Reward and Reap

 

When I was reading Wikinomics and then The Long Tail, I was struck by three important themes….  1)The internet allows companies to grow their business if those companies utilize the internet in a creative and open way which branches out beyond their “walls.”   2) If we trust others, the rewards are great and 3) Incentives for collaboration lead to innovation.  Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams, as well as Chris Anderson join Shel Israel and Robert Scoble in reinforcing their vision for the future:  companies which use open source, mass collaboration, peering, sharing and trust are going to be the ones to succeed in the future.

It was exciting to read Tapscott and Williams story of how Sam Palmisano, CEO of IBM changed the culture of “Big Blue” by figuring out what enterprises the company strategically wanted to do within their walls and those outside of which to partner with suppliers and customers.  Sam is a 1973 graduate of the Johns Hopkins’ Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences.  (His BA from Hopkins, by the way, was his terminal degree.)  From what I understand from those who have been close to Sam for the past thirty years, Sam always has always been a relationship person, who climbed up through IBM from his beginnings in its sales force. Three of four premises of Wikinomics: openness, peering, and sharing seem to be the hallmark of healthy relationships, whether on-line or in person.  In thinking about mass collaboration and open source operations, neither would be doable without a healthy relationship between the developers, companies, customers and suppliers.  Like a relationship, each side must come together as equal partners for the good of the order.

A characteristic I also thought of when reading these books but not mentioned was that of creativity.  The examples of companies which succeeded because of their application of Wikinomics also had something in common…. A leader who thought (and I hate this term) outside the box.  Being willing to open yourself up to ideas from those outside of your company and allowing others to benefit from sharing your platform shows creativity in understanding how to expand business by using on-line resources.   

Tapscott and Williams asked whether “Open-platform orchestrators should compensate those who added value to their businesses?”  My answer is YES!  Kudos to companies like Procter and Gamble and Merck for their insight in sharing some of their intellectual property and then rewarding individuals from around the world who suggested products and applications to be developed from it.  EBay also seems to have done a good job of this as has Google.  Just like Richard Sears and Alvah Roebuck who provided premiums to customers who expanded their customer base, companies who succeed from the ingenuity of those who help expand their businesses should also be compensated.  I often think of people who create content for YouTube and other sites which depend on the work of “prosumers.”  It sometimes doesn’t seem fair that YouTube sold for $1.65 billion, but those who made the site work-the consumer content providers- didn’t benefit. 

The world is getting smaller.  Those who are willing to take a risk, be creative and be masters at creating and maintaining on line partnerships and relationships will be the ones to benefit.  My suggestion is that they reward those who take part in their success.

 

 

 

 

The Train for Mass Collaboration Has Left the Station

Ok.  I get it.  Open source is good for business because it’s “smart mob” collaboration provides an opportunity for companies to receive global input from experts around the world.  Such “wikinomics” is good for industry because among other benefits, it provides companies with the R&D opportunities, product enhancement and procurement at a lesser cost than if this was all done in house.  Through the ability to reach out to global experts through the web, companies can more cheaply and more effectively expand their business capabilities. As Eric Raymond proclaimed in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams wrote about in Wikinomics, open sourcing is becoming a rapid technological wave.

Last weekend I was at a meeting for Hopkins’ Parents and the conversation turned to wikis and how students at Homewood were placing their notes on line in an open source document.  Students from the class would go into the document and add or edit other students’ notes.  (Very interesting!  Life as I know it, illustrates what I have been learning about in class.)  One of the parents commenting on the wiki phenomenon was David Fellows, the former CTO for Comcast.  At the reception following the meeting, I asked David whether he thought more companies were going to utilize open source development, and or get on the bandwagon to blog thus sharing proprietary information.  David’s comment to me was that not only did he think that these business models were going to be adopted by more companies, he felt that those which did not get on the band wagon, would be left in the dust. 

That said, there were some themes which Shel Israel and Rober Scoble in Naked Conversations, Dan Gillmor in We the Media, as Tapscott and Williams in Wikinomics discussed which I don’t agree with.  All authors came down hard on big companies who shut down the free exchange of content on Napster.  While I can understand their commitment to the democratization of media, I do have a problem with their argument.  One of our Hopkins alumni, Eric Schwartz is an intellectual property attorney.  Eric represented the music industry against Napster in the law suit to prevent the on-line free exchange of music.  He helped me understand that the folks who were suffering from the sharing of content were the musicians themselves.  Their CD’s were not selling as a result of people being able to listen to their music for free.

 In reading about “ideagoras” this week, I found it fascinating to think that companies would pay a prize to scientists and engineers for helping to solve a technology problem or help develop a product.  While the vehicle to do this is new, I am not sure the idea is that innovative.  A couple of weeks ago I watched the movie, The Prize Winner of Defiance Ohio.  The movie was about a woman who supported her family by winning competitions by large corporations, which provided prizes for award-winning jingles or advertising slogans which would later be used in advertising campaigns.  Although the competitions were promoted through magazines, placement on product labels, as well as radio, television and newspapers, are these not “ideagoras?” 

Finally, in Tapscott and Williams’ discussion about “prosumers” and the game Second Life as an example of this topic, I thought about a conversation I had in one of my other classes.  We saw examples of the Seond Life game and discussed how individuals were using it to create characters and roles for themselves which allowed them to live in a fantasy setting.  In some of the cases, and as illustrated in a “Law and Order” episode, players, who in real life were attractively-challenged, could create a character which would be beautiful and socially more accepted in the game than in they were in everyday life.  While I initially thought this was sad, I have come to value the way that these individuals-by being prosumers- could create a happier existence, even if it was in a virtual reality setting.

Technology: Common Good or Communications Cloak?

When I first began reading Howard Rheingold’s Smart Mobs, I was mystified by why professor Nicco Mele assigned a book that was published in 2002, and with the speed of technology development, grossly outdated.  When I questioned Professor Mele about the relevance of this outdated book, he asked me to think more deeply about why he may have made this assignment.  What themes in the book were present in other class readings?  After thinking for a few minutes, I realized that what Rheingold was professing between his touting of texting, wearable computers and cooperative technologies were the communities that would be knitted together and mobilized through their use.  As we read in Robert Scoble and Shel Israel’s Naked Conversations, and in John Battelle’s The Search, blogging and the internet were created by computer geeks and academics who wanted to communicate more easily with one another.  Communities linked by common interests were and are created by the use of these digital technologies such as blogging, mobile texting, and reputational systems.  

In addition to creating and maintaining communities, there are some similar values present in these collaborative systems….  trust and openness being the two of the most cited values.  As we read in Naked Conversations and in Smart Mobs, trust seems to develop through successful cooperative technology.  Furthermore, as we read in Eric Raymond’s The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and as reinforced by Rheingold, some of today’s most widely used technology was made possible by open source product development.  In open source development, volunteer collaboration is key to the successful production of software.  A community of researchers with similar interests and expertise come together for the common good.  Again, trust is the basis for successful projects.

While it is terrific that technology provides a conduit for many people to come together in communities, there is something that bothers me.  Since we can more easily communicate electronically with colleagues, friends and others who share our passions en masse, are we creating a society in which people no longer know how to communicate in person one-on-one?  I think of the times when either I, or a colleague, have chosen to defend a course of action or try to resolve a conflict by using email.  Are we developing a culture where people can hide behind the cloak of technology instead of resolving issues less comfortably by speaking in person with an individual? 

I often look questionably at my own children who tell me they “spoke” to someone, which they meant they communicated by texting or through Facebook.  While it is terrific that blogging and texting can have a viral effect in communicating with groups, what does that mean to our ability to communicate in person?  I remember when my daughter met-in person- a future college classmate with whom she had developed an on-line relationship… While they had spent hours together as part of a college on-line community, their first in-person meeting was wrought with awkwardness and uneasiness. 

So, as I learn more about collaborative digital communities, I hope that while technology can create and mobilize social networks, we don’t lose sight of the importance of being able to communicate as easily in person as we are through computers or mobile phones.

Google- Growing Pains= Success

John Battelle’s “The Search” was an eye-opener on the growth of Google, its growing pains, the company’s prospect for the future and the opportunities of the search process in the next several years.  This week’s reading selection started with some of the problems that on-line businesses had with Google when it changed the algorithm and hence the way those businesses were ranked when searched.   (I personally would not be one to take ranking for granted and would have bought AdWords if I made my living with an on-line business.) It then went on to discuss how search can drive intent-based commerce such as newspaper subscriptions, local advertising, or in the future cell phones which could interact with the UPC system.  One of the issues with the search and commerce is over trademarked terms.  According to Google, Trust is an important value at the company.  It wants consumers to see the company as “unbiased and fair.”  This system can be compromised by the system of “click fraud” where by creating fraudulent sites to influence the rankings of terms based on the ranking algorithms which take into account the number of clicks on a term from another site.

                Another part of the company’s growing pains are the concerns with Google’s decision to go into China and the public cry in this country with the decision to comply with China’s censorship.  Google isn’t alone in dealing with this issue.  Business decisions are made all the time based on growth potential and the corporate costs associated with that decision.  (In this case the cost being to adhering to China’s censorship of sites re: the national culture, news, and policies.)  On the other side of government involvement-another form of growing pains- is our own country’s decision, through the Patriot Act, to use search history of individuals to determine whether or not they are a threat to our country.  There is a fine line between serving as a “big brother” and in doing so, abusing civil liberties, and in researching the search history of those who truly may want to endanger the United States.

Going public was a huge undertaking and another form of growing pains for Google.   According to Battelle, there was a great deal of mishaps the company faced when going public.  I have to say that I admire the fact that in going public.  The company principals, Page, Brin and Schmidt decided not to give up their mode of managing the company just to please Wall Street.  While the company may not be as polished as other publically traded entities- (So what if meetings doesn’t start on time) -it is still able to develop products and be successful in earning money.  I was pleased to see, for instance, that in reviewing the company’s financials, yesterday’s stock price was $413.62 per share.  I was impressed that in addressing the growth of the company, Brin and Page developed a plan for that growth.  (Although Robert Scoble and Shel Israel would scold Google for not being transparent with that plan.)  I also was impressed that even with the growth, the company’s leaders found a way to grow new products in a way that was true to their hands-on management style.  Google Labs- Google’s project idea development system- currently has fourteen projects being explored.  Dan Gillmor, Scoble and Israel would all approve with the fact that through Google’s web site, feedback is asked for on all of the projects.  There are seventeen products which came from Google Labs and are now being offered to Google customers.  Some of them improve search and others like Battelle suggests as needed offer a way to interface with all aspects of an individual’s personal computer and provide more intent driven search responses.

The bottom line is that Google is a very successful company that as it has grown, has not given into a managerial style that has been dictated by investors and or Wall Street.  In order to be successful, it will need to continue to be innovative and to be one step ahead of other companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo as well as other companies who will be nipping at their heels.  Will it always have growing pains?  Probably.  Any successful company does.  The trick will be how Page and Brin manages Google’s growth and as well as their business acumen.

Search As we know it…..

John Battelle’s book, The Search, really opened my eyes about the value of search and about Google’s growth as a company.  Battelle began the book by discussing search and the value it has to our society and to business.  The first part of the book was a description of what search is and how it straddles marketing, media, technology, pop culture, international law and civil and how it has grown as a media business.

 

Battelle then took his readers through how a search worked: crawl, the index and then the serving of results. This was followed by a history of the technological history of the internet and the evolution of the importance of search as a business model and the companies which sprung up around it.

 

Battelle then spent time reporting on the dot.com era, when many companies were formed but struggled with how to produce revenue which would fund their bottom line.  He discussed how in the beginning, companies whose main businesses were portals-like Yahoo and AOL- spent their time devising business models which kept people from leaving their sites. Hence banner ads were developed which may or may not have had any relevancy to the readers.  An entire chapter was devoted to Bill Gross of GoTo.com and Overture, who according to the author was the person responsible for the theory of using search as a way to target advertising.  His premise was that if he could deliver “good traffic” to advertisers, they would pay more to have consumers be exposed to their ad who might possibly buy their product.  Gross also developed a ranking system by which prior clicks to a particular site would be a factor in how the search ranked that site.  According to Battelle, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, who started Google, stole Gross’s idea.  Page and Brin implemented Gross’s way of ranking sites according to how many clicks that site had, not given higher rank to those where advertisers were to gain.

 

Battelle’s account of the growth of Google was very interesting. Page and Brin may have seemed arrogant, but they also appeared to understand, unlike Yahoo and AOL, that there was virtue in sending readers to other sites. When I read this section, I thought of Israel and Scoble’s lauding of blogs which linked readers to other sites. Israel and Scoble also came to mind when I read about Google’s problems with customer service for advertisers using AdWords.  In their book the authors mentioned that Google didn’t allow its employees to blog.  Although blogging isn’t the end all be all, I do have to wonder if Google did blog, whether their customer service problems could have been minimized.

 

Google’s corporate missive of “Do No Evil” clearly defines the company’s culture and the theme for how business both internally and externally should be done.  As Battelle points out, the issues confronting Google post 9/11 does raise questions as to whether the slogan needs to be changed.  It is sad to think that instead of searches being used to capture an anthropological snapshot of culture, searches now can be used to infringe on civil rights all in the name of national security. 

Finally, one comment regarding the search history resonated with me. In the infancy of the web, people used the search engine to find what the web could offer.  Now individuals use it to learn about and understand the topic on which they are searching.  I can’t imagine life without it!

 

Finally, Blogs are a TOOL!… Not End All, Be All!

If Robert Scoble and Shel Israel’s book had placed its last chapter first, I would not have needed a bottle of tums, headache medication, or would have subjected other marketing professionals and my college age daughters to my ranting over the past two weeks. The reading for this week- at least all but Chapter 15- was a source for Scoble and Israel’s continued evangelism for blogging and a soapbox for their premise that blogging is the answer for all corporate woes, as well as the facilitator of corporate growth. According to them, if you don’t blog, you aren’t transparent and if you aren’t transparent, you and your company will lack authenticity.  While the first part of the book seemed to sell the reader on the virtues of blogging, the second part of the book was a “how-to” instruction manual for writing and using a blog. According to the authors a good blog should be interesting, should not be written by a “character,” because it was, G-d forgive, it would impede the blog’s essence of credibility or authenticity.  According to Scoble and Israel, blogs should be written by an employee of a company and should tell all the inside gossip of those companies. The book implied that companies, like Target, that did not have culture condusive to blogging were closed and secretive.  In their estimation, HP made a huge mistake when company employees did not blog about Carly Fiorina’s ousting from the company.  What are they YENTAS?  In order for a company to be authentic and responsive to their customers do they have to air their dirty laundry in public?  Is this condoned in Scoble and Israel’s families? As the authors did in the first part of the book, they again displayed their prejudice toward marketing professionals by accusing them of controlling messages or using integrated marketing to “intertwine messages and extortions in ad nauseum.”  Many of the “11 best practices” for blogging –demonstrate passion, show authority, have a two-way conversation, be accessible, leave contact information, tell a good story- are all what I consider best practices for any company in dealing with its customers.  According to the authors, only companies that blog are able to properly avert a crisis.  In the discussion about Kryptonite and how through the blogosphere a problem with their bike lock was disclosed, Scoble and Israel implied that the company should have also used blogging to communicate with their customers on how they were correcting the problem.  This again raises a question for me…  Who are the bloggers?  Do all Kryptonite customers blog?  It would seem to me that in this case, blogging should been ONE tool that the company uses to reach its mix of customers. After all, a good marketing person knows that not all market demographics receive information through the same method.  Hence integrated marketing! Furthermore, the crisis management and blogging tips for companies are also those, which I or other marketing communications specialists, would suggest to companies.  Have a crisis plan worked out to communicate to customers the problem and how your plan to have it resolved. So, now my thoughts on the last chapter… I am thrilled that Israel and Scoble realize that blogging is a communications “tool”-not the end all be all- which does help improve the conversation between companies and their customers.  I am delighted that they also admitted that perhaps that culture does indeed play a role in companies and countries and that, according to Israel and Scoble, culture can’t be dismissed in discussing social media. In my opinion, the continued evolution of communication is just that… a continuum.  Blogging is important today, but there will be another technology in the future that will further open lines of conversation between companies and their customers, companies and their investors, and companies and the media.

Blogs Are Useful, but Only as Part of a Larger Marketing Plan

When I began reading Naked Conversations, I dreaded yet another in a long line of class assignments, which confront every student, from grade school to grad school, and beyond!  Not knowing what to expect from a book entitled “Naked Conversations,” I was pleasantly surprised. Although skeptical at first, I found myself becoming more intrigued by blogging. As Shel Israel and Robert Scoble discusses in their book, blogging seems like a valid tool to improve customer and employee relations, increase sales volumes, enhance in-house corporate communications, build authority in a particular field, and create global markets for products. As Israel and Scoble explain, these accomplishments are possible because blogs foster communications and build relationships between bloggers and their audiences because they provide an opportunity for two-way conversation. Effective blogs promotes transparency between the blogger and his or her audience.  In addition, the blogs which are authentic and personal and as such do not possess a structured “corporate” feel are the ones which are the most successful.  Finally, and perhaps of utmost importance, the hallmark of an effective blog, is passion. One has the ability to express their thoughts in a demonstrative and uninterrupted way, which is often lacking in traditional corporate communications.  In addition, as Israel and Scoble point out, blogs are an efficient method of promoting a product, and can be more cost effective than expensive multi-media marketing campaigns. Audiences reach out to others who share an interest in the topic or product being discussed in a blog and a grassroots mechanism relays information virally throughout the blogosphere.  According to Israel and Scoble, national cultures influence the frequency of blogging use. According to the authors, blogs have been used more in the French and American cultures than in the German culture.  The reason for this, according to the authors, is that in France and in the United States discussing one’s thoughts and emotions are more accepted than in Germany. The above notwithstanding, as a former marketing and public relations executive, I take exception to Israel and Scoble’s less than subtle description of marketing professionals as untrustworthy and dishonest “spinmeisters.”  In the marketing and PR courses that I’ve taken over the past few years, as part of the Zanvyl Krieger School of Arts and Sciences, openness and honesty with clients is always stressed. Personally, I agree with Richard Edelman’s assessment that blogging can promote an important transparency between an organization and its constituents. Thus, I feel that blogs can and should be part of a comprehensive marketing strategy, with an emphasis on “part.”  Blogs have to fit into a strategy.  They are not the “end all and be all” of a well developed communications program.   Moreover, blogs are only as good as the content written by their authors.  As Israel and Scoble indicate, traditional marketing tools such as video and print press releases can be limited in credibility and reach. Part of the appeal of blogging is that a two-way conversation can occur, thus providing an opportunity for feedback and adjustment of the message.  As said, this relatively quick “fine tuning” of the message is not something which can result from more traditional methods of communication. Finally, although the use of blogs appears to be growing, the question that one must ponder is:  Who is likely to read blogs?Among my friends, colleagues, and students with whom I interact, I was not able to readily identify anyone who reads blogs on a regular basis. Furthermore, as Dan Gillmor pointed out, credibility is an issue. The true litmus test came when I “googled” a search to identify blog demographics.  I scanned three pages of information, before I arrived at any source I recognized.  Thus, blogs have a long way to go before they reach their true potential.  More people have to experiment with them in order to judge their value. The bottom line seems to be that blogging can improve relationships… relationships between buyers and sellers, executives and employees, executives and corporations, and corporations and investors. The key seems to be that other means of communications may be needed in order to reach all demographic segments. 

Citizen Journalism, Technology Growth, Copyright Infringements, Personal Freedom, Oh My!

 

In Chapters 7-12 of Dan Gillmor’s book, he discusses how technology has provided the ability of individuals using the internet to become citizen journalists, better consumers, and part of a community to ensure the accuracy of what is read. Along with that ability, as Gillmor points out, come questions about the misuse of information on the Net relating to free speech, copyright infringements and the use of technology to impinge on individual rights.

 

In reading the book, I found myself agreeing with several of Gillmor’s premises.  One relates to how users should use good judgment when trusting what is read or seen on the web.  In searching a topic on Google, I have sometimes found it frustrating to truly know the most trusted sources.  As I have studied in marketing classes, the ranking of Google listings can be influenced by purchasing “words,” or increasing the number of “hits” relating to a topic. Being the cynic I am, I believe that I have often by-passed blogs for sources from organizations and media I recognize. In Gillmor’s discussion of how video and other images can be edited on the web, I initially found myself agreeing that new technology has provided a tool to manipulate what we see. That said, technology has always been a tool for those who wish to deceive us.  The fashion industry has been using this type of manipulation for years in how it doctors photos of models for its ads in magazines.  As a result, we now have a generation of young people who have a distorted view of what is an accepted body type.  While for years newsmakers statements have been taken out of context, at least new media has provided a vehicle to reduce that frequency.  For example MSNBC has full videos or transcripts from interviews shown in a reduced format on NBC news.

 

Gillmor discussed the way that technology is being used to usurp individual freedom.  China and Iran are mentioned in the book as well as our own government who uses digital technology as a surveillance tool.   As mentioned in a recent Washington Post article, US citizens’ rights have been compromised under the auspice of security when their computers, BlackBerry’s and other devises have been taken away or searched. 

 

Gillmor truly has strong opinions about copyright laws and the control of big corporations, such as Disney, to limit how works are used by others.  While I agree that the creators of work should determine its use—like Gillmor did in allowing his book to be downloaded to read for free—, there are individuals who create work that needs to be compensated for its use on the internet and other digital media.  The recent Hollywood writers’ strike is an example.  Script writers “struck” to be able to receive proceeds related to television and movie projects shown on-line and through other digital sources. 

 

In conclusion, as Gillmor claims, the internet, cellular telephones, and cameras have provided tools for individuals to participate in worldwide news gathering and reporting and ongoing community conversations.  While these factors are truly positive, there are downsides to how we make and receive information on the internet.  We need to be more mindful of the information we read and its source.  We also need to be cognizant of copyright issues and how they can impact our personal freedoms to use and create information found on the internet.  The bottom line seems to be, the faster technology changes, the more advantages and problems develop to those who use it.

 

      

Technology Enables Participatory News

Citizen Journalism, Technology Growth, Copyright Infringements, Personal Freedom, Oh My! 

In Chapters 7-12 of Dan Gillmor’s book, he discusses how technology has provided the ability of individuals using the internet to become citizen journalists, better consumers, and part of a community to ensure the accuracy of what is read. Along with that ability, as Gillmor points out, come questions about the misuse of information on the Net relating to free speech, copyright infringements and the use of technology to impinge on individual rights.

 

In reading the book, I found myself agreeing with several of Gillmor’s premises.  One relates to how users should use good judgment when trusting what is read or seen on the web.  In searching a topic on Google, I have sometimes found it frustrating to truly know the most trusted sources.  As I have studied in marketing classes, the ranking of Google listings can be influenced by purchasing “words,” or increasing the number of “hits” relating to a topic. Being the cynic I am, I believe that I have often by-passed blogs for sources from organizations and media I recognize. In Gillmor’s discussion of how video and other images can be edited on the web, I initially found myself agreeing that new technology has provided a tool to manipulate what we see. That said, technology has always been a tool for those who wish to deceive us.  The fashion industry has been using this type of manipulation for years in how it doctors photos of models for its ads in magazines.  As a result, we now have a generation of young people who have a distorted view of what is an accepted body type.  While for years newsmakers statements have been taken out of context, at least new media has provided a vehicle to reduce that frequency.  For example MSNBC has full videos or transcripts from interviews shown in a reduced format on NBC news.

 

Gillmor discussed the way that technology is being used to usurp individual freedom.  China and Iran are mentioned in the book as well as our own government who uses digital technology as a surveillance tool.   As mentioned in a recent Washington Post article, US citizens’ rights have been compromised under the auspice of security when their computers, BlackBerry’s and other devises have been taken away or searched. 

 

Gillmor truly has strong opinions about copyright laws and the control of big corporations, such as Disney, to limit how works are used by others.  While I agree that the creators of work should determine its use—like Gillmor did in allowing his book to be downloaded to read for free—, there are individuals who create work that needs to be compensated for its use on the internet and other digital media.  The recent Hollywood writers’ strike is an example.  Script writers “struck” to be able to receive proceeds related to television and movie projects shown on-line and through other digital sources. 

 

In conclusion, as Gillmor claims, the internet, cellular telephones, and cameras have provided tools for individuals to participate in worldwide news gathering and reporting and ongoing community conversations.  While these factors are truly positive, there are downsides to how we make and receive information on the internet.  We need to be more mindful of the information we read and its source.  We also need to be cognizant of copyright issues and how they can impact our personal freedoms to use and create information found on the internet.  The bottom line seems to be, the faster technology changes, the more advantages and problems develop to those who use it.

 

      

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!