<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Michael Gracie &#187; user-generated content</title>
	<atom:link href="http://michaelgracie.com/tag/user-generated-content/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://michaelgracie.com</link>
	<description>Clever Tagline Unavailable At Publication Time</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 20:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
			<item>
		<title>Economics of Online Video</title>
		<link>http://michaelgracie.com/2007/09/10/economics-of-online-video/</link>
		<comments>http://michaelgracie.com/2007/09/10/economics-of-online-video/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:55:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Gracie</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Notes]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[online video]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[user-generated content]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelgracie.com/2007/09/10/economics-of-online-video/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Cutting to the chase - it&#8217;s all the rage, and one tough business.  Following up, Blodget and Co. look at online video cost structure.
And here&#8217;s more opinion regarding online video purveyors&#8217; ability (or lack thereof) to reach critical mass.
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- sphereit start --><p>Cutting to the chase - it&#8217;s all the rage, and <a href="http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/09/analyzing-econo.html">one tough business</a>.  Following up, Blodget and Co. look at <a href="http://www.alleyinsider.com/2007/09/economics-of-on.html">online video cost structure</a>.</p>
<p>And here&#8217;s more opinion regarding online video purveyors&#8217; ability (or lack thereof) to <a href="http://amandabodak.com/2007/08/08/amassing-viewers-for-internet-video-how-are-the-others-faring/">reach critical mass</a>.</p>
<!-- sphereit end -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://michaelgracie.com/2007/09/10/economics-of-online-video/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Time Magazine doesn&#8217;t know jack</title>
		<link>http://michaelgracie.com/2006/12/28/time-magazine-doesnt-know-jack/</link>
		<comments>http://michaelgracie.com/2006/12/28/time-magazine-doesnt-know-jack/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Dec 2006 14:09:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Gracie</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Spamroll]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[Time]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[user-generated content]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[zombie]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelgracie.com/time-magazine-doesnt-know-jack/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Time Magazine punted this year, and declared their &#8220;Person of the Year&#8221; was you.  Yes, you.  It was supposedly the year of user generated content - unfortunately, the magazine missed the boat.  They forgot that all the user generated content sucks (Spamroll included) - everyone creating that content was too busy fighting [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- sphereit start --><p>Time Magazine punted this year, and declared their &#8220;Person of the Year&#8221; was you.  Yes, you.  It was supposedly the year of user generated content - unfortunately, the magazine missed the boat.  They forgot that all the user generated content sucks (Spamroll included) - everyone creating that content was too busy fighting viruses to producing anything of value.</p>
<p>Damn it, 2006 wasn&#8217;t the year of user generated content - it was <a title="2006 Declared Year Of The Zombies - Technology News by TechWeb" href="http://www.techweb.com/showArticle.jhtml?articleId=196702107">was the Year of the Zombies</a>!</p>
<p><small>Well, maybe Time did get it right; they just didn&#8217;t know it.</small></p>
<p>UPDATE: Even Microsoft <a title="Computerworld - Microsoft sees botnets as top cyber-threat" href="http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id%3b547354790%3bfp%3b4%3bfpid%3b16">gets it</a>.  Now, let&#8217;s see if they do something about it, since last time I checked Linux and OS X installs weren&#8217;t getting hijacked too often.</p>
<!-- sphereit end -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://michaelgracie.com/2006/12/28/time-magazine-doesnt-know-jack/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>When old isn&#8217;t so &#8220;old&#8221; - and as for the new&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://michaelgracie.com/2005/10/05/when-old-isnt-so-old-and-as-for-the-new/</link>
		<comments>http://michaelgracie.com/2005/10/05/when-old-isnt-so-old-and-as-for-the-new/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:21:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Michael Gracie</dc:creator>
		
		<category><![CDATA[Thoughtmarket]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[blogs]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[social networking]]></category>

		<category><![CDATA[user-generated content]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.michaelgracie.com/?p=108</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A couple of weeks back I commented that some of the &#8220;old&#8221; dot-com ideas that CNET shot down might not deserve the slamming they got.  The premise was that some of the dot-com failures had merit in one way or another, and not to be surprised if some of the same business models rear [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<!-- sphereit start --><p>A couple of weeks back I commented that some of the &#8220;old&#8221; dot-com ideas that CNET shot down <a title="Thought Market: Unique occurences they were not" href="http://www.michaelgracie.com/2005/08/19/unique-occurences-they-were-not/">might not deserve the slamming they got</a>.  The premise was that some of the dot-com failures had merit in one way or another, and not to be surprised if some of the same business models rear their not-so-ugly heads again and make someone a lot of money.</p>
<p>Well, the October &#8216;05 issue of <a title="Business 2.0 :: Business News, Technology News, Innovation" href="http://www.business2.com/b2/">Business 2.0</a> has an article entitled &#8220;Everything Old Is New Again&#8221; that suggests much the same thing.<br />
<span id="more-108"></span><br />
Now, I am neither suggesting that Erick Schonfeld got the idea for this article from Thought Market, nor am I suggesting I am some brilliant genius.  It is just nice to know that other folks are thinking the same way about some technology-based business models, particularly when it comes to the web (something I am still very bullish on).</p>
<p>Interestingly though, Schonfeld also noted that investors are going nuts for models that revolve around the latest concepts: <cite>blogs, social networking, user-generated content</cite>.  Why do I find this so interesting?  Because some colleagues and I are working on a project that involves all three buzzwords, simultaneously, and I thought it might be fun to tease you a bit.</p>
<!-- sphereit end -->]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://michaelgracie.com/2005/10/05/when-old-isnt-so-old-and-as-for-the-new/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
