Tantek says I need press coaching, I think I need sleep.
Got interviewed by Daniel Terdiman for CNET a couple days ago and managed to drop a couple answers that might need a little clarifying.
In any case, Smith said he has no problem with Foo Camp’s exclusivity.
This is true, I don’t think FOO Camp would be what it is without the exclusivity, I just don’t think exclusivity is the best way. Honestly, with the kind of attention FOO gets there is no chance they could sustain opening their doors to everybody. BAR may not have all the perks of FOO, but it certainly has a more scalable design.
“We think it’s useful that a bunch of people were upset at Foo Camp this year,” he said, “because we think it means that a bunch of them will come to our camp.”
This is quite obviously the most ‘controversial’ line to have ended with, it has been pretty apparent from most of the more ‘media-esque’ coverage we have received that this is the angle everybody wants to push. We’ve all responded to that sentiment a few times already, but I’ll do it again because now one of my quotes is framed against what I’ve previously said.
Yes, it is useful that a bunch of people were upset at FOO Camp. Useful because of the number of people it got to talk about us, useful because it means that, regardless of the spin of those talking about us, more people will hear about it. This is an event about community, community needs people.
That said, having people be upset about FOO is not on our agenda and is not something we have tried to inspire. Quite the opposite really, we were all quite impressed with Tim’s responses and did our best to talk up FOO. If being upset about FOO is what brought them to BAR, we certainly expect that they’ll be less upset once they read what we think.
The FUBAR thing is obviously not at all what we are talking about, Daniel has already said he’s planning on changing it. Any chance I can get a link to my blog, Daniel?