While I've talked personally to many of you about this, my career path has taken an unexpected, but (so far) rewarding turn - I am now 100 percent self-employed. Yep, Warehouse Media is no longer just a silly Twitter handle ...it's also the silly name of my company!
In short, I create high-quality video content for organizations to use on their blogs, websites, Facebook pages ...basically, I give you something to show people online. Which is important, because Google loves nothing more than YouTube videos (SEO). For more, check out my short video explanation of Warehouse Media:
So if you know anyone who wants to get noticed using video, please send them my way! Justinwarebco at gmail dot com.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Wednesday, June 30, 2010
Minneapolis Recycling - Sort it ...sometimes
Recycling is beyond important. The amount of glass, plastic, metal and paper that would otherwise end up in landfills is evident every time you drive through one of Minneapolis' many alleys on that area's recycling collection date. So, it would stand to reason that the city would make recycling as easy as possible for its residents. After all, plenty of other midwestern cities have adopted commingled recycling (where the city does the sorting for you) ...so why not Minneapolis? Well, here's the explanation from the city:
Sorted recycling generates the biggest revenue. Revenue from recycling provides money for:
-Large item pickup
-The voucher program
-Clean City programs
-Ongoing operating costs
If the City of Minneapolis used single-stream recycling (all recycling in one bin, as some areas do), the higher cost of processing these materials would result in lower revenue, and possible cuts in other waste services.
OK, that makes sense. I really do appreciate being able to leave large items out and have the city take them, at no extra cost.
Which leaves me with just one question ...if all recycling needs to be sorted by individuals, then where does the trash from the commingled recycling in city parks go? In those blue cans, conveniently placed all over heavily used public areas, we discard all of our recyclable waste all in one intermixed container. Is that recycling sorted by hand? ...or does the city have a machine for that?
This is not a complaint, just an honest question. If anybody knows the answer, please share! Ultimately, I'd like to see recycling made as easy as possible for everyone.
Sorted recycling generates the biggest revenue. Revenue from recycling provides money for:
-Large item pickup
-The voucher program
-Clean City programs
-Ongoing operating costs
If the City of Minneapolis used single-stream recycling (all recycling in one bin, as some areas do), the higher cost of processing these materials would result in lower revenue, and possible cuts in other waste services.
OK, that makes sense. I really do appreciate being able to leave large items out and have the city take them, at no extra cost.
Which leaves me with just one question ...if all recycling needs to be sorted by individuals, then where does the trash from the commingled recycling in city parks go? In those blue cans, conveniently placed all over heavily used public areas, we discard all of our recyclable waste all in one intermixed container. Is that recycling sorted by hand? ...or does the city have a machine for that?This is not a complaint, just an honest question. If anybody knows the answer, please share! Ultimately, I'd like to see recycling made as easy as possible for everyone.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Offshore Wind Potential
Coastline touches more than half the United States and off those coastlines exists massive energy potential. Oil? Nope. Wind is the energy source and there is enough of it to power the entire country with energy to spare. In the video below, fast forward to the 4:46 mark for more on the power potential off-shore wind has to offer (or watch the whole video ...it's worth six minutes of your time!):
(Video courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory or "NREL")
A lot of Federal money goes into subsidizing the current form of energy pouring in off our coastlines - and recently, onto our coastlines thanks to BP's colossal, on-going spill. Let's push our lawmakers to start redirecting those subsidies toward clean forms of energy, like the offshore wind turbines described in the above video. It's the only guaranteed way to prevent another oil spill like the current disaster taking place in the Gulf of Mexico.
(Video courtesy of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory or "NREL")
A lot of Federal money goes into subsidizing the current form of energy pouring in off our coastlines - and recently, onto our coastlines thanks to BP's colossal, on-going spill. Let's push our lawmakers to start redirecting those subsidies toward clean forms of energy, like the offshore wind turbines described in the above video. It's the only guaranteed way to prevent another oil spill like the current disaster taking place in the Gulf of Mexico.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Behind the "B16 Ten" Logo
The Big 16 appears to be over before it happened, which is a shame for an alum from the University of Iowa.
On June 11th, with Nebraska joining the Big 10
and seemingly assuring the destruction of the Big 12, many members of the sports world theorized the Big 10 would be adding as many as 5 teams, making it a 16-team league. Had that happened, the conference would be in need of a new logo. And within the day, a graduate student from the University of Iowa produced the image you see embedded in this column. His name is Chiraag (he asked that I don't use his last name) and he cobbled the could-be logo "just for fun."
"I thought I had an idea that worked for the Big Ten if they did expand to 16 teams ... and wanted to share it," said Chiraag. "I've been pleasantly surprised with all the support and compliments I have seen on many different online forums. Graphic design has always been a hobby of mine, and as a graduate of a Big Ten school (University of Iowa), this was a natural interest of mine."
Chiraag has not been in contact with anyone from the Big 10. If Nebraska is the only addition, it's likely he won't ever hear anything from the conference. However, should Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Missouri or any other combination of four teams end up joining the ranks, will Chiraag's hobby turn into a lucrative business brought about by the instant, info-sharing nature of the Internet? It'd almost be worth adding four teams to find out, wouldn't it?
On June 11th, with Nebraska joining the Big 10
and seemingly assuring the destruction of the Big 12, many members of the sports world theorized the Big 10 would be adding as many as 5 teams, making it a 16-team league. Had that happened, the conference would be in need of a new logo. And within the day, a graduate student from the University of Iowa produced the image you see embedded in this column. His name is Chiraag (he asked that I don't use his last name) and he cobbled the could-be logo "just for fun.""I thought I had an idea that worked for the Big Ten if they did expand to 16 teams ... and wanted to share it," said Chiraag. "I've been pleasantly surprised with all the support and compliments I have seen on many different online forums. Graphic design has always been a hobby of mine, and as a graduate of a Big Ten school (University of Iowa), this was a natural interest of mine."
Chiraag has not been in contact with anyone from the Big 10. If Nebraska is the only addition, it's likely he won't ever hear anything from the conference. However, should Notre Dame, Pittsburgh, Rutgers, Missouri or any other combination of four teams end up joining the ranks, will Chiraag's hobby turn into a lucrative business brought about by the instant, info-sharing nature of the Internet? It'd almost be worth adding four teams to find out, wouldn't it?
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
The "Pro-am" Journalist: Is it Safe to Eat?
Here's a quiz for all your bloggers and/or journalists out there: what do many bloggers feel entitled to that would also make most true journalists lose their job? Answer: publicly begging for payola. See exhibit A (the following stream of tweets from one weight-loss blogger)
On one hand, I can understand why this blogger was upset. They were essentially told they'd be getting something in exchange for a blog post advertising GNC products only to have GNC later back out. So what happened? Probably only the folks at GNC know, but since this is my blog, I'd be willing to venture a guess.
The upset blogger claims she wants to "review" GNC's products. Reviews are trusted to be as free from bias as possible - something that gives an accurate appraisal of something to help inform consumers of whether they should buy/eat/wear/travel to something. So, good reviews are obviously something a company likes to see written about their products. But what happens when those reviews or the reviewer is less than credible?
A lot of smart PR and marketing strategists will tell you that, given the savvy of the modern media consumer, the last thing you want is to have reviews look unauthentic. Some strategists would even suggest planting a poor review amongst a sea of positive reviews just to make those positive reviews appear more credible. So, knowing that those same savvy consumers might notice that this one particular "reviewer" only reviews what she gets for free - and assuming GNC knows that fake reviews can be more detrimental than beneficial - it's quite possible GNC said "thanks, but no thanks. We'll get our good reviews the old-fashioned way - with a solid product." Which led to this...
Of course, the whole thing could just be disorganization on GNC's part, but that's not the point. The point is, this blogger is unwittingly telling everyone that follows them on Twitter "hey, my blog is for sale! These reviews are bought and paid for and, let's face it, are really just more annoying advertising!"
To be fair, journalists are sent fee product for review on a constant basis. That said, the very thought of so publicly complaining about not getting free merchandise in exchange for a review would be abhorrent to any properly-trained journalist. And that's just it - the vast majority of everything published on line has no legitimate training behind it.
Check out this story from Ad Age on "Pro-am" journalists. If you don't have an account or don't want to log in, here's the paragraph that matters most from that piece. It's a quote from former New York Observer Editor Peter Kaplan:
"The relationship between the reporter and the editor is the one safeguard when it comes to the business of truth telling." In assessing the recent rise of so many content farms (large masses of content gleaned on the cheap from untrained citizen journalists), Mr. Kaplan referenced Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," and perhaps minted a new quote for future observers: "What these sites are producing," he started before a long pause: "You know what it is? It's like sending unchecked meats out to the public."
That's precisely what the angry GNC blogger is providing - unchecked meats that might not be safe to eat. The blogger means well and could have written an honest review. But we don't know. And she represents an ever-growing demographic of "Pro-am" journalists with little or no training and just as much credibility.
None of this post is meant to dissuade anyone from serving as a citizen journalist. Instead, it's meant as a reminder of how important it is to get our information from credible, reliable, cross-checked sources. Our democracy depends on an informed public and that depends on reliable, well-trained journalists - not bloggers who throw temper tantrums every time a bone gets pulled from their teeth.
On one hand, I can understand why this blogger was upset. They were essentially told they'd be getting something in exchange for a blog post advertising GNC products only to have GNC later back out. So what happened? Probably only the folks at GNC know, but since this is my blog, I'd be willing to venture a guess.
The upset blogger claims she wants to "review" GNC's products. Reviews are trusted to be as free from bias as possible - something that gives an accurate appraisal of something to help inform consumers of whether they should buy/eat/wear/travel to something. So, good reviews are obviously something a company likes to see written about their products. But what happens when those reviews or the reviewer is less than credible?
A lot of smart PR and marketing strategists will tell you that, given the savvy of the modern media consumer, the last thing you want is to have reviews look unauthentic. Some strategists would even suggest planting a poor review amongst a sea of positive reviews just to make those positive reviews appear more credible. So, knowing that those same savvy consumers might notice that this one particular "reviewer" only reviews what she gets for free - and assuming GNC knows that fake reviews can be more detrimental than beneficial - it's quite possible GNC said "thanks, but no thanks. We'll get our good reviews the old-fashioned way - with a solid product." Which led to this...
Of course, the whole thing could just be disorganization on GNC's part, but that's not the point. The point is, this blogger is unwittingly telling everyone that follows them on Twitter "hey, my blog is for sale! These reviews are bought and paid for and, let's face it, are really just more annoying advertising!"
To be fair, journalists are sent fee product for review on a constant basis. That said, the very thought of so publicly complaining about not getting free merchandise in exchange for a review would be abhorrent to any properly-trained journalist. And that's just it - the vast majority of everything published on line has no legitimate training behind it.
Check out this story from Ad Age on "Pro-am" journalists. If you don't have an account or don't want to log in, here's the paragraph that matters most from that piece. It's a quote from former New York Observer Editor Peter Kaplan:
"The relationship between the reporter and the editor is the one safeguard when it comes to the business of truth telling." In assessing the recent rise of so many content farms (large masses of content gleaned on the cheap from untrained citizen journalists), Mr. Kaplan referenced Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," and perhaps minted a new quote for future observers: "What these sites are producing," he started before a long pause: "You know what it is? It's like sending unchecked meats out to the public."
That's precisely what the angry GNC blogger is providing - unchecked meats that might not be safe to eat. The blogger means well and could have written an honest review. But we don't know. And she represents an ever-growing demographic of "Pro-am" journalists with little or no training and just as much credibility.
None of this post is meant to dissuade anyone from serving as a citizen journalist. Instead, it's meant as a reminder of how important it is to get our information from credible, reliable, cross-checked sources. Our democracy depends on an informed public and that depends on reliable, well-trained journalists - not bloggers who throw temper tantrums every time a bone gets pulled from their teeth.
Monday, May 24, 2010
LOST
It took a solid 12 hours for my LOST-induced state of zen to wear off. The euphoria of the grand finale episode remained strong as I lay in bed watching the Jimmy Kimmel post-LOST wrap up; through a good, but short night's sleep; as I fought morning rush-hour traffic on 494 through Bloomington; it even stayed intact through the weekly round of morning meetings once I got to work. Clearly this was a powerful television experience.
SPOILER ALERT! If you keep reading, make sure you've seen the finale.
The episode more than delivered on the questions I needed answered. Mainly, what was really going on in both the island and sideways worlds - what was real and what wasn't and if something wasn't real, than what was the purpose of that fictional realm? Turns out (I think) the island was a real place where the survivors really did survive. But these are just details to add substance to the story. What was the show really about?
There are a LOT of people who want to say it was all about religion. LOST certainly had heavy religious themes. After all, the series closed with everyone presumably transitioning into some sort of heaven-esque after life. That said, while religion had a major role to play in the storytelling of LOST, saying the show was all about the truth or existence of religion or faith is still too simple. Much like the island and ancient philosophy, religion was another detail used to tell the story.
LOST was driven by the stories of the show's characters and every one of those characters was flawed. Kate was a murderer, Sawyer a con man. Locke and Jack had daddy issues like no other, as did Hurley who also believed he was cursed. Then there was Benjamin Linus, who many have called the greatest TV villain of all time. Every one of them found redemption. Even Ben - who we all finally learned to trust thanks to his poignant apology to Locke before Locke entered the church - turned out to be a good man and Hurley's island-guardian sidekick for who knows how many hundreds of years.
The main message and on-going theme of LOST was that through all the potential to be evil, there is good at the core of all human beings. For all the bad deeds done by the cast of characters, there was redemption available by doing something good of equal or greater magnitude.
That's a message that makes ya feel good - and it's why much like myself, so many millions of Americans went to bed with a inexplicable feeling of zen following the conclusion of what might be the greatest TV show of a generation.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Extremely Random Facebook Photo Musing
The best thing about Facebook are the pictures that users don't necessarily choose, but are often the first photographic representations of a person on their profile. You know, that first round of pics titled "Photos of You" when you're looking at your own profile?
Every other album is what the user chooses. Of course, a user can untag themselves and remove a photo from their "Photos of You" album, but that's being a little disingenuous with your friends, don't you think? "Photos of You" is sort of the "this is who I really am, without a filter" album. If you find yourself constantly removing images from this album, what does that say about your comfort level with yourself?
Since this is turning into a preachy post, I'll put my money where my mouth is and show you that, 
despite the potential embarrassment, I'm happy to allow some of my less photogenic moments to stay tagged. Is this a flattering picture I would choose to post on my own? Probably not. Was it a good rendition of "Born to Run"? Absolutely not. Is the arms-raised image of Robert Plant in the background awesome enough to save the photo? Without a doubt. In the end, I'm clearly having a great time, dressed up in yellow face as Simpsons character Kent Brockman during a good friend's 30th birthday party. If that doesn't give you a free pass to do a terrible karaoke rendition of a Springsteen song, then I don't know what does. I'm more than cool with people seeing this side of me. If I'm not, then I shouldn't engage in behavior that leads to such a picture being taken.
despite the potential embarrassment, I'm happy to allow some of my less photogenic moments to stay tagged. Is this a flattering picture I would choose to post on my own? Probably not. Was it a good rendition of "Born to Run"? Absolutely not. Is the arms-raised image of Robert Plant in the background awesome enough to save the photo? Without a doubt. In the end, I'm clearly having a great time, dressed up in yellow face as Simpsons character Kent Brockman during a good friend's 30th birthday party. If that doesn't give you a free pass to do a terrible karaoke rendition of a Springsteen song, then I don't know what does. I'm more than cool with people seeing this side of me. If I'm not, then I shouldn't engage in behavior that leads to such a picture being taken.If you like the person you see through another person's lens (literally) then you're probably in decent shape overall. If you often feel the urge to "untag" yourself, perhaps you should take a closer look at the actions depicted in the photo instead of untagging and hoping the unflattering image goes quietly back into the Internet ether from which it came. Just sayin'...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)