Scobleizer - Latest Comments in New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Jimmy — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 07:18:00 -0000

Doesn't amuse me a bit as I went through similar similar crunchy situation with a client 3 months ago..when I just used my http://www.gomeetnow.com conferencing software for the 1st time.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

mark — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 06:25:28 -0000

Marco: mm interesting. Well it says it “lets you video chat“, but it still doesn’t specify
whether you can actually HOST it.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Iggy — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 02:40:32 -0000

So John points us to a picture of two women in bikinis surrounded by about ten guys and is trying to sell us on the fact that women were represented? Notice the women were leaving in the picture. For all we know that is a picture of a hotel pool. The geeks didn't seem to make that big of an impression. As I mentioned above the women look as if they are about to make an exit.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Christopher Coulter — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 17:15:10 -0000

A good business is a good business, nothing special about making it webby or labeling it Web 2.0, it's just all a marketing/distributional method. And nothing new new about the new new...it's just the natural evolutionary product cycle, the same since dawn of time, new to specalized community to commodity.

The problem is we aren’t talking enough about them. Instead we’re talking about the froth.

Well, agreed there. So talk about non-froth. :)

Business and revenue models, at an internet conference?? Surely you jest. But you are on the right track...in wanting that. :)

End Prog

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Hugh MacLeod — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:09:58 -0000

englishcut.com was profitable from Q1. That's because we were using the blog to sell established, expensive products. Secondly, we started it for next to nothing and kept are overheads insanely low... we still do, actually.

The way to get outside the bubble is to sell non-bubble products in the first place.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

missrogue — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:28:41 -0000

I'm so glad you said it and not me this time. ;)

Sigh.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Robert Scoble — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 13:23:31 -0000

Christopher: I disagree with you that all of the "new web" is frothy or doesn't have business behind it.

There are plenty of sites that are actually making real money. The problem is we aren't talking enough about them. Instead we're talking about the froth.

I don't see a single session at this "new internet" conference about business models and how to increase your revenues. How to increase adoption? How to get outside the Techcrunch/TechMeme/Digg bubble.

And it doesn't even have a session on how to properly make rounded corner graphics. Heheh.

Frothy!

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Hugh MacLeod — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 11:11:23 -0000

"Mostly, they’re just social events to spend some time enjoying the company of our friends."

Well, I would argue that the party was a social event, Dave. Only, the agenda wasn't about enjoying "the company of friends". But I've never seperated "work" and "social" much, as any reader of my blog can tell.

From what my spies tell me, pretty much everybody there had their own business agenda for attending. Which was made it interesting.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Oliver Widder — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 10:56:55 -0000

It's hard to distinguish reality from parody in the Web 2.0 world.
I made a small cartoon about it:
http://geekandpoke.typepad....

Bye,
Oliver

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Christopher Coulter — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 10:40:22 -0000

Arrgh, Wordpress over-aggressive spam dog-catcher...spell and grammar check above.

Funny that your "froth" now has a qualifier definition, as meaning not sufficiently technical enough. Of course, even the geeky is froth. But always interesting in digesting the bloggeristic dicionary.

froth (frôth, frth) n. - [Middle English, from Old Norse frodha.] -- 1. Any Web 2.0 conference deemed ungeeky and not endorsed by Crazy Uncle Dave. 2. Any conference on blogs or Web 2.0 that somehow sees fit not to include me.

And I don't find anything wrong with the general principle of "getting deep without getting technical." Those are called End User Conferences or Trade Shows. So I am guessing a Gnomdex Web 2.0 would be bad? ;)

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Scott Ahlsmith, CTC — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 10:19:07 -0000

A conference becomes frothy when the profit motive of the organizers and the number of luminaries on the promotional flyers exceed the value of the content.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Christopher Coulter — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 09:55:23 -0000

So just "hard-core technical content" makes it all ok? That's just froth geeked up, this conference is froth minus the geek. So to be Web 2.0 and ok, you have to have hard-core technical content about vaportware and it's ok. No hard-core technical content, not ok. Right? Then this is froth FOR the masses.

And it wasn't a PARTY, it's a networking event...you don't party and pay big money, gettign exculsive invites with dim-bulb shallowheads like that. Ok, maybe you do. ;)

So breaking it down...

Web 2.0 + hard-core technical content = Ok.
Web 2.0 - hard-core technical content - Bad.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

paul — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 09:07:40 -0000

Web 2.0 is a registered trademark now owned by CMP Media...

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Joao Leitao — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 07:36:28 -0000

nice article. there was something i also wonder about. where do people come from, i mean, where to people that attend to this sort of stuff actually come from. see ya, keep on writing!

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

dave rogers — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 06:25:01 -0000

Hugh, what might be wrong with making $50K on a party is that, for most of us, giving a party isn't about making money. Nor is it about promoting ourselves or our businesses. Mostly, they're just social events to spend some time enjoying the company of our friends.

There ought to be a different word for these types of parties, which are offered to garner attention, broker attention, and make a little, well I guess it depends on what you think a "little" is, money on the side.

As "if" you couldn't figure that out.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Hugh MacLeod — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 04:45:30 -0000

"frothr.com"

What's wring with Arrington making money? Every person attending the party would do the same, if they could.

Key word being, "if".

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Karl — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 04:36:53 -0000

I see no difference in WEB 2.0 although there is a lot of fuss on this blog about it!

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

boogerblog — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 04:35:37 -0000

Robert

You are so right..,thats not correct at all. It was *only* $50,000 (http://money.cnn.com/magazi... see the last paragraph)

I feel so much better knowing that James was wrong....

Booger

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Robert Scoble — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 04:26:44 -0000

James: I don't believe that's correct at all.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

james — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 02:59:10 -0000

I read where Arrington pocketed a cool 100,000 grand after expenses for his techcrunch party.

Not bad. Kinda like studio 54 in the 70's.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Robert Scoble — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 02:49:36 -0000

It should be noted that TechCrunch's parties were PARTIES. Parties are supposed to be "frothy."

Conferences, where attendees are paying money to attend, are not supposed to be frothy.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Robert Scoble — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 02:47:48 -0000

Mix06 had hard-core technical content (I wasn't a speaker there either). I called the latest TechCrunch party "a media event." I noted that the one before that made me think that the bubble was back. OK, OK, I didn't call it frothy, but it was.

O'Reilly's conferences always had hard-core technical content at them. This one makes fun of "getting deep without getting technical." Not the same at all.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Christopher Coulter — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 02:35:28 -0000

So letmee get this straight, Tim's Web 2.0 and Emerging Tech Conferences are the end all be all (and FOO when invited, noFoo or Barcamp when not), and Mix 06 was a must-attend event, you were handing out free tix to Mash-Uppers and promoing that like all out (Michael Platt was your God then), and you are always on the TechCrunch party lists, but this is one here, is somehow no good. I think your real definition of "frothy" be "they didn't put me on the speaker list". I bet if Dave was a keynoter, you'd be all over this...

Of course it is totally-pure froth, but then so has been everything Web 2.0, hence selective froth belies ulterior motives. It's so so easy to read in bloggerese. Not only is it frothy, it's fraudy, arrogant, swarmy, and mash-up-feature-as-a-company brain-dead stupid.

Tysons Corner, eh? That's Spooksville, all those unmarked Offices, paid for by Langley, must be to angel-dust dazzle Government Service types, but boy what a total fake-up fall-pond swim. But to do Tyson's you need a National Security angle...

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

Robert Scoble — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 01:57:12 -0000

Dennis: these two might not be, but this conference is sure getting attention as being frothy.

Re: New Web Conference: Frothy and no women

John — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 00:33:09 -0000

How long have you been in tech for? Of course there is a total absence of women! :-)

Women 2.0: Worth a thousand words
http://www.valleywag.com/te...