our publisher was strongly encouraging us to start working on podcasts. My latest audio training was working on a 10 watt college radio station in 1973-74 when “digital” meant something to do with your fingers. I had seen small recorders, but had no clue what they were about. So, in October 2006, I went to my local Guitar Center store, and plunked down about $300 for a Sony MZ-M10 minidisk recorder (now discontinued). It was a totally uninformed purchase and I quickly learned the features that were in my favor, and those that were not:

• The little “hammer head” microphone was amazingly good.
• A 1 gig disk holds 90 minutes of recording time, and they don’t cost very much.
• It took special software, but I could upload files to my Mac, if I recorded in Linear PCM. I could never get it to transfer directly to a PC.

But:

• Virtually nobody sells the disks, including Guitar Center, so they have to be mail ordered. If you run out in the field, you’re toast.
• If you don’t have the special software, you can’t upload anything.
• The internal rechargeable battery is good for about 5 minutes, but the external battery “sidecar” really works pretty well and doesn’t add too much bulk.

Dollar for dollar, I could have done much worse. Once I figured out its operational quirks, that little recorder did very well. I used it for at least 30 podcasts and dozens of interview recordings. It has now been retired (although my boss likes to use its mic) in favor of more sophisticated devices, but I miss its tiny size and portability. Since the cost of CF and SD memory cards has come down drastically, the attractiveness of minidisks has faded, and the format is likely headed for extinction before too long.

There are many choices of digital recorders with price points at $200, $300, and on up. While I can’t claim experience with very many of them, I can suggest features to consider and things that might make one more attractive than another. The intent of this isn’t to recommend any specific type or model, but to give you points of analysis that can make your selection easier.

Let’s start by examining a few speech or voice recorders from Sony:

Sony ICD-UX70, $99
This unit has 1 gig storage (non-removable) which is quite a bit, but the specs do not indicate the recording format. The shortest capacity (highest quality, we assume) is about 12 hours, which suggests a medium-sized MP3. Sound quality will likely be disappointing under all but the best circumstances.

Sony ICD-SX68DR9, $199
This bigger brother unit actually has less storage capacity (512 MB). Maximum recording times suggest the best file quality is probably 128 kbps stereo, so that will make for disappointing sound. There are better choices for that kind of money.

Once you’re up to $200, you might as well begin looking at “music” recorders. These are configured for recording your favorite band, guitar player or whatever. That means they have reasonably good built-in mics and should have no trouble with normal speech. Most lack any directionality, so they will pick up ambient noise just as efficiently as they do speech. They are all stereo and do not include mono options that I can tell. This isn’t a problem beyond the fact that it creates a larger file size that gets mixed down in editing. All these units require menu-driven controls due to the sheer size of buttons. That can get complicated and it’s hard to compare units directly. Suffice it to say all designs suffer this to some extent.

One of the most interesting entry-level machines is the Zoom H2 at $200. The built-in microphone configuration looks like it allows for an adjustable pick-up pattern, but it’s hard to tell how that will help with a typical podcast recording situations. As far as other features go, it has the standard set of recording format options, including those we need most. All connections are via standard stereo-mini plugs (mic in, line in, headphones) and USB. This unit can also function as a USB mic, feeding its signal directly to your computer. Records onto removable SD card. This looks like an excellent choice, even when being compared with more expensive units.

There is another group clustered around the $300 price point. All have built-in mics and the necessary recording format capabilities. They have more differences than you might expect which make for an odd assortment of upsides and problems. One peculiar element that I can’t quite figure out is the assortment of external mic sockets. Most external mics have either a stereo mini or XLR connection. Those with ¼ inch plugs are far less common.

Zoom H4
An interesting hybrid configuration: This is the only one in this class that I’ve seen with “professional” XLR mic inputs. That’s great if you want to use a wider variety of mics, but makes more mundane patching applications (like a phone interface) more challenging but not impossible. Can also act as a USB mic and feed directly to a computer. Uses SD cards.

Yamaha Pocketrak 2G
This seems to be billed as a high-end voice recorder with high-quality formats. But, it has only 2 gig of non-removable memory. That still means 3 hours without transferring or erasing but you can’t change cards. Stereo mini inputs/outputs. Smallest form factor.

Tascam DR-1
This has peculiar external mic inputs, including both ¼” and mini sockets. I’m not exactly sure what that’s about, but still ultimately useful. It has some interesting overdubbing capabilities, so this is definitely aimed at musicians. Uses SD cards.

M-Audio MicroTrack II
Another odd configuration, the only one in this class that has no built-in mic. It has ¼” and mini external mic inputs and comes with a separate stereo mic. The mic can be plugged directly to the unit, or via an extension cord. This can actually be a very handy thing and can make it easier to get closer to your subject. Outputs via headphones and RCA connectors. This design looks like they’re trying to make a unit that has more “professional” features such as separate level controls on the two channels. Uses CF cards.

You might be getting the impression that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. I suspect any of these “music” recorders will do the job if you’re planning on using just the built-in mics.

Next week we’ll look at some of the offerings at higher price levels and see what they have to offer for the money.

Other articles in this series:

• Selecting a Digital Recorder
• Dealing With Digital Audio File Formats
• Recording Audio Off the Phone

For me, this week has been one of reflection. There are a lot of challenges that we face, as a culture, a country, an industry, and of course, individually. This week, as I thought about the years behind us, and the years ahead, I happened upon something special. Something that puts things in perspective. Something that frames our past and can be a guiding light to our future. I found this:

It’s the first issue of Library Journal magazine, from 1876.

It was astounding to look at this wall and see more than 125 years worth of service to this industry.

This is a history of who we are; Of what we believe in; Of the industry we serve. It is more than pages bound together. For many, it was their life’s work. It cataloged generations within an industry. It shaped and reshaped how things are done. It is a constant in changing times.

Many of our brands have histories similar to this one.

The first edition of Library Journal was published when Jesse James was still robbing banks.

An article during the Second World War.

While the nation was still mourning the loss of President Kennedy.

The month I was born.

So thank you to everyone who has worked through the decades to build these institutions which I now have the honor of working with. And thank you to everyone I work with today, who are creating the future of these institutions. At times, it is a wild ride - and I am thankful for it.

By Peter Welander, Control Engineering process industries editor

One question that comes up regularly, and that I have struggled with myself, is that of what type of digital recorder to buy. Since most cost a few hundred dollars or more, it is a serious investment and not one most of us feel qualified to make intelligently. I have made some poorly informed purchases, so some of these lessons have been learned the hard way.

Three recorders from my personal collection: Marantz PMD670, Marantz PMD660, and Sony MZ-M10 MiniDisk. I’ve used all three extensively for various podcast projects. Each has its capabilities and drawbacks. Next week, we can begin to compare and contrast specific units according to the discussions here.

I’d like to approach this topic in at least two parts. First, establish a suggested general feature set, and then see how this yardstick applies to several examples. Please send your comments.

Dictation vs. music recorders

Dictation or speech recorders have specific capabilities:

• Higher compression rates (lower audio quality) to maximize recording time;
• Few choices of recording formats;
• Microphones optimized for speech;
• Might be mono or stereo;
• Pocket sized;
• Usually fixed recording media;
• Minimal connectivity; and
• Useful if you have a high end unit.

Music recorders are more versatile:

• Better microphones;
• More recording format options;
• Stereo recording, but this isn’t much help for podcasts;
• Better connectivity;
• Better control, but more complicated operation; and
• Bulkier and more expensive, relatively speaking, but usually worth it.

Inputs/Microphone(s)

Virtually any recorder has an internal mic (or two) or one that can be attached directly to the unit. These can be quite good and will likely be the means that you use for most of your recording. But sometimes you may want more. Look for these things:

• External mic input—Make sure there is a socket for an external mic. It will probably be a mini stereo plug, the same size as a normal headphone jack. You’ll need this for a phone interface, etc.
• External line input—This is a handy thing if you can get it, but not quite as important. It will help if you need to connect to a mixer or other audio source. Also probably a mini-stereo plug.
• “Pro” XLR mic input(s)—A few recorders have XLR mic inputs. Good if you plan on getting really serious, otherwise they just add bulk.

Recording media/transfer capability

• Fixed internal memory—Low end recorders do not have removable media. That’s fine if you don’t plan on recording much at any one time, but a problem if you can’t transfer files off and still have more to go.
• Thumb drive/SD card/CF card—These are all good and available virtually anywhere. SD and CF cards are usually carried internally and probably more practical.
• Mini-disk—This format (Sony) is rapidly going extinct. (I still have one.) It works well, but impossible to find disks when on the road.
• USB port—Don’t buy a recorder that does not have a standard USB port, if such even still exists. Also check to see if uploading files requires special software. Proprietary media and software can be a problem. Sony and Olympus have reputations for needing special stuff.
• Some recorders can actually function as a “USB microphone,” transferring directly to a computer live while recording.

Recording formats

The two most common and useful recording formats are MP3 and WAV (Linear PCM). Look at the specs for file format:

MP3 setting options should include:

• 44.1 kHz frequency;
• At least 64/128 (mono/stereo) kbps;
• Better with 80/160 kbps;
• Best with 128/256 kbps or higher.

WAV files with 16 bit at 44.1 kHz.

WMA or DSS formats are not the most useful. If this is all that is available, keep looking.

Headphones vs. speaker

It’s rare for small recorders to have a speaker of any value. It might be sufficient to identify a track but for any serious listening, you’ll need headphones or ear buds.

“Professional” vs. consumer

Professional ENG (electronic news gathering) recorders have some advantages, but some drawbacks too. What are they, what can they do, and are they worth it?

• Cost—ENG recorders begin at about $500, and can range into several thousand.
• Durability—They’re designed to get banged around in day-to-day use, so they’re more rugged.
• Inputs—Internal mics are usually low quality because you’ll be using external mics. Line in and out are standard.
• XLR connections—Designed for rugged professional mics and cables.
• Formats—Usually a wide range of recording formats with removable storage card media. Some have four tracks.
• Bulk—They’re big and often heavy. Operation can be complicated.

Should you buy one? If you’re really serious, yes. You can control the recording quality and extend the versatility of your projects. There’s the psychological benefit of pulling one our of your bag because it shows anyone that you’re recording that you mean business, assuming you don’t fumble with trying to make it work. Bear in mind the recorder is just the beginning. You’ll also need microphones, cables, headphones, etc. There are used units available on eBay and similar sites that can help you get started.

These comments should not be considered the final word. There are many factors and personal preference issues that come into these decisions. At the same time, when I was starting out in this, I would have appreciated some guidance that might have saved me a few (hundred) bucks. So take it for what it’s worth. If you have other observations, I’d love to hear them.

There are so many publishers and brands with great ideas on how to engage readers on the web and build a viable online business. With new tools at their disposal, there is nothing but opportunity. But with new media and Web 2.0, there is always the risk of:

Pursuing tactics, without an overall strategy.

For instance, getting into Twitter or social networking, or SEO, or videos or podcasting, without taking a step back and understanding how this fits into a larger editorial strategy… and more importantly… into the lives of readers and customers. The big question should always be:

How does this strategy or tactic solve a problem for readers and customers.

Everything a brand does online should have a strategy. Let’s take blogs as an example. There are many differing opinions as to what a blog is, and the value it can bring. I have seen how blogs that are done well, not only bring more people to a website, but result in more INVOLVEMENT with the brand. Blogs and bloggers can quickly become brands in themselves, which can be leveraged in for variety of new product offerings and research opportunities.

I see all too many blogs that are filled with “just good enough” content, and updated so infrequently, that it is difficult to even define them as a blog. In the end, they are left with sparse content areas that are filled with editorial backwash - news and commentary that the brand - and their readers - consider secondary. That is not the purpose of a blog, and will not strengthen anyone’s editorial strategy, business, or the lives of their readers and customers.

Situations like this seem to be the case of pursuing tactics without a strategy.

A common problem people face when launching a blog strategy is finding people to update the blog multiple times a week. Often, they may have to resort to launching a blog that doesn’t focus on the topic most essential to their readers, but instead, on a topic that they could find an author for. This type of situation needs to be reversed.

Once you have a set strategy for a blog, then the tactics give much greater payoff. For example, I have spoken to dozens of bloggers who struggle with keeping their blogs updated.

So let’s just say you have a blog, and you know the topic is important, but the author can’t find the time to update it more than once a week. With an update frequency that low, you will likely miss ALL the benefits that a blog should give you. Here are some tactics to solve this issue:

• Set a goal of updating the blog from once a week, to twice a week.
• Create an update schedule, say Mondays and Wednesdays.
• Each day should have a different type of blog post, one that is easy to create, and one that is a bit harder.
• For the hard one, that should be their main topic of the week. Perhaps it is a tip, or is instructional, or explores an issue that plagues their audience. They can fill this bucket with a monthly brainstorming meeting with an editor… listing out potential topics and subtopics.
• For the shorter blog post, have them describe, link to, and comment on one big news item of the week. Likely, 10 noteworthy things happen each week, they just have to pick one.
• Schedule writing sessions at a time when they are most creative. Perhaps they can write 3 posts at a time on Sunday morning, when there head is clear.

If this helps, then there is another layer of tactics to try out:

• Create a very loose editorial calendar.
  This should outline key topics that keep their industry up at night. This can be as simple as a single list, or as complex as a magazine’s editorial calendar.
• Collect as much research and metrics as possible.
  Every conversation with spur ideas for topics.
• A single staff member should assist as editor for the blog.
  Largely, this person would act more as a sounding-board and motivator than true editor, but it prevents a blogger from feeling lonely and isolated.

• Measure performance.
  Look at the metrics to see what topics and blog entries were most popular. Use this data to create follow up entries, and identify new ideas.

The key point is that these tactics will bring much less success if the overall strategy for the blog is not sound - if the blog was not meeting a critical need with readers and customers. And these tactics should make this whole process more manageable. No blogger should ever have to wake up panicked about what they will be writing about.

And I think our old friend says it best:

“Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.”
– Sun Tzu (Chinese General, circa 500 BC)

With publishing in such a time of transition, with resources being pulled in so many directions, brands need to choose very carefully where they put their efforts. 100 tactics that don’t link up to a solid strategy will leave a staff, and their customers, confused. A single strategy with only 10 tactics to implement, may give everyone a solid path to the future.

By Peter Welander, Control Engineering process industries editor

While working through the process of recording and editing podcasts, one of the most confusing topics has been that of understanding digital recording formats. I’m an analog kind of guy, and working with digital recorders and computer editing has been an eye opening experience. I’d like to try and explain a few things, but first I have to lay out some technical background. If you don’t want to read it all, just skip down to the subhead.

Consider for a moment the more familiar topic of digital photography. Those of us in publishing understand basic concepts of file size, format (.jpg, .gif), resolution, and the like. Some digital photos are beautiful while others look jagged and “stair-steppy.” We know that has to do with file size, pixel counts, dots per inch, etc, and we have specific minimums for what we consider publishable. If an image is too pixilated, we generally don’t run it in print.

Your correspondent in his “studio,” a quiet corner of the basement.

Digital audio is much the same. It is an attempt to duplicate the wave form of a sound with bits. Just as a curved line in a digital photo can be smooth or jagged depending on the nature of the file, it is the same in audio. High-quality digital audio as you hear in a commercially produced CD is virtually indistinguishable from the best analog audio (although audiophiles who cling to their vinyl LPs may argue the point). The problem with high-quality digital audio, like high-quality digital photography, is file size. Stereo CD quality sound is essentially 10 Mb per minute, so it isn’t practical for someone to download for a podcast.

To make file sizes more manageable, there are compression methods to reduce the size but these invariably hurt the quality, at least to some extent. For example:

Uncompressed high-quality CD audio is typically recorded at 16 bit, linear PCM (pulse code modulation) at 44.1 kHz. These files are normally designated as .WAV. There are even higher quality formats, such as 48 or 96 kHz, but these are designed for sophisticated music recording and excessive for podcasts.

The most common compressed audio format is MPEG1 Layer III, or as it is more commonly known, MP3. It is one format, but has a wide range of compression levels indicated by its frequency and bit rate, so all MP3s are not created equal. Frequency can range from 16 to 48 kHz, lowest to highest quality, respectively. Bit rate for mono files can range from 32 kbps but it goes as high as 160 kbps. If the file is stereo, the bit rate number doubles. (Don’t try to compare the numbers of .MP3 and .WAV files to each other or you’ll get really confused.)

There are other formats (.MP2, .BWF, .WMA, Ogg Vorbis, etc.) and other bit rates, but there is less likelihood that you will encounter these.

A simple recording setup that can produce high quality (relatively speaking) audio, but done on a budget. Electrovoice RE16 microphone, old Behringer mic preamp, and Marantz PMD670 recorder work as a good combination. All of it was purchased second-hand on eBay at a fraction of new prices. The fancy mic support used to be a desk lamp. The mic preamp isn’t required, as I could feed the mic directly to the recorder but it helps reduce hiss. Towels on the table reduce noise and reverberation. A few simple steps make for better sound.

So what does it mean?

If you’ve made it through this technical discourse, you may ask yourself, “OK, so what does all this mean to me? Should this affect the way I record discussions for podcasts?” As you might have guessed, the answer is yes, or I wouldn’t have gone through all that explanation.

Digital recorders normally have a range of recording options:

• MP3, with various bitrates;
• WAV, with one or two options, perhaps;
• WMA, Windows media audio;
• DSS, on Olympus recorders; and
• Possibly some other proprietary formats.

So which should you use?

The general answer is, record in a higher quality format than the final product will be, and as high as useful and practical. To put it in more specific terms: We post podcasts as 44.1 kHz, 64 kbps mono .MP3 files. This is considered high quality for speech, but not good enough for serious music. It’s capable of the kind of fidelity we expect from AM talk radio. We want as high quality sound as possible but with a file size that does not take an excessive amount of time to download. (To hear the difference, listen to this sound file that illustrates the point. If you aren’t getting sound quality equal to this, there’s room for improvement.) With that understanding, how should you do your field recording?

• First choice: Record in Linear PCM at 44.1 kHz. This generates a .WAV format file. Edit the podcast in this format and your pre-press department will compress it to its final form for posting. (Recording at 48 or 96 kHz, is overkill and will only shorten available recording time and complicate editing.) If you have a 1 gig memory device, you can record about 90 minutes in stereo, 180 minutes in mono.
• Second choice: If your recorder only does MP3s, set the frequency at 44.1 kHz and use a bit rate of at least 80 kbps (160 kbps if in stereo) or higher. 128 mono/256 stereo is even better, and almost as good as a .WAV file
• Wrong choice: Don’t record as a .WMA file if you can avoid it. Windows Media files have the lowest compatibility with editing platforms, etc., and will have to be converted.
• None of the above? If your recorder doesn’t offer any of these suggested options, use whatever the instructions recommend for the highest voice quality. Stereo is not necessary.
• If you are recording a phone conversation via a conference service, ask for the recording as a .WAV file. You’ll probably have to wait for them to send you a CD. If you can’t wait for the CD and they offer to let you download it as an MP3, find out what the compression specs are and follow the same suggestions above.

The fixation on 44.1 kHz is to keep some level of consistency from format to format. Editing platforms (such as GarageBand and Audacity) like this frequency and use it as a default.

It’s true that digital editing does not cause the kind of generational deterioration you get with analog (making a copy of a copy), it still exists when an audio file is uncompressed, edited, and then re-compressed. The sound does not improve through these steps. The better the original, the better the final product.

Whatever you do, choose one format and stick with it. If you do some of your recording as MP3 and some as WAV, you will have problems if you try and mix them during editing. You will probably have to convert them all to one or the other format. Moreover, given the complexity of most digital recorders, the less fiddling you do, the better.

Guest column by Peter Welander, Control Engineering process industries editor.

This column is intended to help provide technical advice for editors with the hopes of creating improved audio quality in podcasts, videos, and other online products. Please send your questions.

Since it isn’t always convenient to record a podcast face-to-face, sometimes we have to depend on recording from the phone to get the audio we need to complete a project.

The conventional wisdom is to use one of our conference calling platforms and have it do the recording for us. This works reasonably well assuming you can plan ahead a bit and don’t mind waiting for the company to send you a CD of the recording. (BTW, if you do that, order a .WAV file for best sound quality.) The downside of this is that it does require some planning ahead and everyone on the conversation sounds like they’re on the phone.

(I confess that I have a certain predisposition to technical geekishness, so bear in mind that I may come up with a more complex suggestion than you may want to deal with. I am aware of the problem and do attempt consciously to counteract it. Let me know if I am getting carried away. Whenever possible, I will provide links to where you can buy what I talk about. The two main suppliers will be B&H and Radio Shack because of their universality, but others can work just as well.)

The alternative is to use a small recorder and simply place it near a speaker phone. This may get you intelligible speech, but probably not something with high enough audio quality to use for a podcast.

There are techniques for recording off the phone that are not all that complicated and can yield decent sound. What you need is a simple device known as a phone interface. One such device that is relatively simple is a QuickTap made by JK Audio. This model sells for $58.95 at B&H. (There are cheaper units available, such as one from Radio Shack. I bought one and the sound was terrible. Don’t waste your time.)

All you have to do to install this interface is unplug the handset from your phone and put this in between the normal connection. Once in place, you can forget about it and use your phone normally. If you’re not recording, it does not interfere with regular operation. One caution though, it does not work if the keypad is in the handset.

There is a socket on the side of the unit for the audio output. It’s a mini-mono, mic level output. (If you know what that means, you’ll know how to use it. If not, read on.) What you need is a patch cord to plug into your recorder. This is where things can get complicated.

If you’re using a typical small digital recorder, there is probably a jack for an external mic input. Most of these will be “mini” plug size, which is 1/8” in diameter like the headphone jack on your computer and the plug on most lightweight headphones and ear buds. Small recorders are virtually all stereo, so it is probably designed for a stereo microphone. Since the audio from the interface is mono, you simply send the same signal to both sides of the stereo. That’s simple enough, but the patch cords sent with the interface won’t help you.

Here’s why: The photo shows the difference between a mono and stereo plug. They aren’t compatible. Sure, you can plug either into the same socket, but the electrical connections aren’t the same. So to connect the two incompatible sources, you need a patch cord and an adapter. A mini stereo-to-stereo patch cord is very common and used for things like computer speakers, etc. They are easy to find at Radio Shack and other electronics stores. You may even have one lying around. The adapter is less common. You need a stereo female by mono male adapter which is also available from Radio Shack. (My local store had both in stock.) The adapter goes into the interface, and the cord to the recorder.

Once you’re connected, it will take some experimentation to find the right sound balance. If your recorder has a mic sensitivity adjustment, you will probably need to set it to low, or for use in louder environments. The signal from the interface is relatively strong. You may not have a lot of control over the volume difference between you and your caller. That is one element that may have to be fixed in post production.

So, you ask yourself, “Why shouldn’t I just use the conference recording service? All that sounds like a lot of trouble.” Often that may be an easier answer, certainly. On the other hand, having the ability to record with decent audio quality anytime you want can be very handy. The device can be setup all the time, and when there’s an opportunity, all you have to do is plug in the recorder and go. That can be very helpful when you finally reach that contact you have been stalking, or there is an unexpected opportunity. Sometimes planning ahead isn’t possible, and this helps fill in those gaps.

There are more sophisticated phone interfaces available if you want to try more advanced recording techniques. (That will be a topic for a future discussion.) If you want to see what’s possible, listen to a few minutes of this podcast that was recorded off the phone at my cubicle using a phone interface.

Several weeks back, I wrote about how Facebook changed my life, and how it can change your industry. A recent discovery has me taking another look at how Facebook can connect people. I want to share the story of what a high school class from 1988 is doing to leverage Facebook, and explore the lessons that businesses can take from this.

This is their story. But it could easily be yours.

After Lisa King, a co-worker at RBI “friended” me on Facebook, I noticed her alumni group – The Framingham North High School Class of 1988 – and decided to check it out. Now, I love photos, and I was amazed at the 700+ photos that were uploaded to that group.  Here are a few of them to start things off:

So what is so special about these photos, and more importantly, how is it relevant to the ways your industry can leverage social media, and connect in new and important ways? Let’s take it apart:

• It’s easy to share.
  Facebook makes it ludicrously easy to share information and media with each other.

• It’s easy to connect.
  There are various tools built into the site that allow you to easily discover which people you may know that are active on Facebook.

• It expands even tenuous relationships.
  Over time, we tend to keep a circle of friends that are the most meaningful to us. But Facebook allows you to have easy but meaningful interactions with that second tier of friends - acquaintances, co-workers, people you sort-of know, but haven’t had dinner with.

• It extends relationships.
  Once you are connected to someone, you begin receiving small updates on their status, and content they add to the site. Suddenly, someone who you may barely know, becomes a three dimentional person, with common interests. As you "friend" people from different stages of your life, you experience an odd mashup of eras and contexts, creating something entirely new.

• It creates conversations.
  Many of these photos have extensive conversations beneath each of them on Facebook - as people chat about the photo, what it reminds them of, sharing stories, and trying to track down those who are not yet on Facebook.

• It makes it easy to interact.
  Unlike phone calls, face to face meetings, or even email, adding a note or comment is a simple, stress free way to stay connected, without much effort or pressure.

• It turns static content into something interactive.
  Everything you add to Facebook is somehow shared, and has the potential to create a new connection or conversation, be it a photo, status update, or note on your Wall. These photos sat for decades in shoeboxes - but suddenly, they are alive again.

• It’s fun.
  Not only are the photos funny, but the comments and conversations that accompany them are just hilarious.

• It creates a shared experience.
  Uploading old photos, and reconnecting with old friends is not just a trip down memory lane. You find that Facebook itself becomes an important shared experience among you and your firends.

• It’s expansive.
  Joining Facebook can be lonely at first, as you find friends and become comfortable with sharing. But once you do so, you will be surprised at the connections you make.

See what else is going on here? A complete suspension of ego! They are uploading silly photos, embarrassing photos, photos that don’t seem to mean anything, photos where they are wearing outfits and sporting hairstyles that they would never wear today.

Why is this important?
Because it’s authentic.

For me, it is like watching a reality show, piecing together their story, finding out what happened to everyone. It is as if they are creating a living documentary of their lives. And what is more incredible, is that it is so easy to do.

When I spoke to Lisa about her experience on Facebook, she expressed something I have heard from others:

For most of these people, she may not have been close to them in high school, or even knew them at all. But TODAY, she has a relationship with them. Because of Facebook, they are getting together, and even planning a reunion.

So How Do We Relate This to Business – To Your Industry?
What if you were the catalyst of sharing experiences within your industry. Photos – stories – connecting people. Some ideas:

• Find a compelling topic.
  What stories do people talk about at industry events? Companies, people, places, products, events? Over the course of careers, these shared experiences are meaningful and bring people together. Find a way to aggregate this history.

• Connect.
  Connecting and networking is a critically important to everyone in your industry. Find ways to engage people to connect. Perhaps it is a professional interest, a shared history, or even personal hobbies that people may share. Take chances - don’t worry about only connecting to people who are blood-related or you shared an office with for a decade. Friend people, upload photos, start groups on Facebook or your own site. When you do connect with people, comment on their profile, and be sure to share more of yourself.

• Share.
  Every photo you can find, story you can uncover, and connection you can make. You may be surpised what old piece of paper, catalog, logo, or photo people in your industry will find interesting. Also, from now on, take tons more photos, and ask people you know to do the same.

• Have fun.
  While everyone wants to be "professional," keep in mind that your colleagues and customers are human. Tap into their passion.

And no, this doesn’t have to be on Facebook – it can be on another social network, or on your own website. The goal is not the technology - it is helping people have a richer experience in their lives and business.

Looking at Facebook, and how the web is reshaping our culture, the main lesson I take is this:

The goal is not "content."
The goal is "connection."

Of course - the content is critically important. But we now have tools to expand the effects this content has on our lives - on how it helps us to find new opportunities, and new ways to smile.

(A huge thanks to Lisa King and her Facebook alumni group for being good sports about this, and being so open about sharing!)
A few more of my favorite photos:

Scanned notes from grade school. As one person commented under this: "Things were so easy back then."

There is no such thing as oversharing: posting the list of top boys from the 7th grade started quite a conversation - 50 comments - with the adult boys arguing about positioning!

Love the sun flash in his eyes - on top of the world!

This week’s New Yorker magazine has a profile on architect Santiago Calatrava. He discussed some amazing concepts about PURPOSE, which I found fascinating, especially when you consider its relation to publishing, both in print and on the web.

I would sum up his philosophy as follows:

It’s about the experience, not the artifact.

While his designs are sometimes spectacular visually, his real focus is on the underlying purpose of a project. Relating this to publishing, it would mean that the goal is not a "magazine" or a "blog" or a "website." The goal is solving deeper problems. One shouldn’t get too wrapped up in the form if does not elevate that purpose. This said, the form of what you do can have a huge affect on serving customers.

A design may be useful, and even nice to look at, culminating in:

Something merely memorable, but not magical.

When you step across that line of achieving the perfect balance of form and function - it is elevated to heights greater than the sum of its parts. The New Yorker on Calatrava’s buildings:

"At their best, his buildings inspire visceral awe rather than thoughtful appraisal, and deliver the uplifting impact of a cathedral, even when their purpose is merely to shelter commuters."

His design for the new PATH train station at the World Trade Center site is a primary example of the line between memorable and magical design. You have likely seen the design of the street-level entrance, a cross between the skeleton of a whale, and the wings of a bird. But so much more of the station exists underground, and it is here that budget cuts from the city could reduce his design from magical, to merely memorable. Calatrava’s explains:

"Because the station has a part that is symbolic, people think that is the station, but that is not the station," he continued. "That is just the sign to show people where it is on the street." The real station, he said, was what lay below street level: the vast mezzanine unobstructed by columns, and lit by natural light filtered from above, bestowing upon the traveler all the grandeur and sense of occasion offered by the great room of Grand Central, with its celestial roof and shafts of sunlight. "They should not build the iconic part," he insisted… "They should wait another generation, and they should build that which the other generation cannot build. The next generation can build the iconic part, but the platforms, the services, the generous spaces, the sense of arrival - these things they will never be able to move."

With either design, will it still function as a train station? Of course. But cutting elements of his original design it will likely lose something, something special, which he explains with Grand Central Station in New York as an example:

"You go into Grand Central and you immediately understand that this has been done for you: it is a gift to everyone, it is a gift to the city."

I am a part of so many discussions about publishing - both print and web. When I think about its true purpose - to help customers and readers - to make people’s everyday lives better - it becomes a transcendent thing - moving beyond debates over podcasts, blogs, resources, magazines, webcasts, templates, aggregation, and will.

It becomes a simple thing:

This is not a problem - this transition in publishing - this is a privilege.

This is our opportunity to create something magical, not merely memorable.

(For more on Santiago Calatrava, Charlie Rose has a great interview with him that is well worth checking out.)

I made a mistake this week. Since my wife and I will soon be purchasing a house, we decided to forgo a big vacation this year, and just take a week off to catch up on some projects. For me, there was a lot of reading and organization to get done.

But midweek, I realized I made a mistake. I realized that sometimes you need to do something very simple:

STOP.

Stop the routine. Stop prioritizing. Stop setting goals. Stop catching up. Stop thinking. And perhaps, stop making sense.

So we ran away… spent a lot of time over the past 48 hours with the things that matter most:

• Family
• Food
• Friends
• Each other

And that is our plan for the next 72 hours as well.

Taking a moment to write this up, I feel that perhaps we can all use a "FULL STOP" in our work lives every now and again. I speak with so many people, and it is not uncommon for me to find folks who are in front of a very full plate of work.

Swamped with priorities, with goals, with routines, with a sense that they can barely keep up. And sometimes I can’t help but think:

People are so busy trying to keep up, that they may have forgotten exactly what it is they are chasing.

The fact that publishing, media, and audience behavior is in such a time of transition makes this all the more dangerous. I know how hard people work. I know how they don’t always have the resources they would like, and how more and more may be asked of them each day. And I see them live up to these challenges, making sacrifices to try to do more, with less.

But what I am appreciating this week, is the need to stop. The need to forget all of the old processes. Not to do away with the past, but to ensure that we:

Go back to the well; To remember the goal, not the process; To approach the world with clear eyes.

I hope you have had the chance to do just that this summer, and if you haven’t, I hope you take the time to do so. And not just for your own sake, but for the sake of your job, and the future of publishing and journalism as a whole.

Things are changing. We are all running quickly to live up to expectations we set for ourselves. The key, is to ensure that the course we are running along hasn’t changed too much from when we started out.

Okay, back to forgetting about all of this for 3 more days.

Last week I made a silly purchase. I bought a 60 year old vacuum tube. But really, what I bought, was a story. A story of how to think about technology – how it is changing our lives – and how we should focus our online efforts to ensure we get:

All the BENEFITS and none of the SACRIFICES.

The tube I bought was supposedly used in the ENIAC, one of the world’s first electronic computers. If the story is true, it was one of 17,468 tubes in the 680 square foot machine built in the 1940’s. Honestly, I don’t care if the story is true.

I care about what the ENIAC can teach us about how to approach online business today. The ENIAC reminds me of the following:

• Technology itself is not the goal.
  It is simply a means to an end. In the case of the ENIAC, it was designed to calculate artillery firing tables for the U.S. Army’s Ballistic Research Laboratory. Technology in our lives, thankfully, has more peaceful goals. Technology itself is not the goal - technology enables.
• Technology changes.
  When a business is built on a particular technology, other elements are now tethered to something that will become obsolete, likely before other business goals do. That’s a dangerous pairing, especially when flexibility is needed to act nimbly in a competitive and changing market.
• Technology is beautiful.
  The ENIAC was a marvel in its day, which was from the early 1940s to 1955. To own an artifact of this machine links me to the effort of hundreds, if not thousands of people who worked to create this machine. But it links me to an entire history of technology. From the 680 square foot ENIAC, right up to the iPhone in my pocket. They are connected.
• Technology is a story.
  This single tube is bigger than the iPhone, and each have their own stories to tell… yet they are part of a larger story of our culture as well. A story of  specific people, at a specific time, with specific needs. Each product that ends up helping or hurting us has its roots in the human condition, and in its creation, becomes a part of us, as much as we become a part of it.
• Technology should be embraced.
  Technology pushes us further, past boundaries that have limited previous generations. Perhaps your day is spent cursing the machine. But I would bet somewhere along the way, there was a machine that helped you too. Or a piece of software. Or something that we hardly even think of as technology. It is all around us.

So how the heck does this all come back to the day-to-day reality of a modern media company? Easy:

• Leverage technology where you can, but NEVER lose site of the real goal: helping your customers and your industry. I don’t care what role you have in any particular company, this is your only goal.
• Don’t box yourself in to tightly into a single corner – technology changes too fast, and every time it does, your business is given either an opportunity, or a risk.
• Don’t treat technology like it’s an obligation, or something merely practical, like a stapler. Technology enables business, find new ways to leverage it. Ensure that others in the company hear your feedback on how it can help your business grow.
• Make it a part of your story.

Thank you little ENIAC tube.

The ENIAC in action

Programming it to add 2 + 2

One of these cables is misplaced, but which one?

And you thought your cell phone was complicated…

Part of the ENIAC today. I love how they put it next to the tree.

Best friends forever.