snarkmarket-com-axj6mr.txt (40440B)
1 The murmur of the snarkmatrix… 2 3 Jennifer § [1]Two songs from The Muppet Movie / 2021-02-12 15:53:34 4 A few notes on daily blogging § [2]Stock and flow / 2017-11-20 19:52:47 5 El Stock y Flujo de nuestro negocio. – redmasiva § [3]Stock and flow / 6 2017-03-27 17:35:13 7 Meet the Attendees – edcampoc § [4]The generative web event / 2017-02-27 8 10:18:17 9 Does Your Digital Business Support a Lifestyle You Love? § [5]Stock and flow / 10 2017-02-09 18:15:22 11 Daniel § [6]Stock and flow / 2017-02-06 23:47:51 12 Kanye West, media cyborg – MacDara Conroy § [7]Kanye West, media cyborg / 13 2017-01-18 10:53:08 14 Inventing a game – MacDara Conroy § [8]Inventing a game / 2017-01-18 10:52:33 15 Losing my religion | Mathew Lowry § [9]Stock and flow / 2016-07-11 08:26:59 16 Facebook is wrong, text is deathless – Sitegreek !nfotech § [10]Towards A 17 Theory of Secondary Literacy / 2016-06-20 16:42:52 18 [11]Snarkmarket 19 / [12]whatmarket? 20 21 [13]Stock and flow 22 / [14]Robin 23 24 I was an economics major in college, and I’ve been grateful ever since for a 25 few key concepts those courses drilled into me: things like opportunity cost, 26 sunk cost, and marginal cost. I think about this stuff all the time in my 27 everyday life. I think about the sunk cost of waiting for a slow elevator; I 28 think about the marginal cost of making myself another sandwich. 29 30 I think most of all about the concept of stock and flow. 31 32 Do you know about this? It couldn’t be simpler. There are two kinds of 33 quantities in the world. Stock is a static value: money in the bank or trees in 34 the forest. Flow is a rate of change: fifteen dollars an hour or three thousand 35 toothpicks a day. Easy. Too easy. 36 37 But I actually think stock and flow is a useful metaphor for media in the 21st 38 century. Here’s what I mean: 39 40 • Flow is the feed. It’s the posts and the tweets. It’s the stream of daily 41 and sub-daily updates that reminds people you exist. 42 • Stock is the durable stuff. It’s the content you produce that’s as 43 interesting in two months (or two years) as it is today. It’s what people 44 discover via search. It’s what spreads slowly but surely, building fans 45 over time. 46 47 Flow is ascendant these days, for obvious reasons—but I think we neglect stock 48 at our peril. I mean that both in terms of the health of an audience and, like, 49 the health of a soul. Flow is a treadmill, and you can’t spend all of your time 50 running on the treadmill. Well, you can. But then one day you’ll get off and 51 look around and go: oh man. I’ve got nothing here. 52 53 I’m not saying you should ignore flow! This is no time to hole up and work in 54 isolation, emerging after years with your work in hand. Everybody will go: huh? 55 Who are you? And even if they don’t—even if your exquisite opus is the talk of 56 the tumblrs for two whole days—if you don’t have flow to plug your new fans 57 into, you’re suffering a huge (get ready for it!) opportunity cost. You’ll have 58 to find those fans all over again next time you emerge from your cave. 59 60 Here’s a case study. My pal Alexis Madrigal has got the stock/flow balance 61 down. On one end of the spectrum, he’s [15]a Twitter natural and [16]a 62 fast-paced writer. Madrigal’s got mad flow; you plug in, and you get a steady 63 stream of interesting stuff. But on the other end of the spectrum—and man, this 64 is just so important—he’s written a deep, nuanced [17]history of green tech in 65 America. This is a book intended to stand the test of time. 66 67 You can tell that I want you to stop and think about stock here. I feel like we 68 all got really good at flow, really fast. But flow is ephemeral, while stock 69 sticks around. Stock is capital. Stock is protein. 70 71 And the real magic trick is to put them both together. To keep the ball 72 bouncing with your flow—to maintain that open channel of communication—while 73 you work on some kick-ass stock in the background. Sacrifice neither. The 74 hybrid strategy. 75 76 So, I was thinking about stock and flow just now while I was standing in my 77 kitchen doing the dishes, and I thought, wait, there are all these 78 super-successful artists and media people today who don’t think about flow at 79 all. Like, Wes Anderson? Come on. He’s all stock. And he seems to be 80 doing okay. 81 82 But I think the secret is that somebody else does his flow for him. I mean, 83 what are PR and advertising but flow, bought and paid for? Rewind history and 84 put Wes Anderson on his own—proprietor of an extremely symmetrical YouTube 85 channel—and I don’t think you get the same result, not if it’s one video every 86 three years. 87 88 So, if you’re in the position to have somebody else handle your flow while you 89 tend to your stock: great. But that’s true for almost no one, and will I think 90 be true for even fewer over time, so you need to have your own plan for 91 this stuff. 92 93 Anyway, this is not a huge insight, I know. Mostly I just wanted to share the 94 terminology, because it’s been echoing in my head since my first microeconomics 95 course. Today, whenever I put my hands on the keyboard, I’m asking myself: Is 96 this stock? Is this flow? How’s my mix? Do I have enough of both? 97 98 [18]January 18, 2010 / [19]Greatest hits 99 100 [20]73 comments 101 102 [21]Joshua Dance [22]says… 103 104 Great ideas. I feel like most of the “Social Media Guru” people are all flow 105 and no stock. They don’t every produce anything that stands the test of time. 106 And for that matter a lot of bloggers are just flow as well. 33 Ways to Make 107 Money posts get outdated pretty quick. I feel that I also have neglected stock 108 with my own stuff and have trying to get back to more stock producing. Thanks 109 for the great ideas. 110 111 / [23]Reply 112 [24]Saheli [25]says… 113 114 This is a good mental model, with a nice Anglo-Saxon poetic ring to it, for 115 balancing one’s daily management. Nice. 116 117 / [26]Reply 118 [27]Robin Sloan [28]says… 119 120 I’m glad you picked up on the linguistics of it. It’s just nice to say: stock 121 and flow. 122 123 [29]PoN [30]says… 124 125 I prefer hustle and flow. 126 127 [31]http://www.pp2g.tv/vZ3pwZnM_.aspx 128 129 / [32]Reply 130 [33]typofi [34]says… 131 132 Thanks for the lingo! 133 134 I’ve been thinking lately how the flow (I just didn’t have a good word for it 135 before) can be seen as noise (from communication theories) in situations where 136 you are trying to get to the stock. 137 138 I mean moments where you know that the information you seek is out there, but 139 you can’t find what you want because all you get is, as said by Joshua, “33 140 ways of doing x” and tag clouds bursting with #ashtonkutchner, #lol, and # 141 retweetthis. Even if you’re not looking for something in particular, the 142 problem often arises when you are trying to find deeper articles in general. 143 144 I’m not against the social media, far from it. I’m just acknowledging that we 145 need better search algorithms and other tools to balance or even battle the 146 pure attention-seeking flow conventions. (e.g. celebrity gossip, or people 147 blogging top lists and how-to articles just because they know those will 148 attract traffic) 149 150 / [35]Reply 151 [36]Carlos [37]says… 152 153 Awesome. I think people should think more about the legacy they will leave to 154 the future generations. Could be a small business or some nice paintings, 155 everyone wants to be remembered, and that’s the stock you are talking about 156 here. The flow is the thing that comes in the meantime you are building your 157 stock. 158 159 / [38]Reply 160 [39]milann [40]says… 161 162 ahahah 163 you took the words out of my mouth. 164 thank you for giving the phantoms in my head some form, 165 me and my business associates have been going about this for months now and it 166 still felt like we were trying to give words to some silent moments in a Godard 167 film or something. 168 169 / [41]Reply 170 [42]J. Smith [43]says… 171 172 great stuff. couldn’t agree more. file this under “read or die.” 173 174 / [44]Reply 175 [45]Frank Chimero [46]says… 176 177 This is fantastic, Robin. Really. 178 I get a lot of questions from creatives just beginning (or about to begin) in 179 their respective fields about how to get started promoting themselves. 180 181 I had been using a similar idea, but a poor analogy: you breadcrumb your 182 audience along like Hansel and Gretel did, leading your fans along a trail of 183 small bits of information and tiny delicious morsels of output. It’s important 184 that these tasty morsels have a clear point of view and a consistent flavor. 185 Then, every once in a while, deliver a house of candy. But don’t eat your 186 audience. That’d be bad. 187 188 In retrospect, stock and flow is a way better way to say this. 189 190 / [47]Reply 191 [48]Robin Sloan [49]says… 192 193 Ha hahahahahaha. I love this. It’s the sinister version of stock. Now I want to 194 come up w/ more analogies. Like, 195 196 flow : stock :: stormtroopers : DEATH STAR 197 198 [50]Basti Hirsch ッ [51]says… 199 200 “Social Media Guru” people are all flow and no stock. It really is fun to say, 201 but I also still love the “all hat and no cattle” idiom. 202 203 Perhaps we need search engines that give us the explicit choice of asking 204 “What’s in stock”? I mean we already do that a bit when deciding to search 205 amazon, delicious, twitter, or Google scholar. Only show me results that have 206 stood the test of time. Words that last. 207 208 / [52]Reply 209 [53]Robin Sloan [54]says… 210 211 That’s interesting! Some sense of measuring what’s held up… if nothing else, a 212 graph in Google Analytics that shows which content has had a durable audience. 213 Durability is a key word. 214 215 [55]IQpierce [56]says… 216 217 I think that Google already works this way… which might be why it’s so 218 successful. 219 220 In college a professor told me that fundamentally, Google’s algorithm works 221 around the concept of “hubs” and “content.” This is actually a very old idea: 222 because socially, people themselves have always been about “hubs” and 223 “content.” If you’re the socially-awkward brilliant programmer, you’re the 224 content: you can make stuff. If you’re the incredibly outgoing HR lady who 225 seems to know every other person in her industry, you’re a hub. 226 227 Google’s job is to help people get to content; but they do it by using hubs. 228 Kottke.org, twitter posts, blogs – these are hubs/flow that people use to point 229 their friends towards the content/stock – pages of useful information. Google 230 rates a hub higher when it links to high-quality content; and they link content 231 higher when it’s linked-to by a highly-rated hub (in a nice chicken-and-egg 232 paradox). 233 234 JTS [57]says… 235 236 To be honest, there’s a lot of runners who train on treadmills all the time (or 237 a lot of the time), and it can be a fairly effective way of building up miles. 238 So that metaphor is a little confusing. 239 240 Other than that, I think this is a fairly effective way of explaining the 241 relationship that many creatives should have/need to have to the web. I work in 242 publishing, and many of the editors/writers that I interact with on a regular 243 basis are great stock people — it’s what they’ve been doing for decades. They 244 are just not very good at flow. On the other hand, I look at what a lot of 245 other media companies/bloggers/creatives/etc are doing and it looks like a 246 whole lot of flow which feels like a whole lot of spinning of the proverbial 247 wheels. The ideal mix is something like Frank’s relationship as described 248 above. 249 250 / [58]Reply 251 [59]Robin Sloan [60]says… 252 253 Good point re: treadmills. If I wanted to torture the analogy I could say: 254 “Aha, precisely! Sometimes flow helps you cross-train on your way to making 255 great stock!”—but mostly, I think I just used too many (different/conflicting) 256 analogies 🙂 257 258 [61]Alexis Madrigal [62]says… 259 260 Thanks for the shout out! We need to convene another meeting of the mutual 261 admiration society soon… 262 263 Now that you mention it, here’s how I think about stock and flow. Flow is how I 264 see the world. Stock is what happens when I apply my worldview to something 265 that matters for long enough that I fundamentally transform how I see the 266 world. Recording that process is what creates the thing of lasting value. (I 267 hope.) 268 269 And now, here’s a thought that is related but sort of tangentially. I’ve become 270 obsessed with Tumblr as a medium for historical investigation recently. It’s 271 just so good at defamiliarization in that Bakhtin sense… One minute you’re 272 looking at pony made out of vegan donuts, the next you’re staring at a 273 little-known stunt from 1955. People who would not read David McCullough in a 274 million years suddenly find history fascinating. The strangeness and pastness 275 of the past come to dominate the backcasted ideas that we have about what those 276 times were like. 277 278 But… Tumblr records only the flow of our histories without ever taking stock of 279 why and how we ended up where we are. There is no record of decisions made or 280 the world’s forces brought to bear. Tumblr’s version of history has no 281 explanatory power. It does not synthesize what the images from the past with 282 where we are in the present or with the other things we know of the past. So, 283 to me, the meaning that the flow of photos has is fundamentally limited, even 284 if it’s beautiful and fascinating. 285 286 / [63]Reply 287 [64]Saheli [65]says… 288 289 290 Flow is how I see the world. Stock is what hap pens when I apply my world 291 view to some thing that mat ters for long enough that I fun da mentally 292 trans form how I see the world. Record ing that process is what cre ates 293 the thing of last ing value. 294 295 D’accord!, she cried, in the most emphatic voice. You describe what I want out 296 of good writing. This is what makes it so magically, and it hits all the points 297 of why I value such stock to begin with. 298 299 Though what the hell, Snarkmarket? What is up with the kerning in “trans form” 300 “fun da mentally” “Record ing” “cre ates” and “last ing” when I just copy and 301 paste? Are you secretly trying to trick me into thinking like some sort of 302 crazed poet? That is a weird way to generate stock. 303 304 [66]Robin Sloan [67]says… 305 306 (They are wee microspaces that allow the words to break gracefully across the 307 page. They only become evident when ungainly humans rip these words from their 308 perfect habitat.) 309 310 [68]Basti Hirsch ッ [69]says… 311 312 “Tumblr’s version of history has no explanatory power.” 313 314 This is a great sentence, and of course also applies to twitter or your daily 315 news segment. 316 317 Ryan McAdam [70]says… 318 319 I understand and agree with stock & flow as it pertains to social media, et al. 320 However, I think you may want to take another look at the premise you use to 321 describe stock. In practice, money is made from thin air in ever increasing 322 amounts. Trees are a natural resource and as such are finite – whether based 323 upon available land, growth cycles, or environmental influences. I’m suspect 324 your friend who is writing about green technology would agree. 325 326 / [71]Reply 327 [72]TRMW [73]says… 328 329 Thanks for this. Well said. 330 331 / [74]Reply 332 [75]Nathan Bowers [76]says… 333 334 Speaking of flow, where’s your Twitter feed Robin? Looked around, can’t find 335 it. 336 337 That’s another strength of things like Tumblr and Twitter, it just takes one 338 click to form a lightweight “I want to know more about you” relationship. 339 “Flow” is stickier than “Stock”. 340 341 / [77]Reply 342 [78]Robin Sloan [79]says… 343 344 I’m [80]@robinsloan! And somewhat discouraged it was hard to find. Hmm. 345 346 You’re totally right about the interplay; when everything’s working together, 347 stock leads to flow leads to stock. 348 349 [81]Tim Maly [82]says… 350 351 I think you’re right on about how we tend to feel like we got good at flow 352 really fast. I’ve also been coming around to thinking that this might often be 353 an illusion. It’s really, really easy to reblog, retweet, reshare without 354 thinking and to clog the flow with stuff that other people have seen or that 355 aren’t on topic (for whatever value of “on topic” you feel like your feed 356 should have). 357 358 This is one of the things that recommends the ‘official’ retweet feature. If 359 dozens of your friends retweet the same thing, you don’t have to see it dozens 360 of times. Think about the nature of the problem that this is solving. 361 362 My watchphrase for the latter quarter of 2009 and all of 2010 is “Less often, 363 higher quality”. I hope that as many of my Quiet Babylon posts as I can manage 364 will be of stock caliber and I’d like to put out at least one project that’s 365 even better. But I think that this needs to apply to the flow work as well. The 366 best feeds are the ones where I am delighted every time there is an update. I 367 aspire to be one of those. 368 369 One of the best things that I ever did for my feelings about my work was to 370 more carefully distinguish between my stock and my flow and to distinguish 371 between even types of flow (I didn’t know that was what they were called at the 372 time). Do I link up my Tumblr with my Twitter with my gReader share with 373 Facebook with my blog? I find that the more I answer “no” to this question, the 374 happier I feel with the output of my work in any given arena, and the more that 375 people who might be interested in what I’m up to can pick and choose how much 376 of the firehose they have to consume. 377 378 This has been an episode of “Tim responds to a comment and ends up 379 pontificating at length about his plans for the year” starring Tim as Tim. 380 381 / [83]Reply 382 [84]Robin Sloan [85]says… 383 384 My current stock/flow hero (besides A. Madrigal) is [86]Jonathan Harris. Just 385 one photo every day. And each one is great. 386 387 And importantly, as he wanders around & shares this flow of photos, he’s 388 working on generative art projects that end up being totally genre-defining and 389 museum-worthy. Serious stock. 390 391 [87]Alexis Madrigal [88]says… 392 393 And it was you, in fact, who convinced me to unlink my Twitter and Tumblr, 394 which was a fantastic idea. It freed me up to think about my Tumblr as its own 395 thing, not an adjunct to my Twitter flow. 396 397 [89]Adam Rice [90]says… 398 399 This sounds like the stuff that Ben Hammersley has been writing about lately. 400 401 / [91]Reply 402 Sarah [92]says… 403 404 I was thinking about the same thing yesterday, though not in economic terms, 405 since I was the opposite of an economics major in college. I was feeling a bit 406 worried about the constancy with which we’re all now butting up against the 407 real-time state of our immediate (if virtual) surroundings, and wondering what 408 impact this has on our ability to be truly reflective and to produce writing 409 that represents moments spent *out* of contact with that perpetual flow. We not 410 only need the time to have the realizations that come with distance and 411 reflection, we also need time to examine and articulate them in terms that go 412 beyond the staccato of twitter and tumblr. I don’t generally fall in the camp 413 of people who express an urgent, woeful need to “unplug,” since I don’t like 414 thinking that the majority of my time (during which I’m “plugged in”) is 415 somehow doing me a terrible long-term disservice. However I do think we do 416 ourselves a disservice when we forget to alter our levels of immersion in the 417 real-time networked conversations. It doesn’t have to happen in a cabin in the 418 woods but it’d be awfully sad if it stopped happening altogether. 419 420 / [93]Reply 421 [94]TheChad [95]says… 422 423 Great post. Your words are invaluable. Finding the right balance between stock 424 and flow is key to being a success and relevant. 425 426 / [96]Reply 427 [97]JtFaber [98]says… 428 429 Great, pressure is off. I can delegate my tweets to the intern and work on 430 building my… umm… thing, that I do… 431 432 / [99]Reply 433 [100]Jason Robinson [101]says… 434 435 Really nice post. Extremely relevant when it comes to individuals and small 436 orgs. Although time-consuming (is it in fact cost-beneficial?), balancing stock 437 and flow is clearly a necessary evil in today’s business world. 438 439 What’s also interesting is looking at organizations who facilitate and/or 440 manage stock and flow. The first successful dotcoms created businesses out of 441 “stock” – think Amazon. Twitter and Facebook made huge businesses out of 442 “flow”. Now that I think about it, didn’t Google do this twice – once with 443 indexing a growing number of webpages, the second with YouTube? 444 445 As we look forward, I wonder how many new businesses will make stock out of 446 flow – magazines from blog posts, Google/Bing indexing Twitter feeds. I know 447 this was just a metaphor but I wonder what’s next? The answer could make 448 someone rich. 449 450 / [102]Reply 451 [103]Dan Conover [104]says… 452 453 I have nothing eloquent to add. I am your geek fanboy. That’s all. 454 455 / [105]Reply 456 [106]Betty Ann [107]says… 457 458 I would add that in the world of flow and stock a hook (tweetable, quotable, 459 crisp headline, or ? ) embedded in each stock entry gets it into flow. 460 461 / [108]Reply 462 [109]Robin Sloan [110]says… 463 464 Yes, totally! Designing for flow. Building bridges between stock and flow. 465 466 [111]Tim Maly [112]says… 467 468 I’ve often thought that I’d like Matthew Battles of HILOBROW to write the 469 tweets promoting all my posts. When he does see one worth passing on, his 470 summaries are generally better than mine. 471 472 [113]Saheli [114]says… 473 474 BettyAnn, are you an editor? Because that succinctly summarizes the secret of 475 producing a great magazine that’s also a popular magazine. 476 477 [115]JMO [116]says… 478 479 Thanks for this Robin. It really gets me thinking about what I make and intake. 480 481 I often find myself in the space smack in the middle: I create Flock. I write 482 things. I don’t have the time or discipline to focus and make things that are 483 very durable. Nor do I have the time or discipline to just publish and make a 484 constant Flow. I feel stuck with something that is not good on any front. I 485 write about 1,000 words once a week and nothing seems to stick after hitting 486 publish. 487 488 On top of my day job, I do quite a bit of consuming other people’s Flow and 489 Stock. I value learning and I truly enjoy by daily sit-down with Google Reader. 490 How do you create the balance necessary to have light but constant Flow and 491 solid Stock while still keeping up with everything? 492 493 / [117]Reply 494 [118]Elizabeth Madrigal [119]says… 495 496 Great piece and I agree, Alexis has got it all. 497 His mom. 498 499 / [120]Reply 500 [121]Kate [122]says… 501 502 Absolutely brilliant Robin. Thank you, genius person. 503 504 / [123]Reply 505 [124]Jay [125]says… 506 507 When launching my web design shop’s blog, we divided it along these exact 508 lines. Literally, divided it in half; short, ephemeral posts—i.e. flow—on [126] 509 one side, considered, polished, long-form posts—i.e. stock—on the [127]other 510 side. 511 512 / [128]Reply 513 [129]Matthew Battles [130]says… 514 515 Coming late to this, feasting on the flow of commentary and its glimmers of 516 great stock beyond. (And thanks for the h/t, Tim—I love tweeting your posts. 517 But my Twitter stream may be even harder to find than Robin’s ;-]) 518 519 But I wonder about the analogy a little bit. Because the stock we’re talking 520 about here isn’t exactly like the economist’s stock, is it? I mean, in 521 economics, flow can deplete stock (or add to it, if you’re really lucky). But 522 it seems like our stock kind of feeds on flow—out- as well as in-. Without flow 523 it dies, or fails to thrive, goes dark. If you’ve got your flow on, your stock 524 only grows. And flow’s not a matter of simple exchange, but current, of 525 circuitry. Currency! Flow’s about moving it on down the line. 526 527 You probably know where I’m going with this: “Increase comes to a gift when it 528 moves from second to third party,” writes Lewis Hyde, “not in the simpler 529 passage from first to second. The increase begins when the gift has passed 530 through someone…. Capital earns profit… but gifts that remain gifts do not earn 531 profit, they give increase.” 532 533 It’s like particle and wave, maybe. Increase follows the gift—wavelike, it 534 rides the flow, lighting up everyone’s stock as it goes. 535 536 / [131]Reply 537 [132]jrome [133]says… 538 539 Stow is flow that’s been stocked. 540 541 / [134]Reply 542 Kirstin Butler [135]says… 543 544 Hi Robin, 545 546 In just one blog post you defined the heuristic (yup, I wrote that) I’ve been 547 trying to figure out for the last few months. This is proving to be such a 548 difficult balance for me to strike creatively–mostly because the respective 549 returns on stock and flow–dog years vs. immediate–are so different. I find the 550 connection, and dialogue, and real-time feedback around flow to be really 551 addictive. 552 553 I wonder whether there’s a lifelog application that could capture which state 554 you’re in at various points, so that you could review a receipt at the end of 555 the day and then make adjustments. 556 557 Thanks so much for this- 558 Kirstin 559 560 p.s. I thought the blog [136]http://weloveyouso.com/ was a great flow 561 compliment to the stock that is Where the Wild Things Are. 562 563 / [137]Reply 564 [138]Debbie [139]says… 565 566 Very powerful concepts. You blended economics, about which I know little, with 567 writing, which I’ve been practicing for 36+ years. By doing so, not only did 568 you make economic concepts understandable to me, but palpable. Thank you. 569 570 / [140]Reply 571 [141]tara - scoutie girl [142]says… 572 573 Spot on. I just adapted the editorial style of my blog to improve my “stock.” 574 Instead of just constantly using a flow of cool stuff to attract page views, 575 I’m concentrating more on stories and people. I think these types of posts 576 automatically have a longer tail. 577 578 I’m also packaging each weeks posts as “issues” so that even the smaller pieces 579 fit into a type of stock. 580 581 Thank you so much for giving me language to explore this idea further! 582 583 / [143]Reply 584 [144]jane stevens [145]says… 585 586 This is a great way to look at categorizing info, Robin. I think that the best 587 stock is presented in context, in a format where the visual structure adds to 588 the context in the stock. e.g. [146]http://vis.stanford.edu/protovis/ex/ 589 jobs.html and many of the other examples on protovis. 590 There’s one more aspect to this that we’ve been working on at LJWorld.com — how 591 to develop a structure for flow & stock so that a local community can use both 592 in an integrated manner to take action to solve local problems. 593 We’re launching a local health site called HealthCommons next month in which 594 we’re integrating social media with journalism in a way that I hope will give 595 the local community the tools to improve community health. 596 597 / [147]Reply 598 [148]Jen Bekman [149]says… 599 600 Perfect. 601 I think I love you. For your mind, of course. 602 603 / [150]Reply 604 [151]ToastyKen [152]says… 605 606 I was just thinking that even more fundamental than your stock:flow ratio is 607 your creation:consumption ratio. I spend so much time consuming information and 608 art these days, but not enough time giving back. 609 610 / [153]Reply 611 [154]Aaron Marshall [155]says… 612 613 If you had a donate button on this post, I would give 20 bucks right now. 614 615 I only heard a verbal summary of it from my friend David ([156]http:// 616 designintellection.com) and I was already using “stock and flow” in client 617 meetings. 618 619 BIG thank you. 620 621 / [157]Reply 622 [158]Alek Tarkowski [159]says… 623 624 hi Robin, I really like the concept of a stock/flow balance. I have two 625 comments on that: 1) it applies not only to production, but also to consumption 626 of content: you need both an intake of flow, and some serious stock; 2) flow 627 can sometimes become stock. have you ever found a new blog and read it from 628 “now” until its beginning, treating it like a one big book? with a good blog, 629 the experience is one of dealing with some serious stock content. Having said 630 that, there’s a limit, I think, to how granular flow can be and still be able 631 to transform into stock – a years worth of twitter stream won’t become stock no 632 matter what (unless you’re a haiku poet). Thanks for this inspiration! 633 634 / [160]Reply 635 [161]Liz Dorland [162]says… 636 637 Hate to be a nitpicker, but… 638 While I agree that the relationship between the two things is as you describe, 639 one of the words (actually the concept behind the word) doesn’t work. 640 641 The output on twitter and facebook to me much more like a “stream”. The 642 definition that began the piece: “Flow is a rate of change” doesn’t fit. A 643 twitter stream as a whole has no denominator, if you will. 644 645 Using the stream analogy, twitter output is like the water in the stream. There 646 is a quantity of water that passes by, and the total quantity depends on the 647 rate of flow. But the “rate” is not the stream! The scientist in me made me 648 write this post I think. And the late hour. 😉 649 650 Try an electrical analogy. Is the twitter and facebook “stream” measured in 651 amperes, or in coulombs? Ask your favorite physicist. I’m not sure, but I think 652 I vote for coulombs. 653 654 / [163]Reply 655 [164]Christie Nicholson [165]says… 656 657 Hi Robin, Thought you might be interested in this Globe&Mail article, 658 “Information Rich and Attention Poor” published last fall, that also describes 659 the metaphor of stock and flow. 660 661 [166]http://bit.ly/3oJXjn 662 663 Here’s the relevant p’graph: 664 Knowledge is evolving from a “stock” to a “flow.” Stock and flow – for example, 665 wealth and income – are concepts familiar to accountants and economists. A 666 stock of knowledge may be thought of as a quasi-permanent repository – such as 667 a book or an entire library – whereas the flow is the process of developing the 668 knowledge. The old Encyclopedia Britannica was quintessentially a stock; 669 Wikipedia is the paradigmatic example of flow. Obviously, a stock of knowledge 670 is rarely permanent; it depreciates like any other form of capital. But 671 electronic information technology is profoundly changing the rate of 672 depreciation. By analogy with the 24-hour news cycle (which was an early 673 consequence of the growing abundance of video bandwidth as cable television 674 replaced scarce over-the-air frequencies), there is now the equivalent of a 675 24-hour knowledge cycle – “late-breaking knowledge,” as it were. Knowledge is 676 becoming more like a river than a lake, more and more dominated by the flow 677 than by the stock. What is driving this? 678 679 Then Nicholson goes on to describe the possible (and awesome) drivers behind 680 WHY knowledge has evolved from stock to flow. You say it’s for obvious reasons, 681 but I think the reasons are still quite fascinating and worthwhile. 682 683 (It is an excerpt from a much longer speech he gave at the Fiesole Retreat in 684 Glasgow, Scotland, July ‘09.) 685 686 Interesting stuff! 687 lemme know your thoughts, 688 – christie 689 690 / [167]Reply 691 Jay [168]says… 692 693 nice post!! i would like to add that it takes time and patience to develop the 694 ‘stock’ whereas to develop the ‘flow’ you can start anytime. So one should 695 start working on ‘stock’ asap. 696 I am no economist,so am not sure you’ll agree, but this is what my conclusion 697 is. 698 699 / [169]Reply 700 [170]Susan Friedmann [171]says… 701 702 Just learned about flow and stock from Dennis Callahan at PodCamp 5. After 703 doing a search I found this post which I absolutely love. It makes so much 704 sense and certainly helps put much of the social media revolution into 705 perspective for me. Thanks! 706 707 / [172]Reply 708 [173]Arsene Hodali [174]says… 709 710 Hey, just wanted to comment about how much this post inspired me to reflect on 711 my own inner conflicts with media and life. 712 713 I actually wrote about it on my blog in details (1700+ words) and I added my 714 own views to it. Check it out below, see whether or not I’m onto something or 715 just full of crap. And btw, yes this does sound like a shameless self-promotion 716 but… 717 718 –> Stock & Flow: The Hard Part’s The Switch [175]http://ow.ly/34d8q 719 720 / [176]Reply 721 Jessica [177]says… 722 723 I love this so much. You should know that this idea is still making the 724 conference circuit. I heard about it at the recent Confab content strategy 725 conference. A really helpful analogy – thanks for writing it up so 726 thoughtfully! 727 728 / [178]Reply 729 Daniel [179]says… 730 731 Briliant, thanks. I like the cornerstone content concept that Copyblogger put 732 together. So it’s the stock, and then the flow is essential. Value content over 733 time. 734 735 / [180]Reply 736 737 References: 738 739 [1] https://snarkmarket.com/2021/8283#comment-593203 740 [2] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-577756 741 [3] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-571194 742 [4] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/5979#comment-570664 743 [5] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-569688 744 [6] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-569555 745 [7] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/6262#comment-568744 746 [8] https://snarkmarket.com/2011/6811#comment-568743 747 [9] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-552719 748 [10] https://snarkmarket.com/2009/3115#comment-551896 749 [11] https://snarkmarket.com/ 750 [12] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890/#what 751 [13] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890 752 [14] https://snarkmarket.com/author/robin 753 [15] http://twitter.com/alexismadrigal 754 [16] https://www.theatlantic.com/author/alexis-madrigal/ 755 [17] http://www.greentechhistory.com/ 756 [18] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890 757 [19] https://snarkmarket.com/category/greatest-hits 758 [20] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890/#comments 759 [21] http://www.joshuadance.com/ 760 [22] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7243 761 [23] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7243#respond 762 [24] http://www.sahelidatta.com/ 763 [25] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7244 764 [26] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7244#respond 765 [27] http://robinsloan.com/ 766 [28] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7245 767 [29] http://pointsofnote.com/ 768 [30] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7246 769 [31] http://www.pp2g.tv/vZ3pwZnM_.aspx 770 [32] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7246#respond 771 [33] http://www.parafovea.com/ 772 [34] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7247 773 [35] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7247#respond 774 [36] http://desparchando.com/ 775 [37] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7248 776 [38] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7248#respond 777 [39] http://stompingintheyard.blogspot.com,milann.blogspot.com/ 778 [40] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7249 779 [41] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7249#respond 780 [42] http://twitter.com/jdotsmith 781 [43] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7250 782 [44] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7250#respond 783 [45] http://www.frankchimero.com/ 784 [46] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7251 785 [47] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7251#respond 786 [48] http://robinsloan.com/ 787 [49] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7252 788 [50] http://twitter.com/cervus 789 [51] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7253 790 [52] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7253#respond 791 [53] http://robinsloan.com/ 792 [54] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7262 793 [55] http://deepplaid.com/ 794 [56] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7270 795 [57] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7254 796 [58] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7254#respond 797 [59] http://robinsloan.com/ 798 [60] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7263 799 [61] http://www.greentechhistory.com/ 800 [62] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7255 801 [63] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7255#respond 802 [64] http://www.sahelidatta.com/ 803 [65] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7276 804 [66] http://robinsloan.com/ 805 [67] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7277 806 [68] http://twitter.com/cervus 807 [69] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7283 808 [70] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7256 809 [71] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7256#respond 810 [72] http://trmw.org/ 811 [73] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7257 812 [74] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7257#respond 813 [75] http://uxhero.com/ 814 [76] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7258 815 [77] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7258#respond 816 [78] http://robinsloan.com/ 817 [79] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7261 818 [80] http://twitter.com/robinsloan 819 [81] http://quietbabylon.com/ 820 [82] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7260 821 [83] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7260#respond 822 [84] http://robinsloan.com/ 823 [85] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7264 824 [86] http://www.number27.org/today.php 825 [87] http://www.greentechhistory.com/ 826 [88] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7265 827 [89] http://8stars.org/ 828 [90] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7266 829 [91] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7266#respond 830 [92] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7267 831 [93] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7267#respond 832 [94] http://thechadblog.com/ 833 [95] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7268 834 [96] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7268#respond 835 [97] http://twitter.com/JtFaber 836 [98] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7269 837 [99] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7269#respond 838 [100] http://www.planetyou.net/ 839 [101] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7271 840 [102] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7271#respond 841 [103] http://danconover.com/ 842 [104] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7272 843 [105] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7272#respond 844 [106] http://bettyann.tumblr.com/ 845 [107] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7273 846 [108] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7273#respond 847 [109] http://robinsloan.com/ 848 [110] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7275 849 [111] http://quietbabylon.com/ 850 [112] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7278 851 [113] http://www.sahelidatta.com/ 852 [114] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7280 853 [115] http://jmoswalt.com/ 854 [116] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7274 855 [117] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7274#respond 856 [118] http://greenlandlady.com/ 857 [119] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7279 858 [120] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7279#respond 859 [121] http://mccaffery.ca/kate2.0/ 860 [122] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7281 861 [123] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7281#respond 862 [124] http://www.fullstopinteractive.com/ 863 [125] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7282 864 [126] http://www.fullstopinteractive.com/blog/#/full-exposure 865 [127] http://www.fullstopinteractive.com/blog/#/full-disclosure 866 [128] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7282#respond 867 [129] http://hilobrow.com/ 868 [130] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7284 869 [131] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7284#respond 870 [132] http://lessonsinordinary.blogspot.com/ 871 [133] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7285 872 [134] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7285#respond 873 [135] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7286 874 [136] http://weloveyouso.com/ 875 [137] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7286#respond 876 [138] http://breathingcolorintoteal.com/ 877 [139] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7287 878 [140] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7287#respond 879 [141] http://www.scoutiegirl.com/ 880 [142] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7288 881 [143] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7288#respond 882 [144] http://www.rejurno.com/ 883 [145] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7289 884 [146] http://vis.stanford.edu/protovis/ex/jobs.html 885 [147] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7289#respond 886 [148] http://www.personism.com/ 887 [149] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7290 888 [150] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7290#respond 889 [151] http://subjunctive.net/ 890 [152] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7291 891 [153] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7291#respond 892 [154] http://aaronmarshall.co.za/ 893 [155] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7292 894 [156] http://designintellection.com/ 895 [157] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7292#respond 896 [158] http://creativecommons.pl/ 897 [159] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7293 898 [160] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7293#respond 899 [161] http://visualization.ning.com/ 900 [162] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7295 901 [163] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7295#respond 902 [164] http://www.christienicholson.com/ 903 [165] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7297 904 [166] http://bit.ly/3oJXjn 905 [167] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7297#respond 906 [168] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7299 907 [169] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7299#respond 908 [170] http://www.richesinniches.com/ 909 [171] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7300 910 [172] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7300#respond 911 [173] http://www.danceproof.com/ 912 [174] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7301 913 [175] http://ow.ly/34d8q 914 [176] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7301#respond 915 [177] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7308 916 [178] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7308#respond 917 [179] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-569555 918 [180] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=569555#respond