Media in the New Millennium

posted by Doyle

Each year for my birthday, I spend part of the day riding one mile for every year old I am that year. Yesterday was my annual birthday ride, and since I’m getting older (or, maybe just old!) I had to go a ways: forty-seven miles, to be exact, to hit my goal (yes, I made it!).

During my ride I found myself in the middle of a large charity ride, which included a longish (3-4 mile) climb to a small town near Boulder. Sadly, it was obvious many of the participants were not adequately prepared. I was reminded that cycling is not easy. I ride an average of 125 miles weekly in the summer to prepare for long rides.

Most things require work and preparation. It occurred to me that social media is no different. That is, there are no easy ways to build a community, no short-cuts, and it’s not something you can just dive into and be successful. It’s hard work and requires preparation in order to be successful and attention over the long term to grow what you’ve built.

I cringe whenever I see programs that will “get you followers while you sleep” or “double your Facebook friends tomorrow” or any other variation of snake oil. Can you get a bunch of new Twitter followers with some programs? Of course. But, much like many of the people I saw on Sunday trying to climb a hill with the wrong equipment and too little preparation, you won’t know what to do with this new-found “wealth.” You might even find yourself suffering a little. Or a lot.

Think about Community Access Television. Just about anyone could get time, but if the program was unwatchable drivel, it was like shouting in the wilderness. Social media gives us all easy access to a myriad of large networks, much like Community Access Television. Same idea here. Let’s say you get 10,000 Twitter followers through a short-cut of some kind… now what? What are you going to talk about? What does your “community” want to hear about and, better yet, have a conversation about? If you don’t know that first–and build a community based on that, not on auto-follows and other tricks–you’ll find yourself shouting in the wilderness, and your 10,000 followers will soon by 9,000, then 8,000, and so on.

The act of buying a bicycle alone does not prepare you for a four-mile climb, just as having 10,000 Twitter followers is not all it takes to build and maintain a community.

Every day I get a handful of follow requests from small businesses who simply seem to want followers. I’m sure your bakery in Cleveland is lovely (I made that up so as not to call anyone out!) I might really like it. But I don’t have any plans to be in Cleveland in the foreseeable future, so daily (or more) snippets of news from you doesn’t sound all that interesting. If you found me because I mentioned the Cleveland Browns when talking about football, you’re misusing a short cut and you’re wasting your time and mine.

Before you dive in to any social media network, ask yourself: what are my goals? What value will I try to provide? What can I offer to those who follow me? How can I find those who will appreciate what I have to say, and will want to have a conversation with me? And if you want to use a tool that helps you find people who might have an interest in a bakery in Cleveland, connect all the dots and use the tool correctly. The smart pilots only use the auto-pilot programs when it’s appropriate.

A username and a password does not mean you’re ready, just like buying a bike doesn’t mean the Tour de France is in your future. It just means you’ve taken the first step, and there are no shortcuts.

Share on Facebook

posted by Marie Rotter

The front page of the Boulder Daily Camera yesterday proclaimed “CU-Boulder takes steps to close journalism school.” As I pondered the fate of my profession, I, a former newspaper reporter, posted the story to my Twitter feed and my Facebook page. The fact that I chose to share the information online rather than blasting off a letter to the editor should tell me enough about the future of media to not make me upset about the issue.

However, I was upset.

For starters, I have a master’s degree in journalism. Is it going to be worth anything in 10 years? I knew when I got my degree that I could make a lot more money if I went to business school, but I chose journalism because I was fascinated by how people chose to communicate information and the different ways in which they share it. It was this fascination that drove me into the newspaper business almost two decades ago and it’s what led me to build my first website in 1996, and start my first blog 10 years later. Besides, I hate statistics classes.

Journalism schools, traditionally, have been horribly inept at providing a cross-discipline approach to the trade. There’s the broadcast department, the news-editorial department, and public relations. Never shall they meet. I remember as an undergrad at Colorado State asking about photojournalism classes and getting a quizzical look from my academic advisor because I was on the news-editorial track. I reminded her that they have pictures in newspapers too.

“But someone else will do that for you,” she said, as if the subject had been exhausted. Not anymore. Reporters are expected to write the story, update the blog, create a Twitter feed and post video to the website all before the 5 p.m. deadline. No wonder the quality of the reporting has been going steadily downhill. They don’t have enough time to focus on anything that could make an impact.

It is the spread of web-based information that is, ironically, leading to this need for better journalists. Increasingly, people are overwhelmed with information via online, on television and in print. In this overwhelmed state, they are developing more and more channels of information. “I’m a mom. Tell me about stuff I care about.” Enter the mommy bloggers. “I am passionate about politics.” Enter MSNBC and Fox News. These are just channels though, microcosms of information that provide no context or perspective. It’s more like a stream of consciousness.

Now, more than ever, we need people that can tell us what is important, why it’s important and explain it to us in a way that we can understand. As one of my old journalism teachers used to say, “Don’t just tell me what happened. Tell me why I should care!”

Despite my concerns, I think it can be a promising and very smart move for the University of Colorado to create a school of information if done correctly. You can’t deny the power or the influence of the Internet and social media in particular. If you stop looking at journalism in the silos of television, print, and public relations — and start looking at it as information sharing — then you get to the heart of what journalism really is.

I shared my thoughts with Sandra Fish, a journalist and journalism instructor at the University of Colorado who specializes in politics, government and interactive reporting. She wrote me back this reply:

“I think the potential to create something new that melds journalism and technology is exciting but we also need to keep in mind that journalism, no matter what the form or platform, is essential to our democracy.”

“What about ethics?” I asked. “And GRAMMAR?!”

Learning to understand and accept my own biases but not letting that overshadow my reporting was one of the most important things I learned in journalism school. I also learned people tend not to take you too seriously if you don’t know the difference between “there,” “they’re” and “their.” I see very little of either proper grammar or ethics on the Internet.

These are all issues that have to be taken into consideration when deciding what the future of journalism will look like. People still need information. Maybe we’ll need more “citizen journalists” who can bring an entrepreneurial culture to journalism and make money blogging, posting videos and podcasting. If that’s true, maybe there will be a need for some of those dreaded business statistics classes.

I can’t wait to find out. The fascination continues.

Share on Facebook

posted by Doyle

There’s lots of banter in tech circles and the media of late about net neutrality. I firmly believe this is one of the most important issues facing how we communicate today, yet it’s often misunderstood, even by by lawmakers who may be asked to determine how everything will finally shake out.

Why is net neutrality so important? Simple: the Internet is taking over much of the way we get information and entertainment and how we communicate with one another. Twenty-five years ago, the radio stations I listened to, the television stations I watched, the newspaper I subscribed to and the magazines I purchased all got to me in very different ways. Now, if the Internet goes down, I’m cut off from the bulk of my news, information, entertainment and even the ability to reach out to friends and colleagues.

Read/Write Web did a great graphic presenting both sides of the net neutrality discussion here. The point I’d like to make in this post is that net neutrality is not some “techie” thing that’s over most of our heads. Instead, it’s critical that we understand and take a stand on how we would like to see the flow of information regulated—or not. Your stand may be different from mine, but the public discourse is critical for this enabling and important technology. This is one critical business issue that must not be decided by lobbyists voicing the business interests of a handful of large corporations.

Neutrality Must Not Mean “Don’t Manage Your Network”

Potential legislation, in my opinion, must be well written in order to keep the Internet from slowing down for all of us. I’ve heard net neutrality advocates boil this issue down to “all bits, regardless of what they are, must be treated the same.”

I disagree.

There is a difference between network management and net neutrality. For example, if I’m making a call on Skype, I want my Internet provider to give a higher priority to a voice packet, even if that means a web page I’m loading or an email I’m sending is delayed a fraction of a second. That makes for a better Skype experience, and I really won’t notice a slight slowing of my email. That’s intelligent network management that makes the available tools work better for all of us. The slippery slope is introduced with an example like Internet Service Providers (ISPs) having the opportunity to take a potential next step and prioritize their own paid voice packets over my Skype call to encourage me to use their service. Worse, what if Skype was blocked completely by one or more of the ISPs that service my market?

Clearly, any potential regulation must not be written in such a way that prevents providers from managing and optimizing their networks, but, I believe, it should should ensure equal access to any public URL.

The End of the All-You-Can-Eat Buffet

Comcast got in some trouble, but eventually prevailed in court, for throttling BitTorrent streams. To me, the issue is not as simple as “to BitTorrent or not to BitTorrent,” and if network congestion is truly an issue, as it seems to be, we need to start paying for that second slice of pie.

In the case noted above, Comcast was wrong in my opinion because they violated their own contract with their customers. They offered unlimited access for one monthly fee, then played dirty tricks on customers that became bandwidth hogs. Sorry, but you don’t get to do both. Either you can offer all the time/data/pick your measure you like for one fee, or you can offer a pay as you go plan, and that needs to be up front in the agreement. After all, Xcel Energy doesn’t just hook up electricity at my house and let me pay one lump sum for all I can use, regardless of my consumption. But, if they did, it would be wrong of them to just cut my service when they thought I was using too much power. It’s “A” or it’s “B.” In the end, it’s OK for heavy users to be charged more than light users.

What I Believe About Net Neutrality

You don’t have to agree with me, but I hope you’ll consider this issue as important is I do. Bad legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, could severely stifle growth of one of the most important elements of our economy. Here are the points I believe to be true in this discussion:

• There is a difference between optimizing all traffic across a network and giving special service. The former should be encouraged and the latter, in general, forbidden.
• I recognize that these are networks that were, to a very large degree, built with private investment (that is, non-government money). But just as television stations, for example—non-government entities, to be sure—must follow certain guidelines and demonstrate work in the public interest to continue to receive a broadcast license, I believe the same holds true for those that carry the Internet to our homes and businesses. In fact, I think it’s more important because of the myriad of information the Internet provides.
• Just as I pay more for cable if I get more channels coming in to my home or business, I should pay more for Internet service if I wish to use more bandwidth than others. Conversely, my mother-in-law should pay less since she her Internet use pretty much consists of checking email once a day (but perhaps she should pay extra for some of the things she chooses to forward!).
• Just like me, content providers should pay ISPs based on their bandwidth consumption. If I sell widgets and my sales go up, I need to ship more widgets to more people, so I will pay more to my selected carrier to send out more widgets. Same idea here. If 1 million people each month want to download my podcast, I need to pay more than if only 10 people wish to.
• What is premium content and what is not premium content should be decided by the content provider, not by the carrier. If the Wall Street Journal, for example, wants to charge me to look at a story, that relationship should be between me and the Wall Street Journal and Qwest, my ISP, should stay out of it. And, per the point above, if my content is wildly successful, my ISP will share in my good fortune by making more money because I pay more in access/transfer fees.
• Special offers and relationships do not violate net neutrality per se, and legislation must be written to protect free enterprise. For example, if the Wall Street Journal (which seems to be my example of the day) choses to give a free 30-day subscription to the premium content to anyone that signs up with a certain ISP during the next two weeks, that’s great and should be allowed. That’s called a trial promotion, not a violation of net neutrality. I would consider it a problem, however, if the Wall Street Journal and an ISP cut a deal making the Journal available exclusively on that ISP, or if the Journal was delivered better/faster/more reliably on the network than the local newspaper because they paid that ISP more money.
• User agreements are contracts, and contracts need to be honored by all parties concerned. If I don’t pay my ISP, they will shut off my service. On the other hand, if they tell me I have unlimited bandwidth, they need to honor that even if I’m downloading high-definition movies 24/7 as long as I’m adhering to the contract. If they would like to alter the terms of the contract once it is expired, fine. Maybe promotions like “price for life” will go the way of the buggy whip.
• I believe that more and more of us will get more and more Internet access through mobile devices, and I believe that what I’ve outlined here holds true for those devices as well. The bandwidth issues are even more sensitive and tend to impact other users even more, so we need to establish the rules now.

I fully recognize this is a complicated issue, but just as not understanding the complicated U.S. tax code is not a defense for not paying your taxes properly, the Internet is changing the way we are entertained, the way we do business and the way we communicate. It is incumbent upon us to understand the issues and to insist those who are making policy understand our wishes.

I’m sure many of our readers have opinions about this, and I would welcome and encourage a robust conversation. Here’s my volley—please join in and leave a comment–pro or con.

Share on Facebook

Edit: The presentation begins at about 19:30 in the video. Due to some technical issues, we weren’t picking up audio until about the 32:30 mark. Holly and Rustin are glad to fill you in on anything you missed. Give ‘em a shout @theblogfrog!

Share on Facebook

posted by Doyle

We hope you’ll be able to join Metzger Associates for the next in our Social Media Breakfast series, to be held Friday, August 13, from 7:45-9 a.m. We’re excited to host this event at the new Boulder Digital Arts facility at 1600 Range Street, suite 100, in Boulder (so don’t come to our office!).

Our topic this time will focus on building and maintaining an online community. Our speakers, Holly Hamann and Rustin Banks, are the founders of BlogFrog, which has grown to be the nationʼs largest network of blogs (with 45,000 in the network) in less than a year. Each month, BlogFrog connects more than 3 million blogging moms and their readers.

Holly (a mom, blogger and veteran marketer for tech startups) and Rustin (a lifelong programmer, tech engineer, dad and blogger) will cover a topic critical to anyone interested in social media–the psychology of online communities: how they form, what keeps them cohesive and what makes one successful and another fail.

Send an email to Lisa Metzger (lmetzger@metzger.com) if you’d like to join us. As always, the event is free and open to anyone.

Hope to see you there!

Share on Facebook

Posted by Lisa Metzger

I can see it now: Big room in the basement of a church. Lots and lots of folding chairs. Lots and lots of Styrofoam cups, the smell of badly burnt coffee in the air. No direct eye contact. Lots of shifty of feet and uncomfortable twitching of fingers that have nothing to do with themselves.

Then the first woman stands up: “Hi. My name is (fill in the blank), and I am addicted to Facebook.”

http://bit.ly/aiTfEs

Share on Facebook

posted by Doyle

Apple’s iTunes Store was compromised–it seems for the first time, at least that was made public in a big way–a few days ago when about 400 accounts were compromised by a fraudulent scheme selling bogus merchandise for high prices.

Big deal, right? Four hundred users out of millions. Could be worse. Far worse.

It is. Far worse, that is.

The biggest issue here, which I believe has been under-reported by the media, is the fact that the House of Steve (Jobs) was compromised. We’ve come to expect behavior like this on the Wild Public Interwebz. I mean, gosh, it’s crazy out there. Phishing schemes. Viruses. Porn. But Apple protects us from all that.

Do we give up a freedom or two in the process? Sure, sure. But hey, I’ll give up Flash if you protect me from all the bad people and the evil they wish to do. Got your App rejected? Hey, it’s for the greater good. After all, as Spock said in one of the Star Trek movies, “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

OK. Hey, I’m an Apple Fanboy. I’ll bite (and I do over and over again). But guess what? The bad people got in to our party. They caused problems. They stole things. They turned the iTunes Store into a seedy place where you have to worry about the worst among us.

What is this… Google?

Four hundred people. Forty-eight hours. One bad file.

But a crack in the facade–and that’s the bigger picture.

Millions of people (me and my company among them) pay millions of dollars for Apple products. We rationalize and explain the higher up-front costs with lower overall cost of ownership thanks to superior security and ease-of-use. I can demonstrate that my company saves money by spending more on Apple. I’ve got spreadsheets to prove it.

But there was a crack in the dam a few days ago. A chink in the armor. Superman bled, even if only a little. The numbers don’t make this a big story. The ratios, in fact, make it an insignificant one–at first glance. What makes it an under-covered and significant incident is the fact that someone got into a world in which we allow sometimes draconian oversight in exchange for a clean, well-lighted place. A few days ago, the wolf came right through the door, sat down and ate porridge. Not what we signed up for.

To be clear: one bad Apple doesn’t ruin the entire barrel, but I hope that Apple is recognizing the potential floodgate that could be opening. Their reaction was swift and seems to be very good, but if they begin to need to react in such a manner regularly, what makes this walled world so different from the wild–and less expensive and less stylish–online jungle many of us Apple fans think we’ve abandoned.

I’ll be watching. Carefully.

Share on Facebook

posted by Doyle

One of the great aspects of social media is the ability for far more people than ever before to get involved in communications, but this represents a fundamental change for newspapers. Instead of printing a few letters to the editor each day, representing a tiny fraction of the readership, nearly every online story on most newspaper websites features the ability to comment. Individual stories often receive dozens or even hundreds of comments, even in smaller markets.

That’s usually a good thing–but it can be a bad thing. Sadly, it seems our own Boulder Daily Camera is an example of how this is becoming a bad thing. This problem isn’t limited to the Camera, but because the paper is in our town and I try to read it every day, I’m throwing down the gauntlet: I’m challenging you, Camera: clean up your comments.

Simply, you’ve lost control of your own living room. The comments are often more ridiculous than valuable. It’s time to kick the serial smartasses out of the party and see if your community is able to conduct itself in a better way.

I’m not talking about profanity, threats or other egregious violations. If those things are happening, they do seem to be getting shut down. And I’m certainly not talking about honest, open and respectful disagreement. That is the very best part of an open forum. It’s the myriad of feeble attempts at comedy coupled with mean-spirited comments that don’t further the conversation, but ruin it.

Here are some recent examples:

The Emich sisters, former owners of Boulder’s Trilogy Wine Bar, are looking at opening a new business combining wine, yoga and other elements. Comments like this (taken from the Camera website) are just plain ridiculous:

“There are already too many yuppie Yoga places, coffee shops, and health clubs for egocentric stay home moms. Boulder men need to put down their man purses and run these wenches out of town.”

Or:

“What about tofu, granola bars and bean sprouts? Got to get all that no-MSG, all natural, range-fed, no artificial coloring, all organic, unsalted, no sugar, no preservatives food in order to survive in a world that will soon be crowded with windmills and solar machines. Haight-Ashbury, 1968. Bleeeeeeech!”

This is just a sampling of the mostly critical comments following this story. Are these thoughtful or an extension of a good discussion? The story talks about three women (full disclosure, friends of mine) who ran a business in Boulder, paid rent, employed people and contributed to the local economy for nearly 10 years, and you’d think from the comment thread they were planning to open an Opium Stand outside of a local grade school.

The point? I certainly don’t get it. Disagree with the concept, comment on the service–good or bad–once it opens or ask an honest question. But to just jump on and tell the world you hate something–to be clear, something that doesn’t even exist yet!–is narcissism at its worst.

Comments following the coverage of how cancer recently claimed rock legend Ronnie James Dio were mostly respectful. But Xenu007 (who seems to think none of the rest of us in Boulder can enjoy any story without his pithy input) left this gem:

“Who?”

Perhaps if you would have read the story (which is from the Associated Press) you wouldn’t need to ask. But really, it’s a waste of electricity to even fire up the computer and type that.

A June 25 article on the mosquito problem at a city softball facility has attracted 27 comments so far. Twenty-seven comments on mosquitos! Most of them are nothing more than snarky remarks, some even criticizing the players and the sport they choose. Bottom line: not much worth reading. Certainly not the best our community has to offer.

So what do I recommend? Let me stress again: differing opinions should be encouraged, not squelched, but there’s a difference between differing opinions and random ridiculous remarks. Honestly, an occassional, very clever quip can further the conversation, but I see precious few of those. Here are a few thoughts:

Eliminate anonymous comments. Nearly every newspaper requires that letters to the editor be signed. Occasionally the identity of the writer will be withheld from print, but such a decision is made with the consent and consideration of an editor and typically only when there is some sort of serious issue (whistleblowers still working at the target or similar). Allowing people to completely hide their identity behind names like Xenu007 (his/her avatar is a photo of John Travolta) practically encourages bad behavior.

Moderate more strictly. Let’s not just wait for profanity or the report of another user. Let’s use your skills as editors and reporters. Comments like “let’s run these wenches out of town” simply don’t have a place on the Daily Camera’s website. To wait until something really bad happens is a bit like pulling over speeders in a school zone only after a child is injured.

Set up a system to alert you to users that comment constantly, and watch their content. Readers leaving several comments on several stories every day are certainly engaged in the community, but are they good comments or simply random snark? It’s easy to jump on and leave a derogatory remark for nearly any story, and that seems to be activity of many of your most active users. Five good, conversational comments are far better than 50 dumb remarks. Encourage people to engage with quality content, not simply quantity of content.

Engage your community to help. I realize you’re facing shrinking revenue and lower payrolls, and here I am recommending additional work. Perhaps volunteers from the community could serve as a frontline defense. Try putting something inappropriate on Wikipedia and an army of volunteers will have it down in minutes. Again, the goal is not to squash disagreements, but to allow discussions of all kind to flourish in a respectful environment. I’ll bet there are many members of the community that would volunteer to monitor the posts and remove the stupidity.

Shut down comments on stories that get out of hand. When a string runs amok on any given article, shut it down and remove the offending string. This will make it clear you’re serious and will help strings stay on focus. I remember one string about a domestic incident resulting in death in Boulder that started out thoughtful and interesting and devolved into a running commentary on the couple’s tattoos. Shut that stuff off when it happens and before long it won’t happen near as often.

Some stories simply shouldn’t have comments available. Do we really need to accommodate the potential for issues with every single story? Turning off comments on certain sections would eliminate the need to monitor them. Take Milestones, for example. Do we need to open up potential problems for the announcement of an engagement or, worse, a death? This would allow you to focus on areas that deserve comments but require moderation.

Spell out the rules, and stick to them. You’re inviting people to your house. Insist on respect in your terms of use and eliminate those who don’t follow the rules. Set forth your behavior parameters and, just like a bouncer at a bar, remove the patrons that want to ruin it for everyone else.

The comments are far enough out-of-hand now that I carefully consider recommending to a client that we contact the Camera for a story, and that’s pretty sad. Your reporters are good to work with, and the coverage itself is often beneficial. I’m more than happy to have a thoughtful discussion about my client’s story follow–even if the comments are not all favorable. I’m not willing, however, to subject my client to thoughtless, often stupid comments from the most obnoxious among us.

Your thoughts, Daily Camera? I’d love to get this discussion started. I just ask that we all treat each other with respect in the conversation.

Share on Facebook

Posted by Lisa Metzger

This is awesome! Huge brand  (one of my favs…closet on first name basis) taking the hits from fans and then responding and engaging with their customers in a clear-headed, fair and, to my mind, really creative way on Facebook. Take a look.

http://mashable.com/2010/06/18/ann-taylor-facebook/

Share on Facebook

Posted by Lisa Metzger

For those of you that know me, you know I have a lot of opinions. A. Lot. These opinions are usually strenuously expressed and are sometimes unwavering and set in quick-dry cement.

But, perhaps another, more positive way of looking at it is to say that I have a lot of pet peeves. Again: A. Lot. Tomatoes, toMAAAtoes, opinions, pet peeves. Whichever.

Here’s a pet peeve that brings on a fever of eye rolling and “as ifs!” from yours truly:

http://springwise.com/style_design/gc4490/

Really? Are there really men out there that WOULD iron IF the iron was all chromy, steely and macho? Are there really men out there that are saying, “You know, honey, I WOULD iron my own shirts but, frankly, this non-gender-specific iron you’ve provided me puts my sexuality in question and I JUST CAN’T DO IT!! Now…if they just made an iron that was really BUTCH, then we’d be talkin’…”

Would a pretty, sweet and soft pink one with bows and ribbons make the chore any less of one for women?

(And, as a side rant: the fact that Philips is marketing this to men based on the assumption that men want “more power, more steam, more performance” in their irons, implies that women…ummm…don’t? Yes. That’s true (insert dripping sarcasm here). I, for one, when shopping for an iron, am only concerned with the cuteness factor and not its performance features.)

I don’t think either gender is so fragile and, frankly, stupid.

It’s a little like the scene that goes on every day when I reach for my multi vitamin “designed for women” and wince at the fact that the pill is a muted shade of mauve’ish pink. (I’ve taken the non-gender specific variety made by the same company…which is a non-descript shade of beige, thank you very much…so I know the hue is a gender’ized marketing tool.) Is the men’s version blue? And, really, Centrum, just checking, but am I to assume by the addition of the girlish dye to mean that you “understand” me and my sister-friends oh, so much better? Because that’s what marketing is: niche finding, niche reaching, niche relating.

If so, I have to say that the leap is a bit big, don’t you think?

I have two children – twins, a boy and a girl – and from MINUTE ONE they have been my very own little gender experiment. I believed it before I had my darling squirrels, but I REALLY believe it now: Males and females ARE DIFFERENT (THANK GOD!! And, bless those differences, every one…okay, MOST of them, anyway!). We navigate, negotiate, manipulate and respond to the world around us as differently from each other as cake and sauerkraut. So, of course, the way one markets to men and women IS and should be different. But, the this-is-getting-silly line seems to be crossed A. LOT.

And, I suppose if Philips thinks it’s going to back a gazillion dollars cornering the male-ironing-demographic by bringing to market this “Iron Man Iron,” then more power to ‘em. I would, though, LOVE to see the numbers this time next year.

Because, really, when is an iron simply an iron?

Share on Facebook