http://kengibbsjr.com/

The Darker Side of the "Obama" Effect

Wed, 28 Jul 2010 23:57:46 -0400

I try to be an optimist, but I think I’m really a pessimist at heart. When Obama got inaugurated I was in awe. I can’t lie, I never thought I’d see a black man as president of the USA during my lifetime. This country’s come a long way, but I hadn’t seen anything to make me think we’d come that far.

So when it happened I just felt strange. The best (but craziest way) to describe it was the opposite of what I felt like when watching footage of the people suffering at the Super Dome in Louisiana after Hurricane Katrina.

My fiance thinks Obama’s election is going to change the course of black manhood. ‘Think of what it means for all the young boys’ she says, believing that they’ll be positively influenced by the images of a black president. I grunt, change the channel, and she swears I’m a hater jaded by my childhood in Boston. If you don’t get it, look for any references to black people in The Departed.

But what my lady and so many other people never think about is the other side of what Obama’s presidency has done to our country. Bush had to weather the storm of late night hosts criticizing him, nightly, but he never had the likes of the Tea Party. Has race ever been such a hot button issue when people weren’t rioting over assassinations or verdicts? Not that I recall.

The darker side of the “Obama” effect is the reality of how far we truly are from a post-racial society. Today, ANYTHING involving race is big news. The New York Times has an editorial about how Obama doesn’t have enough black people in his white house that can keep him in touch with the black people that his racist critics think he represents, but that educated folk know the pres knows little about.

All of this hyper-sensitivity cant be good for the kids who were supposed to see this presidency as a beacon of hope. If anything, all of the criticism will stop them from seeing that the pres has done more than any who held the office since JFK, and make them think they can look forward to marches by people holding signs of them with bones in their noses or Hitler-styled staches.

Play Nice Nice...

Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:11:24 -0400

Got that phrase from Marcia Cole of Amber.com years ago at an NABJ conference. My boss/mentor, Gary Dauphin was getting in a heated discussion with Gil Robertson, a panelist about the press & their relationship with sources, or something like that. It got to the point where Marcia was damn near a referee.

But they were just passionate journos who soon put their differences aside and enjoyed the rest of the conference. When we got back to Boston Marcia’s “nice, nice” phrase & her efforts to keep the peace stuck with me. She was much more seasoned than me and had presumably watched many a bridge burn before her eyes over less. Not that I’d ever been a war monger, but the deeper I got into the game the more I realized how important relationships were.

All four of our paths crossed more than a few times over the following years. Gil even had me as a panelist at one of his events for the youths at the Schaumburg in Harlem.

I was reminded of this when I got a call from an industry friend that was bitching about a mutual acquaintance. This guy is a straight up snake, and his reputation precedes him. But he has talent & has produced works worthy of respect, in the past. My friend and I are similar in that we believe in giving people chances, so we kind of dismissed all of the warnings as hate — because hate is real & must always be considered.

But fuck hate. We should’ve both heeded those warnings. We both had horrible experiences with dude, just as our people predicted we would. And while I’m all for playing nice, nice, it wouldn’t be right if I didn’t give anyone I knew fair warning before doing anything with this cat.

It’s a small world, so looks like the lust of folks who haven’t heard anything bad about this dude is shrinking. But it’s true. Playing nice, nice pays.

When All Drugs Are Legal, Privacy Policies Won't Concern Us

Sat, 29 May 2010 11:21:00 -0400

Sounds like a strectch, I know. But I started thinking about it when an NPR piece mentioned how National Guards on the US border did nothing to lessen the US demand for illegal drugs.

Everyone’s got an agenda, churches, states & even companies. Facebook’s agenda is to gather as much info as it can about it’s 560M+ users that can be leveraged into lucrative relationships with advertisers. Your info, as a Facebook user, becomes the networks info to share for targeting, etc, at a cost. More users, means more info, which means more revenue. Besides, your info is the least you can pay for this wonderful service they’ve created that let’s you keep in touch with friends and family. It’s not like you have a phone, or email or anything like that.

The government’s agenda isn’t so simple. At its core it’s about keeping the US a float and in power. That means keeping people employed, having rules in place that keep society in order, and always having the upper and on other countries.

The US demand for drugs has made warzones out of more than a few beautiful countries. We’ve got the problem, but they pay the price. You want aid from the US? Then we better be convinced that you’re doing all you can to be sure our citizens aren’t getting the drugs they want, and you have. We don’t want anything else you produce, but it’s pretty here. Keep the peace so we can visit and you can serve us while we sun. WTF?!

Who wants to be a servant instead of a salesman? And as our nation’s capitalist mindset spreads, how are we going to convince countries that they shouldn’t supply our demand? Especially when we don’t have any lucrative alternatives to offer besides tourism. A recession hits and countries depending on tourism are crushed. Vacations are canceled and everything grinds to a halt. A recession hits and countries depending on drugs are only slowed. Like a beer, the person who normally buys high-grade will downgrade to something cheaper — but still make a purchase.

[this was published before it was done on 5/29 because the iPhone thought I hit publish.]

Just think about the taxes money we could get from countries who wanted to import their now illegal goods, and from the stores that sold them.

Unfortunately none of this will ever happen. It’s too much of a perfect world scenario. (I’m not advocating that something like Meth be legalized, there’s really no benefit in that for anyone but biker gangs.) It would call for people to be responsible, kicking their habit all together or practicing the restraint necessary to be a functioning user. It would damn near stall the prison industrial complex, as fewer and fewer inmates would find themselves behind bars on possession charges. It would eliminate underground economies in disenfranchised communities. And who knows what more than half the rappers who claim to be drug kingpins would talk about then.

Like I said from the start, the connection between the legalization of drugs and social networking privacy policies is a stretch, but there is a link. The more information we share the more valuable the internet becomes. It’s like instant crowd sourcing about every element of our lives with little effort. But that’s another perfect world situation.

For some reason, makes me think of “everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.”

The Audience is Mobile But The Products Aren't

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 17:55:34 -0400

Google’s CFO recently said the company now thinks mobile first when developing products. They see where the future is going & want to be there when it arrives. This isn’t something they needed one of their genius engineers to figure out, just a little vision.

As always, I look at trends like this and ask what about the Black space? Why aren’t Black media companies all over the mobile trend? The Black audience is, according to the latest Pew study. Yet not one media company that is dedicated to producing Black content or coverage of Black issues has a mobile application (as of this writing I haven’t thoroughly gone through Android & Nokia stores, so it may be possible).

I’ve seen apps from deejays & independents like WeHarlem, but what about the majors?

Few thoughts on Black Media & Hyper Local

Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:21:00 -0400

Many people are saying that hyper local is the next phase of online journalism. Legendary rags like The New York Times have already begun to invest in it, as well as tech/content companies like Aol with the recently acquired Patch.com. Like most things online today, “Hyper local” isn’t really a brand new concept, rather a digital rebirth of the smaller papers that thrived before cities were defined by anything that put Globe, Times or Chronicle behind the city’s name.

But even in the old days, many Black communities felt their views weren’t being represented properly, if at all, and took it upon themselves to create titles like the Amsterdam News, Bay State Banner or the Chicago Defender, to name a few. And well, like most newspapers today, these titles are all feeling the print pinch. The game has changed, their audiences have moved on to the web and the advertising dollars have followed. The remaining customers are either just in love with that feeling of reading a physical paper, or not tech savvy enough to get that news from a digital source (or to a much lesser extent, unable to afford a CPU or smart phone). The latter is the real issue, as the tech savvy in these communities are the fastest growing segment, a new generation that’s not as much defined by old notions of what it means to be a Black in America as they are by the realities of their local environments.

But let’s face it, Black media hasn’t been the quickest to catch on to the opportunities created by the Internet. The oldest Black brands have barely made a move online, if at all. So it’s not likely that many will seize the opportunities presented by hyper local. It’s also unlikely that many of the Black communities they serve will have much of a presence in the new digital representation of their ‘hood. Many of these places stand to be digital gentrified, completely recast to a worldwide audience through the eyes of transplanted hipsters and the like (no shots at my hipster brethren), if not totally forgotten.

It may sound like another Black paranoid rant, but it is worth asking how areas are chosen for hyper-local focus (I’m sure HHI is an influencing factor). For instance, Patch.com’s Massachusetts segment will start with Needham (94% white) and Wellesley (84% white). It’ll be interesting to see how long it takes my hometown of Mattapan (81% Black) to be added to their lineup. The site’s New York segment covers Bedford-Katonah (87%-93% white), Bellmore (95% white), Chappaqua-Mount Kisco (91%-77% white), Garden City (94% white), Glen Cove (60% white), Harrison (89% white), Huntington (89% white), Larchmont-Mamaroneck (92%-88% white), Merrick (95%), Port Washington (85% white), Rye (71% white), Scarsdale (84% white), Syosset (85% white), and Tarrytown-Sleepy Hollow (77%-67% white). Sachem and New York City are coming soon, but what about Brooklyn, Queens or Harlem? Hard to believe that any hyper local initiative that focused on NY could start without the historic borough of Brooklyn. But then again, it is 45% Black. Queens is over 45% Latin. And while Harlem will be included in Manhattan, as the largest African American community of any city in the US it’s definitely worthy of its own hyper local presence.

None of this is a swipe at Patch.com’s hyper local commitment. If you go through the site you’ll see a fair share of Black editors, despite the local percentage of Black residents in the areas they’ve chosen to cover. This is my opinion of how Black media’s missing the mark and not exploiting an opportunity to grow their businesses and value to the communities they serve in ways that were impossible before the Internet. The worst that could happen is that people complain and accuse Patch.com or The Times of being racist and not covering Black communities. The best that could happen would be to channel that energy into working with the existing local papers and help bring them up to speed on the digital front so they can continue to serve these communities as they have for decades.

Google Starts to Buzz & Aol AIMs to Rejoin the Party it Started

Thu, 11 Feb 2010 00:42:23 -0500

Today I started using Google Buzz. It’s not that bad at all, but there was a reason that I never used Gchat that much to begin with: not enough of my friends are on Gchat, or even have Gmail accounts to begin with. That doesn’t mean they’re losers for not being among Gmail’s 176 million, but more like they’re getting all they need from services like AIM, or just don’t find the need for much online chatter.

I seldom find reasons to use AIM like I used to. Years ago it was just as important as your email address, included on cards and in every info exchange. But when I look at it today, the AIM list is an abyss equal to a search box. If I don’t know your AIM name, how do I find you? Sure, it may scrape your email box upon signup, but if we’ve never exchanged an email or you’ve given the service a different email address from the one you and I correspond on, what’s it gonna find? Really, AIM should be indexed in Google like Facebook and Twitter names, but that’s probably not possible. How many people use their real names on AIM? AIM also lacks, to my knowledge, the dual layers that a Twitter has to allow people a front facing name along with a government name (the one that comes up in parens in searches) that’s linked to the account. I guess this is because AIM is such a first generation communication tool, from an era when our paranoia about the net had everyone using aliases (that and the fact that most were using the names to talk dirty in chat rooms, and scour porn sites on the late night).

But today, everyone is online, and they’re not trying to hide who they are. So if you know their name, you can google and find them - and not their name plus 007, date of birth or whatever else they had to do because someone else got it first — on a network that you’ve likely got an account on. So how much does it really mean that AIM’s open to your FB contacts? A lot, I guess, if you still use AIM as your primary way to chat. But with FBs numbers, I think more people have been introduced to that action of chatting through FB chat than AIM at this point. It’s one of the reasons I’ve always got my FB chat off. I’m old school and on there to browse, not chat, but I get many more pings from young family members and friends who I’ve recently begin to work with there than AIM. At the end of the day, Aol Instant Messenger was an extension of Aol email/paid accounts. And once those lost relevance, so did the service.

Hard to imagine that there was a point where Google and everyone else looking to get in the game was making cases for Aol to open AIM up and let THEM in. Imagine if there’d been an AIM connect before FB started steam rolling? Kind of makes them look like a radio station that just switched their format to allow hip hop music in 2010.

So does that put Google in the same position with Buzz? Is there really any more room for innovation after what’s been built on the back of experiences from Friendster, Black Planet, Myspace, Facebook and Twitter? I don’t think it puts them in the same position, and I do think theirs plenty of room left to innovate, but just not sure if they’re going to be able to do it. Part of social networking, is social appeal. The network’s almost like that party that we all want the invite for. A place we’re proud to be. Google has never really shown an interest in going in that direction. They’ve always chosen the higher ground (gotta be something evil about being cool) and focused on the functionality. True, the mishmash of info coming in via social networks has become, as Google’s Todd Jackson says, “a Google-scale problem,” but do people see it that way? Not at all.

Will the 400+ millions of Facebook users realize that Buzz is giving them not only everything that Facebook & Twitter do, but also Foursquare and Gowalla in one application? Not at all, but it’s hardly about that to the consumer. It’s not about what any of those companies want the technology to be used for, but what you’re able to do with the technology they’ve created.

Google’s social networking endeavors are outrageously far ahead of the game. But then again, what do you expect when you focus on hiring people who’ve tested as geniuses. There’s a reason why folks have issues with standardized tests, and reasons why geeks are social pariahs. Tests measure intelligence in a very myopic way, and geeks aren’t that social. What should happen likely won’t, in the social equation. Like good girls having the hots for bad boys. These things don’t make sense. But when we all catch up, Buzz will make a lot of sense. It will realize the value in your social circle, instead of stroking your ego with friend counts.

It won’t be sexy at all, but neither is the phone company — and that’s how central Google is becoming with Buzz. Rolling out mobile devices and residential broadband at levels that competing businesses built on archaic business models can’t dare, but creating some of the last opportunities for them to fill their coffers via search agreements (akin to getting to the first high they’ll never find again), etc. Google will set the bar so high that anyone who gets over it will be incredible. Nothing evil about that!

(if any of these numbers are off, it’s because I didn’t do any research beyond reading articles online. Sorry, but these are just public thoughts)

iPad = iWant = weNeed

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:47:00 -0500

Laptops are cool. But just a bit too delicate. If you pay all that money and store so much personal info on it, do really want to carry it all over the house or dorm and risk losing everything you don’t have backed up somewhere?

The TV is still king, but I can’t take it to the can and get my Al Bundy on (keep it real; if you need video, etc, on your phone, no way your gonna let that QT pass without checkin’ a few must see clips). And the iPhone is cool, but I don’t really want to watch or read anything on it if there’s a bigger screen around.

The iPad makes up for all that. Really, it does what the Macbook Air was supposed to. I mean, you can’t do much but view web pages, check emails, watch movies & listen to music on the Air anyway — which is why Apps are so important. The cheapest Air would cost you $1,500+. What’s the difference? A keyboard & processing power used for applications that are now, for the most part, web-based? Air has an audio out, which isn’t much different from the iPad’s headphone jack with the right peripheral, and not much more.

But, how many people bought the Air? Don’t recall seeing news clips of anyone sleeping in line for that one. Who really needed a laptop so slim, so expensive, but capable of doing so little?

Geeks like me that bought the Sega Saturn on release day (read = not enough to keep the lights on), most likely.

This is why we need the iPad. We need the net with us at all times, and we need it in a form factor that’s easy on the eyes and handled with two hands. Add geo-location & apps, and the iPad suddenly becomes much more powerful than a laptop to the majority of the consumer market.

Remember, computers are tools, like hammers & screwdrivers. But thanks to a lack of intermediary machines like the iPad many folks have been buying jackhammers & powerdrills. Now, for a couple of hundred dollars you’ll be able to do all you need.

It’s ok to leave processing power & drive space concerns to people who pay more for software suites than most HP or Dell laptops cost.

Think about ;-)

New Media Ideas Mismanaged

Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:08:26 -0500

Many newspapers haven’t been managing their businesses right. It’s how the net crept up and killed most of them. So now ereaders are on the market and many newspaper heads think their savior has arrived. :-(

Who really thinks a consumer would pay for multiple ereaders to read multiple papers? Isn’t that like Aol creating a machine to access Aol sites?

Old media heads think consumers must be locked into an experience for it to yield results and profits. Buy our ereader to read our stuff (written by a writter who doesn’t need them now that the net provides distribution). Buy our console to play our games (created by developers who won’t need the consoles for much longer. And now, you like The Globe? Buy the ereader, and pay for issues … and a an upgraded device every two years or so, if not sooner.

Getting a consumer to buy an ereader isn’t going to make them buy the papers they’ve stopped buying. The papers need to reevaluate how they provide value in an unimaginably competitive media world.

What’s the real strength of professional journalism when compared to blogs delivered to your hip via mobile device if most newspaper content is written at a grade school level?

And maybe that’s the bigger part of the problem — education. The WSJ is having considerably less issues than most papers. Could it have something to do with an educated niche willing to pay for educated content?

It’s been accepted that most journalists don’t make the big bucks. Ashame, when they go to expensive schools & keep (or kept) us all connected by reporting on the world around us. But if the newspaper product is at a 6th grade level, how much value would we expect a 6th grader to find in anything?How loyal do you think they are to any info source or platform?

I mean, how much different have NY Post headlines ever been from blogs? If they don’t use their resources to make their products & experiences markedly different why should they get special treatment? The only answer is the people, journos that have kept their businesses afloat for years.

(written while waiting for waaay too much paint to be mixed at home depot)

Distribution WAS a Business

Mon, 21 Dec 2009 09:00:17 -0500

So after the Farewell to the Physical post I started thinking about what most physical products really were. Turns out that most are nothing but distribution methods for data, and no longer necessary. It was funny because the first thing that came to mind was Stalone & Snipes in Demolition Man. Remember the Utopia the two were unleashed on? That future could be ours.

What happens when music labels wake up & realize that a small investment (let’s say a Grammy winning artist’s budget) in digital infrastructure & servers etc, would eliminate the concept of the music store & generate more revenue? Or movie studios go for simultaneous release? Or laser-cutting fabrication machines create most products in home after purchase?

While millions of jobs will vanish, I’d rather think about the millions of man hours that will reappear. In Demolition Man people seemed bored. Not that I think we’ll be sitting around waiting for a murder-death-kill, but rather we’ll have to reorientate ourselves with real physical communication, not to mention become smart enough as a society to fill new jobs in an information economy. What if 80% of US citizens worked on virtual jobs, with food, fire & police, health & beauty being the few physical jobs (obviously a few more would exist)? What would we do with all the space currently taken up by strip malls & warehouses?

Media becomes even more valuable in a world like this. The dominant socializer, so to speak. ‘Cuz if there’s less work we’d need really goog info to fuel the arguments we’d sit around and make all day. LOL

(all written on a train ride to Queens that took waaay to long)

Farewell to the Physical

Sun, 13 Dec 2009 15:20:00 -0500

Xbox Live is the online gamers machine of choice. PS3 is a console sexy enough to sit next yo your 52” in the family room, and comes prepped to play Blu Ray, the next level of DVDs. Wii is something you can play with the wife and kids.

But how long will you need any of these to play the great games they’ve got to offer? How much longer will you tolerate platform specific games keeping you from enjoying the hottest new titles? If what happened with music is any indication, not very long at all.

Music = data. Books = data. Games = data too. We don’t need CDs, tapes, or records any more to enjoy the creative work of artists from around the world in an instant. No need to wait for it to be pressed up, shipped, etc. We don’t need a book to read our greatest authors. We don’t need papers to get the daily news. How much longer will we need consoles to play games? Not much longer at all.

It’s this type of thinking that’s got me thinking the Kindle, Nook, and other one function electronic devices aren’t much more than modern day books and news papers — single service platforms. Even the most avid reader will opt for a competing device that offers more functionality at a lower or comparable price. (I actually think the Kindle is the ultimate device for public schools and will expand on that here later.)

So I’ve stopped running out to get consoles on the day of release. Haven’t gotten the Kindle because if I want to take an author with me I get the audio version and put it on my iPod. Anything else, I’m pretty sure there’s an app for that.

Part of today’s problem is that companies are trying to extend dying revenue streams by creating interim solutions. Almost like the old school rumors of Big Oil shutting down electric cars decades ago. There’s so much business, not to mention so many jobs, connected to the process of making the physical products that companies would rather find ways to sustain than evolve the businesses. Sure, it’s much easier said than done, but would you rather be a music mogul or an Apple exec willing to capitalize on their stagnant mindset?

Home grown test of tumblr video from iPhone app on wifi...

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:26:09 -0500

[Flash 10 is required to watch video.]

Home grown test of tumblr video from iPhone app on wifi connection.

No landscape?

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:22:56 -0500

This makes no sense!!! Landscape mode makes the iPhone the best smartphone for stuff like this. Any app without it sucks :-(

Test of the iPhone audio function.

Sun, 06 Dec 2009 17:21:26 -0500

Test of the iPhone audio function.

Trying Out a Few Things

Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:33:03 -0400

So I keep coming across sites using tumblr, which meant i HAD to test it myself and see what everything was about.

Stay tuned.