Category Archives: communications

How to publish your own book

 

How to publish a book

In 2011 the publisher of Guy Kawasaki’s New York Times bestseller, Enchantment, could not fill an order for 500 ebook copies of the book. Because of this experience, Guy self-published his next book, What the Plus! and learned first-hand that self-publishing is a complex, confusing, and idiosyncratic process. As Steve Jobs said, “There must be a better way.”

With Shawn Welch, a tech wizard, Guy wrote APE to help people take control of their writing careers by publishing their books. The thesis of APE is simple but powerful: When a self-publisher successfully fills three roles—author, publisher and entrepreneur—the potential benefits are greater than with traditional publishing.

Guy and Shawn call this “artisanal publishing.”

Artisanal publishing features writers who love their craft, and who control every aspect of the process from beginning to end. In this new approach, writers are no longer at the mercy of large, traditional publishers, and readers will have more books to read.

APE is 300 pages of tactical and practical inspiration. People who want a hype-filled, get-rich-quick book should look elsewhere. On the other hand, if you want a comprehensive and realistic guide to self-publishing, APE is for you.

On the Air

NewImage

A couple of weeks ago I was asked if I wanted to join one of the many roundtables that the new Saskatoon Afternoon Show is having on News Talk 650 CKOM.  I am on the air at 5:15 p.m. on Monday and Wednesday where we discuss a wide variety of topics with David Kirton unless there is something breaking like the FBI not finding Jimmy Hoffa’s remains today in Detroit.  The Saskatoon Afternoon Show has a variety of interesting guests coming in and out all show all week long so even if you dread the idea of listening to me, there are a lot of great topics and people to listen to.

When I moved to Saskatoon in 1984, 650 CKOM was the only rock station in town (750 was country, and CFQC was kind of mellow and not that appealing to a 10 year old) but believe it or not, Brent Loucks (and Penny Murphy) was the morning host.  A lot has changed (other than Loucks does not look a day older than he did in 1984) but its cool to be on the radio station you woke up to as a kid.

Update: Wednesday’s segment with David Kirton and Angela Hill

The Ford’s radio show is a bunker in which they can regroup

From the Globe and Mail

For the past 15 months, the brothers Ford have spent two hours on Sunday afternoons moonlighting as comically pugnacious AM radio talk jocks, jawing about key issues – fiscal restraint, lazy politicians, the primacy of subways – and shining a light on important community causes.

As they are targeted by aggressive local media, especially in the past two weeks as allegations of drug involvement swirled about them and the mayor’s office suffered some key departures, their Newstalk 1010 show, The City, has proven a comfortable bunker where they can shut out their naysayers and regroup.

And while they may infuriate critics by using the show’s bully pulpit to beat up opponents, the station’s management intends to keep them on the air for as long as it can without running afoul of Canadian election law. If they delay registering their candidacies for the 2014 election, it may be difficult to remove them until late in the race. (Mayor Ford has said he will be registering “the first day I can possibly register” in early January next year.)

Newstalk 1010 hatched The City in the fall of 2011, with centrist councillor Josh Matlow as host because, according to the station’s program director Mike Bendixen, “a lot of our listeners were fed up with just hearing about all the screaming and yelling and nonsense that was happening at City Hall.” Six months later, after an overture by someone on the mayor’s staff, Mr. Bendixen handed the show over to the Fords.

Critics instantly howled, but many of them have helped give the show a wider resonance than it might otherwise have. Twitter traffic during the shows overflows with mockery of the Fords, an apparent love-to-hate phenomenon. What are deemed as outrageous comments are dutifully reported, echoing out across social media.

That may be in part because sitting mayors hosting radio shows are rare in Canada. They are far more common in the U.S. One of the most high-profile examples was New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani, who regularly antagonized enemies and common folk alike who dared call in during his Friday morning radio show.

The leak in the Mike Duffy scandal is none other than Mike Duffy

From the Hill Times

“It unravelled because Duffy couldn’t keep quiet. He sent emails all over the city and he told too many people about it and some of them told me,” Mr. Fife told CTV’s Lisa LaFlamme in a talk-back when the story broke that night.

 Unreal and kind of funny at the same time.  Duffy finally gets an out of the problems that he is in and the sinks it because he can’t stop talking about it.

Just a related note.  I can’t see Duffy resigning because what else can he do now?  Would any media outlet touch him?  

Why do we let politicians lie on television?

Chris Selley is dead on right.

My colleague Andrew Coyne recently renewed his call for political advertising reform — specifically an end to anything even remotely resembling a public subsidy for it, which I could not possibly support more; and a requirement that party leaders voice their own ads, which somewhat offends my free-speech Spidey senses. But as the Conservatives prepare to roll out some Justin Trudeau attack-mailers, at taxpayer expense, featuring an outrageously misleading quotation, I keep coming back to a perplexing question: We wouldn’t stand for the level of dishonesty and deception we routinely see in political advertising if it came from someone selling pickup trucks, hamburgers, underwear or shampoo. So why the hell do we put up with it from people trying to sell us the people who will run the country?

I have heard the justifications for the exemption of political advertising from Advertising Standards Canada standards any number of times, and at no time have they ever made much sense to me.

It’s impossible to evaluate the truthiness of an ad during an election campaign. So? Do it afterwards and report back. Political advertising isn’t just a campaign phenomenon anymore anyway. Not hardly.

Voters understand and discount hyperbole. That doesn’t seem to be what the parties think, or else they wouldn’t constantly rub hyperbole in our faces.

We need unfettered dialogue and debate in politics. Amen, assuming equal right of rebuttal. But then why not afford people selling vastly less important products the same leeway? I’m reminded of an amusing scenario that Allan Gregg recently imagined: Burger King accusing McDonald’s of using beef rife with botulism, and McDonald’s firing back by claiming that Burger King’s product is swimming in E. coli. And just wait until Wendy’s gets in on the act! Why should politicians be afforded this absurd slanderous luxury if burger joints aren’t?

Partisan mail-outs cross the line

Even the Ottawa Citizen thinks these bulk mailers by the Conservatives are out of line

Tories attacking Liberals is par for the course in Canadian politics. The style with which they stage these attacks is, of course, debatable. What is not up for debate should be MPs using their print budgets at the expense of taxpayers for partisan attacks.

According to documents made available by the Liberal party, the Tories plan to spend thousands on taxpayer-supported mailings to inform Canadians of the purported inadequacies of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. Traditionally, these mail-outs are intended to update constituents on the doings of the House of Commons. Not surprisingly, MPs often use them to lecture riding residents on how well they’re being served and all the good things — or bad things, if you’re an opposition MP — the government is doing.

The Tories, however, appear intent on crossing the ethical divide with mail-outs that are nothing more than an extension of their attack ad campaign against the new Liberal leader. They should not. They can spend as much as they want to discredit Trudeau — whether it will do them any good is another matter — but not on the taxpayer’s dime.

The flyers, which were presented to the Conservative caucus in mid-April and are to be distributed June 1, show pictures of Trudeau with a moustache and jacket over his shoulder against a backdrop of quotes — “He’s in way over his head,” for example — and encircled by what looks like a comet trail of pixie dust sprinkled by Walt Disney’s wand-waving fairy. Another part of the mail-out suggests the Liberal leader is naive on such issues as Quebec separatism, tax credits for families and the economy.

The cost of mailing these attacks for 166 Conservative MPs comes in at about $29,000, but throw in the full price of printing and distribution and, according to the Liberals, it will be more than $220,000. The money will come out of the Tories’ House of Commons budget. In other words, taxpayers will pay.

Government House Leader Peter Van Loan defends the expenditure, saying it is within rules approved by Parliament and the all-party Board of Internal Economy that oversees MPs’ expenditures. He says it’s “entirely appropriate” for the Tories to inform Canadians in this way about Trudeau’s leadership qualities (or lack thereof).

What a specious justification for ripping off taxpayers. Householders were intended to provide MPs with a way to communicate “information” — farm subsidy programs, home renovation credits, etc. — to constituents. Yet they have become a vehicle for partisan propaganda.

Why MPs don’t need or deserve bulk mailing privileges any more

The Globe and Mail has a strong opinion on ten percenters

Parliament should abolish politicians’ bulk mailing privileges. Between the serial abuse of the privilege by MPs and the fact we live in an era of ubiquitous digital communication, there is no longer a justifiable reason for taxpayers to be getting flyers and other assorted political epistles at their own expense.

Where even 10 years ago it was reasonable to have taxpayers pay the cost of receiving mailed information about the doings of their elected representative and the latest business of the House of Commons, in the digital age it is a redundant waste of money and resources. Let’s be honest: How many Canadians spend any time at all reading the flyers their MPs, provincial representatives and municipal councillors print up and send to them at taxpayer expense? The vast majority of the flyers end up in the recycling bin in mint condition.

To add insult to injury, MPs in particular have made a sport of abusing their bulk mailing privileges. This week, Conservative Party MPs have been asked by party officials to send their constituents a flyer that is nothing more than an attack ad targeting Liberal leader Justin Trudeau. It is scandalous, but it is only the latest such outrage.

Three years ago, after MPs had begun flooding their opponents’ ridings with partisan flyers, they agreed to a ceasefire: MPs would only mail flyers to their own constituents. This was quickly undone, however, when MPs began using their so-called “franking” privilege – the right to send a letter anywhere in Canada at no cost in an envelope bearing the MP’s name – to carpet bomb targeted opponents’ ridings with yet more partisan attacks, this time on letterhead.

It is an entirely uncomplicated fact that taxpayers should never bear the cost of printing and receiving partisan mailings. Yet MPs continue to spout utter nonsense in their efforts to muddy the crystal-clear waters of common sense. “It’s entirely appropriate for Canadians to be informed about those contrasting aspects of leadership they have available,” Government House Leader Peter Van Loan argued in defence of the bulk-mailing of the Trudeau attack ads, and thereby missed the point. It is within the current rules, perhaps. But playing up the strengths of a party leader at the expense of a rival is not an appropriate use of public money – especially not in a democratic country that purports to make a distinction between the wellbeing of any one political party and the general wellbeing of the taxpayer.

Our money for attack ads – how low can the Harper Conservatives go?

That being said, it’s not the first time it has been done.

Just when you thought the Harper Conservatives could stoop no lower with their attack ads against Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau, they discovered something even more base.

Household mailings, paid for by taxpayers, are supposed to communicate information from MPs to constituents about doings in government. Every MP, of course, puts her or his spin on things because, after all, they’re politicians. But household mailings often contain straightforward information about which government office a constituent should phone, how to apply for government programs, or what this or that piece of legislation means.

But now the Conservatives have decided to use these mailings – as much as 10 per cent of the voters receive them at any one time – as nothing more than a printed negative ad against Mr. Trudeau. It’s one thing for the Conservative Party to use its money to buy television airtime to demean Mr. Trudeau; it’s another to use your money for the same base purposes. But as we see, the Harper attack machine does politics this way, always has and always will, because the Prime Minister – who authorizes all this stuff, after all – obviously thinks it works.

It’s never the big things that trip up governments, it is stuff like this.  Voters aren’t stupid, we know this stuff is being paid for by taxpayers and it starts to add up.  Bev Oda’s orange juice, these ten percenters, a defence minister taking helicopter rides so he can fish… It’s not a partisan thing.  It’s the transition a government that is going from serving to being entitled.  

In 2012, newspapers lost $16 in print ads for every $1 earned in digital ads.

From The Atlantic

In 2012, newspapers lost $16 in print ads for every $1 earned in digital ads. And it’s getting worse, according to a new report by Pew. In 2011, the ratio was just 10-to-1.

The digital ad revolution, always “just around the corner”, remains tantalizingly out of reach for most newspapers, which explains why some stalwarts like the New York Times and Wall Street Journal have moved to subscription models for their websites to bolster digital ad growth. Just today, the Washington Post announced a paywall.

It’s bad.  What’s happened.

Who killed newspapers? The classic response is the classifieds, and it’s true that websites offering direct information about housing, rentals, cars, and other goods and services that once found a unique home in newspapers have gutted the old revenue model. “More than three-quarters of print classified revenue has been lost since 2000,” Pew reports.

But as you can see, the majority of print’s ad decline since 2003 has come from retail ads (the most common slice of most newspapers’ revenue pie) and national ads. Here’s the breakdown of that $25 billion lost over ten years. It’s about $11 billion each from classifieds and retail ads, with the remainder coming from national ad spots.

You are the cure

Great public awareness campaign and website from the Government of Alberta on the dangers of texting and driving.  I am amazed that despite the Saskatoon Police Service cracking down on it and the large fines that come along with it, many people I know text and use their phone while driving.  It’s not that hard to put your phone on vibrate, put it face down and ignore it when in the car.

FemaleBillboardjpg

Calgary/Banff 2012

It’s been so busy the last week and I have been so incredibly sick that I never posted this last week.  Since a bunch of you have asked how our mini-vacation went, here is the summary… just really late.

On Thursday morning we got up early, checked out the highway conditions and headed out to Calgary for the weekend.

It was Oliver’s first long road trip and we packed pretty well.  In his backpack he had his VTech tablet and some kid’s volume controlled headphones as well as a cheap set of binoculars.  Mark had his PSP and a National Geographic History magazine.  The end result is that we stopped in Kindersley (for a 5 Hour Energy Drink for me), Hanna (for windshield washer fluid), Drumheller (to take Oliver for a walk up the giant dinosaur) and the boys were remarkably good.

Drumheller's Dinosaur

The trip took up around 6 1/2 hours which is pretty good but like I said, our stops were quick.  The stop at Drumheller took the longest and Oliver wasn’t that thilled with the idea of running up the “butt of a dinosaur” and I carried him most of the 100 steps to it’s mouth.  

In the mouth of the dinosaur

After heading back down, we were off to Calgary and checked into our hotel at around 2:30 p.m. Calgary time. 

The hotel was the Best Western Plus Calgary Centre Inn and was quite nice.  Our room was massive and the photos on their site don’t do justice to how nice the pool area is.  They have a normal pool, a hot tub but also a small pool that is only 2 feet deep for kids.  Oliver loved, “his pool” and spent all of his time in it.  They also have a free continental breakfast that was varied enough that we didn’t get sick of it.  Of course it’s central location meant that it was out of the way of everywhere we wanted to go but not so far out of the way we didn’t go.

All day on Twitter, Mayor Nenshi was warning of the snowfall which we didn’t really notice until we hit Chestermere and the highway was closed because of a rollover.  I am not sure what happened as we didn’t find the highways that slippery.  There was some black ice but nothing that bad; then again I am used to driving in it.

We were two long blocks away from the 39th Street LRT station and took it downtown where we went for a long walk.  We had plans to head up the Calgary Tower but visibility was really poor so we just took in downtown Calgary.  The snow was really coming down but all over downtown were snow removal crews sweeping sidewalks and streets even as the snow fell which is quite a bit different than Saskatoon which puts the onus on store owners who may or may not shovel out downtown.  It’s almost as Calgary’s downtown is a place of commerce.

Stephen Avenue in Calgary

Snow clearing in Calgary

That night we headed back, checked out the pool and ordered in from Mother’s Pizza, something that I have done since I was old enough to know what pizza was.

Friday morning the roads in Calgary were reported to be in bad shape but in reality were quite good.  Thanks to Saskatoon for lowering my expectations for snow removal.  Mark spent the summer and fall saving up for a new iPod Nano and despite being $4 short that I kicked in for him, we went to the Apple Store in Chinook Centre where a clerk named Jazz managed to help him pick out the one he wanted.

Wendy and Oliver in the Apple Store

While Mark and Jazz finished the deal, Wendy pulled out her Samsung Galaxy and started to text something.  She was lucky she wasn’t tossed out.  As we were leaving, Wendy had a minor fit as she saw a Lego store and insisted that we had to purchase some Lego for Oliver for Christmas.  Long story short, Wendy always wanted Lego as a kid and never had any.  She had more fun than any of us in there.

As soon as we hit Highway #1, roads were perfect until we hit the Banff National Park gates and they never got the snow the rest of us got so it was a fun trip up with lots of stories and sight seeing along the way.  We went straight to Sulphur Mountain and took the gondola to the top of it.  Excited does not describe the reaction of Oliver and Mark who loved every second of the nine minute trip to the summit.  Once at the summit I was tempted to hike to the science station but it was blowing and cold up there so we ordered a bite to eat and chilled out at the top.

DSCF9052

Panorama from Sulphur Mountain

Once back down we did some shopping and Banff didn’t disappoint.  Every single shop had the exact same touristy junk.  As I told Wendy, I spent most of my life trying to buy something nice in Banff and failed.   Wendy found some earrings and found some Christmas gifts.  Mark managed to get some more money out of me and bought some magnetic rocks and a Gondola souvenir.  The highlight of the shopping was a large male elk meandering through main street and within inches of the car.

An Elk

I personally love Banff in the off season and hate it during the peak season.  The lack of tourists and crowds are nice, even if the weather is not.  What I loved about Banff is that there was absolutely no trace of snow along their main street.  Every flake was removed… again, it’s a place of commerce.

Finally we took the boys to Bow Falls where a combination of the cold, wind and humidity almost froze Wendy, Mark and I to death while taking some photos.  Oliver just said, “I want to wait in the car”

DSCF9081

Panorama of Bow Falls

As we were leaving, we went to Walsh’s Candy Store where I bought Mark and Oliver two massive jawbreakers and challenged them to finish them by the time we got to Calgary.  It’s an impossible task (knowing first hand) but neither one of them talked all the way back to Calgary.  I love it when a plan comes together.

For supper that night, we went to Five Guys Hamburgers for the first time.  We need one of those in Saskatoon in the worst possible way.  We ordered burgers and fries and couldn’t even start the fries as the burgers were so filling.

Saturday morning we met our good friend Dave King at Nellie’s where we had a good talk about politics, urban planning, cycling and photography all over a fantastic breakfast.  It was cold out that day so instead of going to the Calgary Zoo, we went back downtown and checked out Mountain Equipment Co-op (twice), the Calgary Tower, Glenbow Museum, and snagged some milkshakes at Peter’s Drive-Thru.

While at Mountain Equipment Co-Op, we did some Christmas shopping and Wendy agonized over which bag to purchase (which she always does).  She finally got one of these and seems at peace with the world.  Meanwhile I got a sleeve for the MacBook, a left handed sling pack, some gloves, bike lock (as well as one for Mark) and a lantern. Mark also bought a sling pack which means that we kind of match which is awkward.  At least his is right handed.

The Calgary Tower is always amazing and we spent a lot of time up there.  The glass floor was fun as people were absolutely terrified to walk out on it while kids seemed to not even notice.  Both Wendy and I took a bunch of photos with other people’s cameras while they stood out on the glass.  We went back downstairs and across the street to the Glenbow Museum where Mark really had a good time.  Wendy enjoyed the section on the National Energy Program and on Peter Lougheed.  It was weird to see a display honouring Preston Manning and not Joe Clark or Ralph Klein.  I know Manning has significance but so does Clark and Klein.

Oliver at the top of the Calgary Tower

The Bow as seen from the Calgary Tower

Saturday night against my better wishes, we went to Swiss Chalet.  Wendy and the boys had never gone but the meal was what you expect of Swiss Chalet.  Personally I am still bitter that St. Hubert is not in Calgary.  Sadly everyone in the family like the meal which means that I am going to have to fight not to go back.

Sunday we drove back home after some more running around.  The trip was quick as I had two boys chilling out to their iPods and sucking on jawbreakers.  The only excitement was when we were back in Saskatoon city limits when we found out again that snow removal baffles our fair city.

All of the photos from the trip can be found on either Wendy’s or my photo set.

What happens when the cloud disappears?

Excellent post by Dave Winer on Gizmodo

Back then all this was much smaller. There were far fewer bloggers. Maybe thousands. Today there are millions. None of them are thinking about what happens when Tumblr or Blogger or WordPress or Facebook disappear. But come on — we almost know for certain that one of them will. Given enough time they will all disappear. Doesn’t it make sense to think, in advance about what will happen then? Technically there are good practices that exist right now, that could ameliorate the problems. Don’t we have a responsibility to implement them?

Which gets me to the beginning. Yesterday I wrote a piece where I said that the web is socialist. I strongly believe if you try to turn a community of bloggers into a property, someday you’ll wake up to the realization that you bought a bag of air. There’s nothing inside the walls that’s worth anything, from a dollar standpoint. What happens then dear blogger? Do you think anyone is going to subsidize the hosting? You will be on your own that day. And you very likely won’t have any recourse, any more than my users had in 2003. I promise you I was well-intentioned, but that didn’t save the sites. Good intentions are no answer. Saying they’re not your users won’t help either. In 2003 they weren’t mine because I was no longer employed by the company. No salary. No upside. Nothing. I quit for a very good reason. So why me? It was basically an accident that the hits were coming to my server. That didn’t matter to the users. Were they right? Hard to say. But it didn’t matter.

I no longer care what you think.

Derek Powazek wrote this last year

Life on the net can be hard. It’s human nature to want to be liked, and to feel bad when someone says something negative to you. And if it’s one thing we all know about the internet, it’s that at any moment, someone, somewhere, is saying something negative.

An easy solution would be to withdraw, to not participate at all. But the world is getting more digital, not less. Eventually we won’t have a choice: if we want any kind of social life, we’ll have to participate in the social web.

Another solution would be to develop a thicker skin. And while I’ve certainly done that over the years, I never want to become so callous that I just don’t care about anything. I want to be able to be myself in the world.

So the solution I’ve come to is this: I care a lot about a very small group of people. I maintain a hierarchy of who I need to be okay with. It starts with my wife Heather, my parents and my sister, and includes my clients and a very short list of friends. You know who’s not on that list? Anonymous internet commenters. For them and everyone else not on the list, I just try to remember a saying I heard once: “Your opinion of me is none of my business.”

If you’re reading this, chances are, you’re not on that list, and I’m sorry if that hurts your feelings. But the truth is, I’m probably not on your list, either. It’s okay if our hearts are not yet big enough to include everyone they deserve.

He manages it this way

If you use Twitter, you pay attention to your mentions – the tweets that include @yourusername – because that’s how you have conversations. And therein lies the problem, because anyone can tweet at you that way. Some of those people are batshit crazy like the Haight Street Guy, while others are just merely rude like the Conference Talker Guy.

The difference is, on Haight Street, you have to walk briskly away and hope you’re not followed. And at the conference, you have to de-escalate the conversation politely, in front of a crowd. But on Twitter, there is a magic button, and in one click, poof, the crazy is gone.

It’s a wonderful thing. A thing so lovely I often find myself wishing it existed in real life.So why is blocking such a taboo?

I think the Block function on sites like Twitter and Flickr is unfortunately named. There’s something about the word – Block! – that comes across as a personal insult. And that’s too bad, because it’s basically the only tool we have to effectively manage our social experience in those communities.

I propose that blocking people on sites like Twitter or Flickr should not be interpreted as an insult. I propose that it’s simply taking yourself out of someone else’s attention stream.

If I block you on Twitter, my tweets no longer show up in your timeline. If I block you on Flickr, my photos no longer show up on your contacts page. In these settings, this is the only way for me to remove myself from your attention.

I don’t know what Derek defines as his breaking point.  Over the years I have left a couple of comments on both his and Heather’s Flickr and Twitter streams that have been sometimes ignored and sometimes replied to but I haven’t been blocked.  I tend to do the same thing although I fall more on the ignore side of the things which doesn’t mean I don’t care but it often means I have nothing to say back.  It’s how Twitter works.  I hadn’t thought of it that much until someone that I know unknowingly posted something fairly offensive on my Twitter stream and I was going to reply when I realized that I didn’t care what this person thought of my views so I hit “block”.  I used to do it quite a bit on my blog but a combination of blocking those that just want to argue and not posting very much eliminated the need.

I get a lot of criticism and feedback at work.  I work with the hard to house and many have significant anger issues along with a variety of social disorders.  When they don’t get their way, they generally comment on my weight, my intelligence, my faith, being bald, and being ugly.  It happens day in and day out but at the end of the day I can go home and relax.  To log in and get it day in and day out when all I want to do is a little reading and writing is absurd.  By blocking you, I remove my offensive views from your attention and we are both happier.  My piece of the internet is free from inane comments, your net is free of my views that bother you so much.  There is such a thing as win/win and it’s found by clicking block.

Powazek talks of the need to stay reconciled with some people but I find that those people don’t take stupid potshots online.   The other thing is that there is a difference between being close to someone and having to interact with them online.  Facebook and myself don’t get along that well.  It doesn’t mean that I don’t like people who choose to interact there, it just means that I choose not to interact with them there.  Same with online.  On Twitter I choose who I follow but I can also choose who I want to follow me and I am realizing more and more, I don’t want all people interacting with me there.   I realize that some people that are normal in person are jerks online.  If you don’t like it, I think I just said, I don’t really care.