919 lines
40 KiB
Plaintext
919 lines
40 KiB
Plaintext
The murmur of the snarkmatrix…
|
||
|
||
Jennifer § [1]Two songs from The Muppet Movie / 2021-02-12 15:53:34
|
||
A few notes on daily blogging § [2]Stock and flow / 2017-11-20 19:52:47
|
||
El Stock y Flujo de nuestro negocio. – redmasiva § [3]Stock and flow /
|
||
2017-03-27 17:35:13
|
||
Meet the Attendees – edcampoc § [4]The generative web event / 2017-02-27
|
||
10:18:17
|
||
Does Your Digital Business Support a Lifestyle You Love? § [5]Stock and flow /
|
||
2017-02-09 18:15:22
|
||
Daniel § [6]Stock and flow / 2017-02-06 23:47:51
|
||
Kanye West, media cyborg – MacDara Conroy § [7]Kanye West, media cyborg /
|
||
2017-01-18 10:53:08
|
||
Inventing a game – MacDara Conroy § [8]Inventing a game / 2017-01-18 10:52:33
|
||
Losing my religion | Mathew Lowry § [9]Stock and flow / 2016-07-11 08:26:59
|
||
Facebook is wrong, text is deathless – Sitegreek !nfotech § [10]Towards A
|
||
Theory of Secondary Literacy / 2016-06-20 16:42:52
|
||
[11]Snarkmarket
|
||
/ [12]whatmarket?
|
||
|
||
[13]Stock and flow
|
||
/ [14]Robin
|
||
|
||
I was an economics major in college, and I’ve been grateful ever since for a
|
||
few key concepts those courses drilled into me: things like opportunity cost,
|
||
sunk cost, and marginal cost. I think about this stuff all the time in my
|
||
everyday life. I think about the sunk cost of waiting for a slow elevator; I
|
||
think about the marginal cost of making myself another sandwich.
|
||
|
||
I think most of all about the concept of stock and flow.
|
||
|
||
Do you know about this? It couldn’t be simpler. There are two kinds of
|
||
quantities in the world. Stock is a static value: money in the bank or trees in
|
||
the forest. Flow is a rate of change: fifteen dollars an hour or three thousand
|
||
toothpicks a day. Easy. Too easy.
|
||
|
||
But I actually think stock and flow is a useful metaphor for media in the 21st
|
||
century. Here’s what I mean:
|
||
|
||
• Flow is the feed. It’s the posts and the tweets. It’s the stream of daily
|
||
and sub-daily updates that reminds people you exist.
|
||
• Stock is the durable stuff. It’s the content you produce that’s as
|
||
interesting in two months (or two years) as it is today. It’s what people
|
||
discover via search. It’s what spreads slowly but surely, building fans
|
||
over time.
|
||
|
||
Flow is ascendant these days, for obvious reasons—but I think we neglect stock
|
||
at our peril. I mean that both in terms of the health of an audience and, like,
|
||
the health of a soul. Flow is a treadmill, and you can’t spend all of your time
|
||
running on the treadmill. Well, you can. But then one day you’ll get off and
|
||
look around and go: oh man. I’ve got nothing here.
|
||
|
||
I’m not saying you should ignore flow! This is no time to hole up and work in
|
||
isolation, emerging after years with your work in hand. Everybody will go: huh?
|
||
Who are you? And even if they don’t—even if your exquisite opus is the talk of
|
||
the tumblrs for two whole days—if you don’t have flow to plug your new fans
|
||
into, you’re suffering a huge (get ready for it!) opportunity cost. You’ll have
|
||
to find those fans all over again next time you emerge from your cave.
|
||
|
||
Here’s a case study. My pal Alexis Madrigal has got the stock/flow balance
|
||
down. On one end of the spectrum, he’s [15]a Twitter natural and [16]a
|
||
fast-paced writer. Madrigal’s got mad flow; you plug in, and you get a steady
|
||
stream of interesting stuff. But on the other end of the spectrum—and man, this
|
||
is just so important—he’s written a deep, nuanced [17]history of green tech in
|
||
America. This is a book intended to stand the test of time.
|
||
|
||
You can tell that I want you to stop and think about stock here. I feel like we
|
||
all got really good at flow, really fast. But flow is ephemeral, while stock
|
||
sticks around. Stock is capital. Stock is protein.
|
||
|
||
And the real magic trick is to put them both together. To keep the ball
|
||
bouncing with your flow—to maintain that open channel of communication—while
|
||
you work on some kick-ass stock in the background. Sacrifice neither. The
|
||
hybrid strategy.
|
||
|
||
So, I was thinking about stock and flow just now while I was standing in my
|
||
kitchen doing the dishes, and I thought, wait, there are all these
|
||
super-successful artists and media people today who don’t think about flow at
|
||
all. Like, Wes Anderson? Come on. He’s all stock. And he seems to be
|
||
doing okay.
|
||
|
||
But I think the secret is that somebody else does his flow for him. I mean,
|
||
what are PR and advertising but flow, bought and paid for? Rewind history and
|
||
put Wes Anderson on his own—proprietor of an extremely symmetrical YouTube
|
||
channel—and I don’t think you get the same result, not if it’s one video every
|
||
three years.
|
||
|
||
So, if you’re in the position to have somebody else handle your flow while you
|
||
tend to your stock: great. But that’s true for almost no one, and will I think
|
||
be true for even fewer over time, so you need to have your own plan for
|
||
this stuff.
|
||
|
||
Anyway, this is not a huge insight, I know. Mostly I just wanted to share the
|
||
terminology, because it’s been echoing in my head since my first microeconomics
|
||
course. Today, whenever I put my hands on the keyboard, I’m asking myself: Is
|
||
this stock? Is this flow? How’s my mix? Do I have enough of both?
|
||
|
||
[18]January 18, 2010 / [19]Greatest hits
|
||
|
||
[20]73 comments
|
||
|
||
[21]Joshua Dance [22]says…
|
||
|
||
Great ideas. I feel like most of the “Social Media Guru” people are all flow
|
||
and no stock. They don’t every produce anything that stands the test of time.
|
||
And for that matter a lot of bloggers are just flow as well. 33 Ways to Make
|
||
Money posts get outdated pretty quick. I feel that I also have neglected stock
|
||
with my own stuff and have trying to get back to more stock producing. Thanks
|
||
for the great ideas.
|
||
|
||
/ [23]Reply
|
||
[24]Saheli [25]says…
|
||
|
||
This is a good mental model, with a nice Anglo-Saxon poetic ring to it, for
|
||
balancing one’s daily management. Nice.
|
||
|
||
/ [26]Reply
|
||
[27]Robin Sloan [28]says…
|
||
|
||
I’m glad you picked up on the linguistics of it. It’s just nice to say: stock
|
||
and flow.
|
||
|
||
[29]PoN [30]says…
|
||
|
||
I prefer hustle and flow.
|
||
|
||
[31]http://www.pp2g.tv/vZ3pwZnM_.aspx
|
||
|
||
/ [32]Reply
|
||
[33]typofi [34]says…
|
||
|
||
Thanks for the lingo!
|
||
|
||
I’ve been thinking lately how the flow (I just didn’t have a good word for it
|
||
before) can be seen as noise (from communication theories) in situations where
|
||
you are trying to get to the stock.
|
||
|
||
I mean moments where you know that the information you seek is out there, but
|
||
you can’t find what you want because all you get is, as said by Joshua, “33
|
||
ways of doing x” and tag clouds bursting with #ashtonkutchner, #lol, and #
|
||
retweetthis. Even if you’re not looking for something in particular, the
|
||
problem often arises when you are trying to find deeper articles in general.
|
||
|
||
I’m not against the social media, far from it. I’m just acknowledging that we
|
||
need better search algorithms and other tools to balance or even battle the
|
||
pure attention-seeking flow conventions. (e.g. celebrity gossip, or people
|
||
blogging top lists and how-to articles just because they know those will
|
||
attract traffic)
|
||
|
||
/ [35]Reply
|
||
[36]Carlos [37]says…
|
||
|
||
Awesome. I think people should think more about the legacy they will leave to
|
||
the future generations. Could be a small business or some nice paintings,
|
||
everyone wants to be remembered, and that’s the stock you are talking about
|
||
here. The flow is the thing that comes in the meantime you are building your
|
||
stock.
|
||
|
||
/ [38]Reply
|
||
[39]milann [40]says…
|
||
|
||
ahahah
|
||
you took the words out of my mouth.
|
||
thank you for giving the phantoms in my head some form,
|
||
me and my business associates have been going about this for months now and it
|
||
still felt like we were trying to give words to some silent moments in a Godard
|
||
film or something.
|
||
|
||
/ [41]Reply
|
||
[42]J. Smith [43]says…
|
||
|
||
great stuff. couldn’t agree more. file this under “read or die.”
|
||
|
||
/ [44]Reply
|
||
[45]Frank Chimero [46]says…
|
||
|
||
This is fantastic, Robin. Really.
|
||
I get a lot of questions from creatives just beginning (or about to begin) in
|
||
their respective fields about how to get started promoting themselves.
|
||
|
||
I had been using a similar idea, but a poor analogy: you breadcrumb your
|
||
audience along like Hansel and Gretel did, leading your fans along a trail of
|
||
small bits of information and tiny delicious morsels of output. It’s important
|
||
that these tasty morsels have a clear point of view and a consistent flavor.
|
||
Then, every once in a while, deliver a house of candy. But don’t eat your
|
||
audience. That’d be bad.
|
||
|
||
In retrospect, stock and flow is a way better way to say this.
|
||
|
||
/ [47]Reply
|
||
[48]Robin Sloan [49]says…
|
||
|
||
Ha hahahahahaha. I love this. It’s the sinister version of stock. Now I want to
|
||
come up w/ more analogies. Like,
|
||
|
||
flow : stock :: stormtroopers : DEATH STAR
|
||
|
||
[50]Basti Hirsch ッ [51]says…
|
||
|
||
“Social Media Guru” people are all flow and no stock. It really is fun to say,
|
||
but I also still love the “all hat and no cattle” idiom.
|
||
|
||
Perhaps we need search engines that give us the explicit choice of asking
|
||
“What’s in stock”? I mean we already do that a bit when deciding to search
|
||
amazon, delicious, twitter, or Google scholar. Only show me results that have
|
||
stood the test of time. Words that last.
|
||
|
||
/ [52]Reply
|
||
[53]Robin Sloan [54]says…
|
||
|
||
That’s interesting! Some sense of measuring what’s held up… if nothing else, a
|
||
graph in Google Analytics that shows which content has had a durable audience.
|
||
Durability is a key word.
|
||
|
||
[55]IQpierce [56]says…
|
||
|
||
I think that Google already works this way… which might be why it’s so
|
||
successful.
|
||
|
||
In college a professor told me that fundamentally, Google’s algorithm works
|
||
around the concept of “hubs” and “content.” This is actually a very old idea:
|
||
because socially, people themselves have always been about “hubs” and
|
||
“content.” If you’re the socially-awkward brilliant programmer, you’re the
|
||
content: you can make stuff. If you’re the incredibly outgoing HR lady who
|
||
seems to know every other person in her industry, you’re a hub.
|
||
|
||
Google’s job is to help people get to content; but they do it by using hubs.
|
||
Kottke.org, twitter posts, blogs – these are hubs/flow that people use to point
|
||
their friends towards the content/stock – pages of useful information. Google
|
||
rates a hub higher when it links to high-quality content; and they link content
|
||
higher when it’s linked-to by a highly-rated hub (in a nice chicken-and-egg
|
||
paradox).
|
||
|
||
JTS [57]says…
|
||
|
||
To be honest, there’s a lot of runners who train on treadmills all the time (or
|
||
a lot of the time), and it can be a fairly effective way of building up miles.
|
||
So that metaphor is a little confusing.
|
||
|
||
Other than that, I think this is a fairly effective way of explaining the
|
||
relationship that many creatives should have/need to have to the web. I work in
|
||
publishing, and many of the editors/writers that I interact with on a regular
|
||
basis are great stock people — it’s what they’ve been doing for decades. They
|
||
are just not very good at flow. On the other hand, I look at what a lot of
|
||
other media companies/bloggers/creatives/etc are doing and it looks like a
|
||
whole lot of flow which feels like a whole lot of spinning of the proverbial
|
||
wheels. The ideal mix is something like Frank’s relationship as described
|
||
above.
|
||
|
||
/ [58]Reply
|
||
[59]Robin Sloan [60]says…
|
||
|
||
Good point re: treadmills. If I wanted to torture the analogy I could say:
|
||
“Aha, precisely! Sometimes flow helps you cross-train on your way to making
|
||
great stock!”—but mostly, I think I just used too many (different/conflicting)
|
||
analogies 🙂
|
||
|
||
[61]Alexis Madrigal [62]says…
|
||
|
||
Thanks for the shout out! We need to convene another meeting of the mutual
|
||
admiration society soon…
|
||
|
||
Now that you mention it, here’s how I think about stock and flow. Flow is how I
|
||
see the world. Stock is what happens when I apply my worldview to something
|
||
that matters for long enough that I fundamentally transform how I see the
|
||
world. Recording that process is what creates the thing of lasting value. (I
|
||
hope.)
|
||
|
||
And now, here’s a thought that is related but sort of tangentially. I’ve become
|
||
obsessed with Tumblr as a medium for historical investigation recently. It’s
|
||
just so good at defamiliarization in that Bakhtin sense… One minute you’re
|
||
looking at pony made out of vegan donuts, the next you’re staring at a
|
||
little-known stunt from 1955. People who would not read David McCullough in a
|
||
million years suddenly find history fascinating. The strangeness and pastness
|
||
of the past come to dominate the backcasted ideas that we have about what those
|
||
times were like.
|
||
|
||
But… Tumblr records only the flow of our histories without ever taking stock of
|
||
why and how we ended up where we are. There is no record of decisions made or
|
||
the world’s forces brought to bear. Tumblr’s version of history has no
|
||
explanatory power. It does not synthesize what the images from the past with
|
||
where we are in the present or with the other things we know of the past. So,
|
||
to me, the meaning that the flow of photos has is fundamentally limited, even
|
||
if it’s beautiful and fascinating.
|
||
|
||
/ [63]Reply
|
||
[64]Saheli [65]says…
|
||
|
||
|
||
Flow is how I see the world. Stock is what hap pens when I apply my world
|
||
view to some thing that mat ters for long enough that I fun da mentally
|
||
trans form how I see the world. Record ing that process is what cre ates
|
||
the thing of last ing value.
|
||
|
||
D’accord!, she cried, in the most emphatic voice. You describe what I want out
|
||
of good writing. This is what makes it so magically, and it hits all the points
|
||
of why I value such stock to begin with.
|
||
|
||
Though what the hell, Snarkmarket? What is up with the kerning in “trans form”
|
||
“fun da mentally” “Record ing” “cre ates” and “last ing” when I just copy and
|
||
paste? Are you secretly trying to trick me into thinking like some sort of
|
||
crazed poet? That is a weird way to generate stock.
|
||
|
||
[66]Robin Sloan [67]says…
|
||
|
||
(They are wee microspaces that allow the words to break gracefully across the
|
||
page. They only become evident when ungainly humans rip these words from their
|
||
perfect habitat.)
|
||
|
||
[68]Basti Hirsch ッ [69]says…
|
||
|
||
“Tumblr’s version of history has no explanatory power.”
|
||
|
||
This is a great sentence, and of course also applies to twitter or your daily
|
||
news segment.
|
||
|
||
Ryan McAdam [70]says…
|
||
|
||
I understand and agree with stock & flow as it pertains to social media, et al.
|
||
However, I think you may want to take another look at the premise you use to
|
||
describe stock. In practice, money is made from thin air in ever increasing
|
||
amounts. Trees are a natural resource and as such are finite – whether based
|
||
upon available land, growth cycles, or environmental influences. I’m suspect
|
||
your friend who is writing about green technology would agree.
|
||
|
||
/ [71]Reply
|
||
[72]TRMW [73]says…
|
||
|
||
Thanks for this. Well said.
|
||
|
||
/ [74]Reply
|
||
[75]Nathan Bowers [76]says…
|
||
|
||
Speaking of flow, where’s your Twitter feed Robin? Looked around, can’t find
|
||
it.
|
||
|
||
That’s another strength of things like Tumblr and Twitter, it just takes one
|
||
click to form a lightweight “I want to know more about you” relationship.
|
||
“Flow” is stickier than “Stock”.
|
||
|
||
/ [77]Reply
|
||
[78]Robin Sloan [79]says…
|
||
|
||
I’m [80]@robinsloan! And somewhat discouraged it was hard to find. Hmm.
|
||
|
||
You’re totally right about the interplay; when everything’s working together,
|
||
stock leads to flow leads to stock.
|
||
|
||
[81]Tim Maly [82]says…
|
||
|
||
I think you’re right on about how we tend to feel like we got good at flow
|
||
really fast. I’ve also been coming around to thinking that this might often be
|
||
an illusion. It’s really, really easy to reblog, retweet, reshare without
|
||
thinking and to clog the flow with stuff that other people have seen or that
|
||
aren’t on topic (for whatever value of “on topic” you feel like your feed
|
||
should have).
|
||
|
||
This is one of the things that recommends the ‘official’ retweet feature. If
|
||
dozens of your friends retweet the same thing, you don’t have to see it dozens
|
||
of times. Think about the nature of the problem that this is solving.
|
||
|
||
My watchphrase for the latter quarter of 2009 and all of 2010 is “Less often,
|
||
higher quality”. I hope that as many of my Quiet Babylon posts as I can manage
|
||
will be of stock caliber and I’d like to put out at least one project that’s
|
||
even better. But I think that this needs to apply to the flow work as well. The
|
||
best feeds are the ones where I am delighted every time there is an update. I
|
||
aspire to be one of those.
|
||
|
||
One of the best things that I ever did for my feelings about my work was to
|
||
more carefully distinguish between my stock and my flow and to distinguish
|
||
between even types of flow (I didn’t know that was what they were called at the
|
||
time). Do I link up my Tumblr with my Twitter with my gReader share with
|
||
Facebook with my blog? I find that the more I answer “no” to this question, the
|
||
happier I feel with the output of my work in any given arena, and the more that
|
||
people who might be interested in what I’m up to can pick and choose how much
|
||
of the firehose they have to consume.
|
||
|
||
This has been an episode of “Tim responds to a comment and ends up
|
||
pontificating at length about his plans for the year” starring Tim as Tim.
|
||
|
||
/ [83]Reply
|
||
[84]Robin Sloan [85]says…
|
||
|
||
My current stock/flow hero (besides A. Madrigal) is [86]Jonathan Harris. Just
|
||
one photo every day. And each one is great.
|
||
|
||
And importantly, as he wanders around & shares this flow of photos, he’s
|
||
working on generative art projects that end up being totally genre-defining and
|
||
museum-worthy. Serious stock.
|
||
|
||
[87]Alexis Madrigal [88]says…
|
||
|
||
And it was you, in fact, who convinced me to unlink my Twitter and Tumblr,
|
||
which was a fantastic idea. It freed me up to think about my Tumblr as its own
|
||
thing, not an adjunct to my Twitter flow.
|
||
|
||
[89]Adam Rice [90]says…
|
||
|
||
This sounds like the stuff that Ben Hammersley has been writing about lately.
|
||
|
||
/ [91]Reply
|
||
Sarah [92]says…
|
||
|
||
I was thinking about the same thing yesterday, though not in economic terms,
|
||
since I was the opposite of an economics major in college. I was feeling a bit
|
||
worried about the constancy with which we’re all now butting up against the
|
||
real-time state of our immediate (if virtual) surroundings, and wondering what
|
||
impact this has on our ability to be truly reflective and to produce writing
|
||
that represents moments spent *out* of contact with that perpetual flow. We not
|
||
only need the time to have the realizations that come with distance and
|
||
reflection, we also need time to examine and articulate them in terms that go
|
||
beyond the staccato of twitter and tumblr. I don’t generally fall in the camp
|
||
of people who express an urgent, woeful need to “unplug,” since I don’t like
|
||
thinking that the majority of my time (during which I’m “plugged in”) is
|
||
somehow doing me a terrible long-term disservice. However I do think we do
|
||
ourselves a disservice when we forget to alter our levels of immersion in the
|
||
real-time networked conversations. It doesn’t have to happen in a cabin in the
|
||
woods but it’d be awfully sad if it stopped happening altogether.
|
||
|
||
/ [93]Reply
|
||
[94]TheChad [95]says…
|
||
|
||
Great post. Your words are invaluable. Finding the right balance between stock
|
||
and flow is key to being a success and relevant.
|
||
|
||
/ [96]Reply
|
||
[97]JtFaber [98]says…
|
||
|
||
Great, pressure is off. I can delegate my tweets to the intern and work on
|
||
building my… umm… thing, that I do…
|
||
|
||
/ [99]Reply
|
||
[100]Jason Robinson [101]says…
|
||
|
||
Really nice post. Extremely relevant when it comes to individuals and small
|
||
orgs. Although time-consuming (is it in fact cost-beneficial?), balancing stock
|
||
and flow is clearly a necessary evil in today’s business world.
|
||
|
||
What’s also interesting is looking at organizations who facilitate and/or
|
||
manage stock and flow. The first successful dotcoms created businesses out of
|
||
“stock” – think Amazon. Twitter and Facebook made huge businesses out of
|
||
“flow”. Now that I think about it, didn’t Google do this twice – once with
|
||
indexing a growing number of webpages, the second with YouTube?
|
||
|
||
As we look forward, I wonder how many new businesses will make stock out of
|
||
flow – magazines from blog posts, Google/Bing indexing Twitter feeds. I know
|
||
this was just a metaphor but I wonder what’s next? The answer could make
|
||
someone rich.
|
||
|
||
/ [102]Reply
|
||
[103]Dan Conover [104]says…
|
||
|
||
I have nothing eloquent to add. I am your geek fanboy. That’s all.
|
||
|
||
/ [105]Reply
|
||
[106]Betty Ann [107]says…
|
||
|
||
I would add that in the world of flow and stock a hook (tweetable, quotable,
|
||
crisp headline, or ? ) embedded in each stock entry gets it into flow.
|
||
|
||
/ [108]Reply
|
||
[109]Robin Sloan [110]says…
|
||
|
||
Yes, totally! Designing for flow. Building bridges between stock and flow.
|
||
|
||
[111]Tim Maly [112]says…
|
||
|
||
I’ve often thought that I’d like Matthew Battles of HILOBROW to write the
|
||
tweets promoting all my posts. When he does see one worth passing on, his
|
||
summaries are generally better than mine.
|
||
|
||
[113]Saheli [114]says…
|
||
|
||
BettyAnn, are you an editor? Because that succinctly summarizes the secret of
|
||
producing a great magazine that’s also a popular magazine.
|
||
|
||
[115]JMO [116]says…
|
||
|
||
Thanks for this Robin. It really gets me thinking about what I make and intake.
|
||
|
||
I often find myself in the space smack in the middle: I create Flock. I write
|
||
things. I don’t have the time or discipline to focus and make things that are
|
||
very durable. Nor do I have the time or discipline to just publish and make a
|
||
constant Flow. I feel stuck with something that is not good on any front. I
|
||
write about 1,000 words once a week and nothing seems to stick after hitting
|
||
publish.
|
||
|
||
On top of my day job, I do quite a bit of consuming other people’s Flow and
|
||
Stock. I value learning and I truly enjoy by daily sit-down with Google Reader.
|
||
How do you create the balance necessary to have light but constant Flow and
|
||
solid Stock while still keeping up with everything?
|
||
|
||
/ [117]Reply
|
||
[118]Elizabeth Madrigal [119]says…
|
||
|
||
Great piece and I agree, Alexis has got it all.
|
||
His mom.
|
||
|
||
/ [120]Reply
|
||
[121]Kate [122]says…
|
||
|
||
Absolutely brilliant Robin. Thank you, genius person.
|
||
|
||
/ [123]Reply
|
||
[124]Jay [125]says…
|
||
|
||
When launching my web design shop’s blog, we divided it along these exact
|
||
lines. Literally, divided it in half; short, ephemeral posts—i.e. flow—on [126]
|
||
one side, considered, polished, long-form posts—i.e. stock—on the [127]other
|
||
side.
|
||
|
||
/ [128]Reply
|
||
[129]Matthew Battles [130]says…
|
||
|
||
Coming late to this, feasting on the flow of commentary and its glimmers of
|
||
great stock beyond. (And thanks for the h/t, Tim—I love tweeting your posts.
|
||
But my Twitter stream may be even harder to find than Robin’s ;-])
|
||
|
||
But I wonder about the analogy a little bit. Because the stock we’re talking
|
||
about here isn’t exactly like the economist’s stock, is it? I mean, in
|
||
economics, flow can deplete stock (or add to it, if you’re really lucky). But
|
||
it seems like our stock kind of feeds on flow—out- as well as in-. Without flow
|
||
it dies, or fails to thrive, goes dark. If you’ve got your flow on, your stock
|
||
only grows. And flow’s not a matter of simple exchange, but current, of
|
||
circuitry. Currency! Flow’s about moving it on down the line.
|
||
|
||
You probably know where I’m going with this: “Increase comes to a gift when it
|
||
moves from second to third party,” writes Lewis Hyde, “not in the simpler
|
||
passage from first to second. The increase begins when the gift has passed
|
||
through someone…. Capital earns profit… but gifts that remain gifts do not earn
|
||
profit, they give increase.”
|
||
|
||
It’s like particle and wave, maybe. Increase follows the gift—wavelike, it
|
||
rides the flow, lighting up everyone’s stock as it goes.
|
||
|
||
/ [131]Reply
|
||
[132]jrome [133]says…
|
||
|
||
Stow is flow that’s been stocked.
|
||
|
||
/ [134]Reply
|
||
Kirstin Butler [135]says…
|
||
|
||
Hi Robin,
|
||
|
||
In just one blog post you defined the heuristic (yup, I wrote that) I’ve been
|
||
trying to figure out for the last few months. This is proving to be such a
|
||
difficult balance for me to strike creatively–mostly because the respective
|
||
returns on stock and flow–dog years vs. immediate–are so different. I find the
|
||
connection, and dialogue, and real-time feedback around flow to be really
|
||
addictive.
|
||
|
||
I wonder whether there’s a lifelog application that could capture which state
|
||
you’re in at various points, so that you could review a receipt at the end of
|
||
the day and then make adjustments.
|
||
|
||
Thanks so much for this-
|
||
Kirstin
|
||
|
||
p.s. I thought the blog [136]http://weloveyouso.com/ was a great flow
|
||
compliment to the stock that is Where the Wild Things Are.
|
||
|
||
/ [137]Reply
|
||
[138]Debbie [139]says…
|
||
|
||
Very powerful concepts. You blended economics, about which I know little, with
|
||
writing, which I’ve been practicing for 36+ years. By doing so, not only did
|
||
you make economic concepts understandable to me, but palpable. Thank you.
|
||
|
||
/ [140]Reply
|
||
[141]tara - scoutie girl [142]says…
|
||
|
||
Spot on. I just adapted the editorial style of my blog to improve my “stock.”
|
||
Instead of just constantly using a flow of cool stuff to attract page views,
|
||
I’m concentrating more on stories and people. I think these types of posts
|
||
automatically have a longer tail.
|
||
|
||
I’m also packaging each weeks posts as “issues” so that even the smaller pieces
|
||
fit into a type of stock.
|
||
|
||
Thank you so much for giving me language to explore this idea further!
|
||
|
||
/ [143]Reply
|
||
[144]jane stevens [145]says…
|
||
|
||
This is a great way to look at categorizing info, Robin. I think that the best
|
||
stock is presented in context, in a format where the visual structure adds to
|
||
the context in the stock. e.g. [146]http://vis.stanford.edu/protovis/ex/
|
||
jobs.html and many of the other examples on protovis.
|
||
There’s one more aspect to this that we’ve been working on at LJWorld.com — how
|
||
to develop a structure for flow & stock so that a local community can use both
|
||
in an integrated manner to take action to solve local problems.
|
||
We’re launching a local health site called HealthCommons next month in which
|
||
we’re integrating social media with journalism in a way that I hope will give
|
||
the local community the tools to improve community health.
|
||
|
||
/ [147]Reply
|
||
[148]Jen Bekman [149]says…
|
||
|
||
Perfect.
|
||
I think I love you. For your mind, of course.
|
||
|
||
/ [150]Reply
|
||
[151]ToastyKen [152]says…
|
||
|
||
I was just thinking that even more fundamental than your stock:flow ratio is
|
||
your creation:consumption ratio. I spend so much time consuming information and
|
||
art these days, but not enough time giving back.
|
||
|
||
/ [153]Reply
|
||
[154]Aaron Marshall [155]says…
|
||
|
||
If you had a donate button on this post, I would give 20 bucks right now.
|
||
|
||
I only heard a verbal summary of it from my friend David ([156]http://
|
||
designintellection.com) and I was already using “stock and flow” in client
|
||
meetings.
|
||
|
||
BIG thank you.
|
||
|
||
/ [157]Reply
|
||
[158]Alek Tarkowski [159]says…
|
||
|
||
hi Robin, I really like the concept of a stock/flow balance. I have two
|
||
comments on that: 1) it applies not only to production, but also to consumption
|
||
of content: you need both an intake of flow, and some serious stock; 2) flow
|
||
can sometimes become stock. have you ever found a new blog and read it from
|
||
“now” until its beginning, treating it like a one big book? with a good blog,
|
||
the experience is one of dealing with some serious stock content. Having said
|
||
that, there’s a limit, I think, to how granular flow can be and still be able
|
||
to transform into stock – a years worth of twitter stream won’t become stock no
|
||
matter what (unless you’re a haiku poet). Thanks for this inspiration!
|
||
|
||
/ [160]Reply
|
||
[161]Liz Dorland [162]says…
|
||
|
||
Hate to be a nitpicker, but…
|
||
While I agree that the relationship between the two things is as you describe,
|
||
one of the words (actually the concept behind the word) doesn’t work.
|
||
|
||
The output on twitter and facebook to me much more like a “stream”. The
|
||
definition that began the piece: “Flow is a rate of change” doesn’t fit. A
|
||
twitter stream as a whole has no denominator, if you will.
|
||
|
||
Using the stream analogy, twitter output is like the water in the stream. There
|
||
is a quantity of water that passes by, and the total quantity depends on the
|
||
rate of flow. But the “rate” is not the stream! The scientist in me made me
|
||
write this post I think. And the late hour. 😉
|
||
|
||
Try an electrical analogy. Is the twitter and facebook “stream” measured in
|
||
amperes, or in coulombs? Ask your favorite physicist. I’m not sure, but I think
|
||
I vote for coulombs.
|
||
|
||
/ [163]Reply
|
||
[164]Christie Nicholson [165]says…
|
||
|
||
Hi Robin, Thought you might be interested in this Globe&Mail article,
|
||
“Information Rich and Attention Poor” published last fall, that also describes
|
||
the metaphor of stock and flow.
|
||
|
||
[166]http://bit.ly/3oJXjn
|
||
|
||
Here’s the relevant p’graph:
|
||
Knowledge is evolving from a “stock” to a “flow.” Stock and flow – for example,
|
||
wealth and income – are concepts familiar to accountants and economists. A
|
||
stock of knowledge may be thought of as a quasi-permanent repository – such as
|
||
a book or an entire library – whereas the flow is the process of developing the
|
||
knowledge. The old Encyclopedia Britannica was quintessentially a stock;
|
||
Wikipedia is the paradigmatic example of flow. Obviously, a stock of knowledge
|
||
is rarely permanent; it depreciates like any other form of capital. But
|
||
electronic information technology is profoundly changing the rate of
|
||
depreciation. By analogy with the 24-hour news cycle (which was an early
|
||
consequence of the growing abundance of video bandwidth as cable television
|
||
replaced scarce over-the-air frequencies), there is now the equivalent of a
|
||
24-hour knowledge cycle – “late-breaking knowledge,” as it were. Knowledge is
|
||
becoming more like a river than a lake, more and more dominated by the flow
|
||
than by the stock. What is driving this?
|
||
|
||
Then Nicholson goes on to describe the possible (and awesome) drivers behind
|
||
WHY knowledge has evolved from stock to flow. You say it’s for obvious reasons,
|
||
but I think the reasons are still quite fascinating and worthwhile.
|
||
|
||
(It is an excerpt from a much longer speech he gave at the Fiesole Retreat in
|
||
Glasgow, Scotland, July ‘09.)
|
||
|
||
Interesting stuff!
|
||
lemme know your thoughts,
|
||
– christie
|
||
|
||
/ [167]Reply
|
||
Jay [168]says…
|
||
|
||
nice post!! i would like to add that it takes time and patience to develop the
|
||
‘stock’ whereas to develop the ‘flow’ you can start anytime. So one should
|
||
start working on ‘stock’ asap.
|
||
I am no economist,so am not sure you’ll agree, but this is what my conclusion
|
||
is.
|
||
|
||
/ [169]Reply
|
||
[170]Susan Friedmann [171]says…
|
||
|
||
Just learned about flow and stock from Dennis Callahan at PodCamp 5. After
|
||
doing a search I found this post which I absolutely love. It makes so much
|
||
sense and certainly helps put much of the social media revolution into
|
||
perspective for me. Thanks!
|
||
|
||
/ [172]Reply
|
||
[173]Arsene Hodali [174]says…
|
||
|
||
Hey, just wanted to comment about how much this post inspired me to reflect on
|
||
my own inner conflicts with media and life.
|
||
|
||
I actually wrote about it on my blog in details (1700+ words) and I added my
|
||
own views to it. Check it out below, see whether or not I’m onto something or
|
||
just full of crap. And btw, yes this does sound like a shameless self-promotion
|
||
but…
|
||
|
||
–> Stock & Flow: The Hard Part’s The Switch [175]http://ow.ly/34d8q
|
||
|
||
/ [176]Reply
|
||
Jessica [177]says…
|
||
|
||
I love this so much. You should know that this idea is still making the
|
||
conference circuit. I heard about it at the recent Confab content strategy
|
||
conference. A really helpful analogy – thanks for writing it up so
|
||
thoughtfully!
|
||
|
||
/ [178]Reply
|
||
Daniel [179]says…
|
||
|
||
Briliant, thanks. I like the cornerstone content concept that Copyblogger put
|
||
together. So it’s the stock, and then the flow is essential. Value content over
|
||
time.
|
||
|
||
/ [180]Reply
|
||
|
||
References:
|
||
|
||
[1] https://snarkmarket.com/2021/8283#comment-593203
|
||
[2] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-577756
|
||
[3] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-571194
|
||
[4] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/5979#comment-570664
|
||
[5] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-569688
|
||
[6] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-569555
|
||
[7] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/6262#comment-568744
|
||
[8] https://snarkmarket.com/2011/6811#comment-568743
|
||
[9] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-552719
|
||
[10] https://snarkmarket.com/2009/3115#comment-551896
|
||
[11] https://snarkmarket.com/
|
||
[12] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890/#what
|
||
[13] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890
|
||
[14] https://snarkmarket.com/author/robin
|
||
[15] http://twitter.com/alexismadrigal
|
||
[16] https://www.theatlantic.com/author/alexis-madrigal/
|
||
[17] http://www.greentechhistory.com/
|
||
[18] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890
|
||
[19] https://snarkmarket.com/category/greatest-hits
|
||
[20] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890/#comments
|
||
[21] http://www.joshuadance.com/
|
||
[22] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7243
|
||
[23] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7243#respond
|
||
[24] http://www.sahelidatta.com/
|
||
[25] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7244
|
||
[26] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7244#respond
|
||
[27] http://robinsloan.com/
|
||
[28] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7245
|
||
[29] http://pointsofnote.com/
|
||
[30] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7246
|
||
[31] http://www.pp2g.tv/vZ3pwZnM_.aspx
|
||
[32] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7246#respond
|
||
[33] http://www.parafovea.com/
|
||
[34] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7247
|
||
[35] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7247#respond
|
||
[36] http://desparchando.com/
|
||
[37] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7248
|
||
[38] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7248#respond
|
||
[39] http://stompingintheyard.blogspot.com,milann.blogspot.com/
|
||
[40] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7249
|
||
[41] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7249#respond
|
||
[42] http://twitter.com/jdotsmith
|
||
[43] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7250
|
||
[44] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7250#respond
|
||
[45] http://www.frankchimero.com/
|
||
[46] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7251
|
||
[47] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7251#respond
|
||
[48] http://robinsloan.com/
|
||
[49] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7252
|
||
[50] http://twitter.com/cervus
|
||
[51] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7253
|
||
[52] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7253#respond
|
||
[53] http://robinsloan.com/
|
||
[54] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7262
|
||
[55] http://deepplaid.com/
|
||
[56] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7270
|
||
[57] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7254
|
||
[58] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7254#respond
|
||
[59] http://robinsloan.com/
|
||
[60] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7263
|
||
[61] http://www.greentechhistory.com/
|
||
[62] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7255
|
||
[63] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7255#respond
|
||
[64] http://www.sahelidatta.com/
|
||
[65] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7276
|
||
[66] http://robinsloan.com/
|
||
[67] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7277
|
||
[68] http://twitter.com/cervus
|
||
[69] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7283
|
||
[70] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7256
|
||
[71] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7256#respond
|
||
[72] http://trmw.org/
|
||
[73] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7257
|
||
[74] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7257#respond
|
||
[75] http://uxhero.com/
|
||
[76] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7258
|
||
[77] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7258#respond
|
||
[78] http://robinsloan.com/
|
||
[79] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7261
|
||
[80] http://twitter.com/robinsloan
|
||
[81] http://quietbabylon.com/
|
||
[82] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7260
|
||
[83] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7260#respond
|
||
[84] http://robinsloan.com/
|
||
[85] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7264
|
||
[86] http://www.number27.org/today.php
|
||
[87] http://www.greentechhistory.com/
|
||
[88] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7265
|
||
[89] http://8stars.org/
|
||
[90] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7266
|
||
[91] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7266#respond
|
||
[92] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7267
|
||
[93] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7267#respond
|
||
[94] http://thechadblog.com/
|
||
[95] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7268
|
||
[96] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7268#respond
|
||
[97] http://twitter.com/JtFaber
|
||
[98] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7269
|
||
[99] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7269#respond
|
||
[100] http://www.planetyou.net/
|
||
[101] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7271
|
||
[102] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7271#respond
|
||
[103] http://danconover.com/
|
||
[104] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7272
|
||
[105] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7272#respond
|
||
[106] http://bettyann.tumblr.com/
|
||
[107] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7273
|
||
[108] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7273#respond
|
||
[109] http://robinsloan.com/
|
||
[110] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7275
|
||
[111] http://quietbabylon.com/
|
||
[112] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7278
|
||
[113] http://www.sahelidatta.com/
|
||
[114] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7280
|
||
[115] http://jmoswalt.com/
|
||
[116] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7274
|
||
[117] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7274#respond
|
||
[118] http://greenlandlady.com/
|
||
[119] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7279
|
||
[120] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7279#respond
|
||
[121] http://mccaffery.ca/kate2.0/
|
||
[122] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7281
|
||
[123] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7281#respond
|
||
[124] http://www.fullstopinteractive.com/
|
||
[125] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7282
|
||
[126] http://www.fullstopinteractive.com/blog/#/full-exposure
|
||
[127] http://www.fullstopinteractive.com/blog/#/full-disclosure
|
||
[128] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7282#respond
|
||
[129] http://hilobrow.com/
|
||
[130] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7284
|
||
[131] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7284#respond
|
||
[132] http://lessonsinordinary.blogspot.com/
|
||
[133] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7285
|
||
[134] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7285#respond
|
||
[135] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7286
|
||
[136] http://weloveyouso.com/
|
||
[137] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7286#respond
|
||
[138] http://breathingcolorintoteal.com/
|
||
[139] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7287
|
||
[140] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7287#respond
|
||
[141] http://www.scoutiegirl.com/
|
||
[142] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7288
|
||
[143] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7288#respond
|
||
[144] http://www.rejurno.com/
|
||
[145] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7289
|
||
[146] http://vis.stanford.edu/protovis/ex/jobs.html
|
||
[147] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7289#respond
|
||
[148] http://www.personism.com/
|
||
[149] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7290
|
||
[150] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7290#respond
|
||
[151] http://subjunctive.net/
|
||
[152] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7291
|
||
[153] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7291#respond
|
||
[154] http://aaronmarshall.co.za/
|
||
[155] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7292
|
||
[156] http://designintellection.com/
|
||
[157] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7292#respond
|
||
[158] http://creativecommons.pl/
|
||
[159] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7293
|
||
[160] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7293#respond
|
||
[161] http://visualization.ning.com/
|
||
[162] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7295
|
||
[163] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7295#respond
|
||
[164] http://www.christienicholson.com/
|
||
[165] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7297
|
||
[166] http://bit.ly/3oJXjn
|
||
[167] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7297#respond
|
||
[168] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7299
|
||
[169] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7299#respond
|
||
[170] http://www.richesinniches.com/
|
||
[171] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7300
|
||
[172] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7300#respond
|
||
[173] http://www.danceproof.com/
|
||
[174] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7301
|
||
[175] http://ow.ly/34d8q
|
||
[176] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7301#respond
|
||
[177] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-7308
|
||
[178] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=7308#respond
|
||
[179] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890#comment-569555
|
||
[180] https://snarkmarket.com/2010/4890?replytocom=569555#respond
|