Part 8: What Brands Want from Content Creators

I’ve been creating content (and helping brands create content) for the Internet since 1995.  Here are a few things I’ve learned over the past 30 years that I am sharing at this year’s NABSHOW in Las Vegas.  Download the full deck here.

I am often asked, “How do you do it?” Usually, the question is really about workflow, output, consistency, or endurance. People assume there must be a hidden system. Some new tool. Some secret shortcut.

There is not.

That is why I wanted the series to end where it does. After all the economics, rates, rights, measurements, and future trends, the final advice comes back to character. Be genuine. Create content you are proud of while still figuring out how to make a living. That is not a soft ending. It is a practical one. If you build a career on work that feels false, you will eventually feel it too.

It’s really about developing business rules—a compass to guide you. I love that framing because rules save you when emotions get noisy. The bad feeling rule matters. If something feels off, slow down. The rule of threes rule matters because patterns tell the truth. The like-and-respect rule matters because when the work gets hard, it's the relationship that carries it. If you do not like and respect the people involved, the friction will show up somewhere.

Then comes focus. Stay on target. Build unique skills. Build in-demand skills. Build a portfolio. Do enough marketing so people can actually find you. None of that is glamorous, but it is what turns talent into a career. Too many creative people want the work to speak for itself. Sometimes it does. Most of the time, it helps if you also show up, explain yourself clearly, and stay visible.

I also wanted to end on a note of humility. Acknowledge ignorance. Set reasonable goals. Know that you know less than you know. Always be learning. That mindset has helped me more than any app, camera, or platform ever has. The moment you think you have mastered everything, you stop paying attention. And that is when the business starts moving past you.

So when people ask me how I do it, I do not think the answer is technology.

Relationships. Trust. Consistency. Value.

That is the answer.

Because when they can, people choose to do business with people they like and respect. That has been true in every era I have worked in. It is still true now. And I suspect it will still be true long after the next tool arrives.

Part 7: What Brands Want from Content Creators

I’ve been creating content (and helping brands create content) for the Internet since 1995.  Here are a few things I’ve learned over the past 30 years that I am sharing at this year’s NABSHOW in Las Vegas.  Download the full deck here.

Whenever a big technology shift hits, people start asking the same question in a new way: Is this the thing that changes everything?

With AI, the honest answer is yes and no.

Yes, it is changing the workflow. Creators are dealing with burnout, demonetization, and reduced support from platforms, but they are also entering a period in which AI is lowering entry barriers, speeding up production, and making more kinds of content possible for more people. That is real. We are already seeing AI move from novelty to utility. As I put it in the deck: AI is no longer experimental. It is operational.

But the second half matters just as much. Operational does not mean invisible. And it definitely does not mean trustworthy by default. One of the shortest lines in this section may be the most important: AI that looks like AI unsettles loyalty. I believe that. The moment a viewer feels manipulated, flattened, or generically processed, the relationship gets weaker. Speed helps. Sameness does not.

Additional research supports that tension. Fujifilm’s 2025 creator trends report, based on a YouGov Australia survey of more than 1,000 Millennial and Gen Z creators, found that 39% of creators believe AI has made content creation more accessible through things like editing tools and auto-captioning. At the same time, 39% say they are concerned about misinformation and how AI may affect the value of human creativity, while 28% are excited about AI’s potential for content quality and originality. That combination feels right to me. Excitement and anxiety can both be true.

The same report also notes that 77% of consumers prefer influencer-driven brand content over ads produced by traditional marketers, citing IZEA’s 2025 Trust in Influencer Marketing research. That is the piece people should not miss. Even as AI gets better, human-led storytelling still carries special weight.

So where does that leave creators? In a stronger position than the panic would suggest. The future likely belongs to people who can use AI as an assistive layer without letting it erase their point of view. Faster ideation, faster editing, faster production—great. But voice, judgment, taste, and trust are still earned the slow way.

Technology will keep evolving. It always does.
The creators who last will be the ones who know how to use the tools without becoming one.

Part 6: What Brands Want from Content Creators

I’ve been creating content (and helping brands create content) for the Internet since 1995.  Here are a few things I’ve learned over the past 30 years that I am sharing at this year’s NABSHOW in Las Vegas.  Download the full deck here.

One of the most important moments in a creator-brand relationship happens after the content goes live.

That is the part many people underplay. They think the hard work ends when the post is published, the reel is approved, or the campaign window closes. In reality, that is often when the next opportunity is either won or lost.

Let’s start with a mindset I think more creators need: acknowledge your ignorance, set reasonable goals, know that you know less than you think you do, and always be learning. I like that because it keeps the ego in check. When you stay teachable, you communicate better, you listen better, and you adapt faster. That matters because long-term relationships are built on trust, not just talent.

Then let’s look at the path from creator to ambassador. That is a subtle but important shift. A creator can deliver a campaign. An ambassador helps build momentum over time. The difference is not just frequency. It is how you behave.

What do brands expect from you? They expect you to deliver results, yes. But they also expect you to be organized, responsive, useful, and easy to work with. That is why one of my favorite slides in the whole deck is the one that says, “After the post. This is where partners get rehired.” Exactly. Send the performance screenshots or report. Ask for feedback. Offer another idea. Show that you are thinking about the relationship, not just the invoice.

The follow-up strategies are practical for a reason: stay in touch, share wins, proactively pitch follow-up ideas, and treat the relationship like a business relationship where you bring value, not just requests. That sentence should probably be on a sticky note next to every creator’s desk.

And then there are the habits. Respond quickly. Deliver early when possible. Underpromise and overdeliver. Avoid conflicts of interest. Keep using the products so you can continue finding real value and new angles. None of that is flashy. All of it matters.

The creators who keep getting hired are not always the loudest or the most viral. Often, they are the most dependable. They remove friction. They communicate clearly. They make the next collaboration feel easier than the first.

That is how trust compounds. And in this business, trust is one of the few advantages that really gets stronger with time.

Part 5: What Brands Want from Content Creators

I’ve been creating content (and helping brands create content) for the Internet since 1995.  Here are a few things I’ve learned over the past 30 years that I am sharing at this year’s NABSHOW in Las Vegas.  Download the full deck here.

A lot of creator campaigns do not fail because the content is weak. They fail because nobody agreed on what success was supposed to look like.

That is a very different problem.

I see this happen all the time. A creator looks at views and thinks the campaign performed well. A brand looks at conversions and feels underwhelmed. An agency points to engagement. A marketing lead cares about reusable assets. Everyone is technically looking at a metric, but no one is looking at the same definition of success.

That is why this section of the series focuses on measurement. Not because metrics are glamorous. They are not. But because shared measurement keeps relationships honest. The deck lays out a broader view than the usual vanity checklist: engagement rate, reach, impressions, click-through rate, conversions, sales, follower growth, brand mentions, sentiment, audience demographics, cost efficiency, brand fit, and the ongoing value of UGC the brand can reuse elsewhere.

That list matters because it reminds us that creator work does more than one job. Sometimes a campaign drives direct sales. Sometimes it introduces a product to the right audience. Sometimes it creates trusted how-to content. Sometimes it produces strong visual assets that the brand can repurpose across paid and owned channels. Sometimes it delivers real-time audience insight. Those are different wins, and they should not all be judged by the same scoreboard.

This is where creators can level up quickly. If all you do is post the content and wait, you will be treated like a vendor. If you understand the business objective behind the work, you become much more valuable. You can frame the result. You can show what resonated. You can help a brand understand why a campaign succeeded, where it missed the mark, and what to try next.

I also think this is a mindset issue. Many creators still feel more comfortable talking about aesthetics than performance. I get it. Numbers can feel cold. But if you want long-term partnerships, you have to become fluent in both. Good work earns attention. Measured work earns trust.

So no, the answer is not “more metrics.” The answer is alignment. Agree on the goal. Decide what the signal is. Then judge the work against the job it was supposed to do.

That sounds simple. In practice, it is one of the biggest competitive advantages a creator can have.

Part 4: What Brands Want from Content Creators

I’ve been creating content (and helping brands create content) for the Internet since 1995.  Here are a few things I’ve learned over the past 30 years that I am sharing at this year’s NABSHOW in Las Vegas.  Download the full deck here.

When people ask about getting paid, they usually want to jump straight to the number. What should I charge? What is the benchmark? What can I ask for?

Those are fair questions. But they are not the first ones I ask.

The first question is always: what exactly is being bought here?

That sounds obvious, but it is where many brand deals start to wobble. A creator may think they are being hired for one post. A brand may think they are buying a concept, a production day, a usage license, a paid media asset, category exclusivity, and three rounds of revisions. If that mismatch doesn’t clear up early, the relationship can go sideways fast. And when it goes sideways, it is rarely because the content was not good. It is usually because the expectations were fuzzy.

Earlier, I outlined the common structures creators see now: flat fees, affiliate commissions, product plus exposure, and long-term ambassadorships. By the time we get to the slides on getting paid, the point is not just that money changes hands in different ways. It is the payment structure that tells you something about the relationship. Is this a campaign? A test? A performance model? A long-term brand bet? Each one carries different risks and opportunities.

That is why clarity beats bravado. I would rather see a creator ask good questions than throw out a bold rate with no framework to back it up. What are the deliverables? What are the deadlines? Who approves what? What rights are being granted? Is there exclusivity? How many revisions are included? When is payment due? These are not annoying details. These are the deal.

And then there are the red flags. Vague scope. Rushed timelines. Endless “small” revisions. Usage language that quietly turns a social post into a full ad buy. Payment language that somehow gets less specific the closer you look. None of that means the brand is evil. But it does mean you need to slow down and read carefully.

The best negotiators I know are not combative. They are calm. They are specific. They understand that protecting the relationship means protecting the agreement.

If you want to get paid well, start by defining the work well. Once both sides understand what is being exchanged, the rate conversation becomes a whole lot more productive.

Part 2: What Brands Want from Content Creators

I’ve been creating content (and helping brands create content) for the Internet since 1995.  Here are a few things I’ve learned over the past 30 years that I am sharing at this year’s NABSHOW in Las Vegas.  Download the full deck here.

Before a brand answers your email, before they schedule a call, before they ask for a rate, they have already formed an opinion.

That opinion is often based on your profile, your presentation, and how clearly you communicate what you do. That is why I spend so much time talking about brand fit, platform audit, and media kits. People think the pitch starts when you hit send. It starts much earlier than that.

Brands are usually looking for a few things at once: audience alignment, consistency, professionalism, and creative vision. None of those are mysterious. They want to know whether your audience matches their customer. They want to see that you publish regularly and with a level of quality they can count on. They want to know whether you are organized, responsive, and deadline-driven. And they want some evidence that you have ideas, not just a camera roll.

That is where the brand-fit questions become useful. Does your tone match theirs? Are your values aligned? Do you create content that solves problems for their customers? Those are better questions than “Would this brand be cool to work with?” because they get past vanity and into usefulness.

Then comes the part that too many creators skip: auditing your own platform. Does your profile clearly tell people what you do? Do your bio, highlights, pinned posts, website, or PDF media kit show your best work quickly? Have you made it easy for someone to understand your value in sixty seconds or less? If not, the problem may not be your outreach. The problem may be your storefront.

I love the line in the deck that says your media kit is your first deliverable. That is exactly right. A media kit is not just a brochure. It is a signal. It shows whether you can organize information, present value clearly, and think like a partner instead of an artist waiting to be discovered.

The same applies to rates and negotiation. If you know how to explain engagement, niche value, complexity, and usage rights, you sound more credible immediately. Not because you are performing confidence, but because you understand what is actually being bought.

A strong creator pitch does not feel desperate. It feels useful. It tells the brand, “Here is who I help, how I work, and why this collaboration makes sense.” That clarity wins attention. And very often, it wins the job.

Part 2: What Brands Want from Content Creators

I’ve been creating content (and helping brands create content) for the Internet since 1995.  Here are a few things I’ve learned over the past 30 years that I am sharing at this year’s NABSHOW in Las Vegas.  Download the full deck here.

A lot of creators assume brands are still chasing the same old thing: big reach, polished content, and a nice-looking feed. Those things help. But they are not the whole story anymore.

The real change is where attention has gone. We are living in what I call the post-social era shift. Public posting still matters, but more and more meaningful activity is happening in private messages, group chats, small communities, Discord servers, live streams, and other spaces where people actually talk to each other. Adam Mosseri’s public comment that Instagram sharing now happens primarily in DMs is not a throwaway remark. It is a clue. Discovery has not stopped. Buying has not stopped. Trust has not stopped. But a lot of it now happens in places brands cannot easily see or control.

That is exactly why creators matter more. A good creator does not just have audience size. A good creator has access, context, and permission. They are already inside the conversations. They are welcome in the room. And that means they can carry a brand message in ways a paid ad often cannot.

The deck lays this out pretty clearly. Brands work with creators because creators bring reach, authenticity, niche targeting, strong engagement, and cost efficiency. But it goes further than that. Creators also produce useful assets: photos, videos, written content, tutorials, reviews, product education, social proof, even SEO lift and audience feedback. In other words, the creator is not just media. The creator is strategy, production, distribution, and insight all wrapped together.

That is why “authenticity” is not just a soft word brands throw around when they do not know what else to say. Authenticity is a business value. If the recommendation feels natural, trust rises. If the partnership feels forced, everything gets more expensive. The post may still go live, but the relationship with the audience gets weaker.

That is why I keep coming back to this idea: creators who understand business will outlast creators who only understand content. Making strong work still matters. Of course it does. But in a maturing economy, professionalism becomes part of the creative edge. The creators who win are the ones who can connect storytelling to outcomes, relationships, and value.

That is the real takeaway. The creator economy is still growing. But more importantly, it is growing up.

Part 1: What Brands Want from Content Creators

I’ve been creating content (and helping brands create content) for the Internet since 1995.  Here are a few things I’ve learned over the past 30 years that I am sharing at this year’s NABSHOW in Las Vegas.  Download the full deck here.

A few years ago, calling yourself a content creator often sounded like a hedge. It was something people did on the side. Maybe it was serious. Maybe it was a hobby with better lighting. That framing no longer holds.

What I wanted to make clear in this part of the talk is simple: the creator economy has crossed over. It is now measured in the hundreds of billions; there are tens of millions of professional creators in the United States alone, and a growing share of them are doing this full-time. That changes the tone of the conversation. We are not talking about a fringe activity. We are talking about a real business category with real budgets, real expectations, and real competition.

And once money enters the picture at that level, the market gets smarter. Brands are not just spending more. They are spending more selectively. The money is moving toward micro-influencers, paid amplification of creator content, and longer-term ambassador relationships instead of one-and-done deals. That is an important shift. It tells me brands are looking less for a momentary burst and more for a sustained result. They want trust, relevance, and repeatability.

Video is a big part of that. Short-form video continues to outperform because it is fast, native to the platforms, and highly persuasive. The deck points out that short-form video delivers the highest ROI of any content format and that a large majority of consumers say video has directly influenced a purchase decision. That should not surprise anyone who has watched how people actually buy now. Discovery, education, trust, and action are happening in the same scroll.

The rise of social commerce pushes this even further. In-app checkout, creator storefronts, affiliate ecosystems, and shoppable posts are all making it easier to turn attention into revenue. That means the creator is not just there to “make something cool.” The creator is increasingly part of the path to purchase.

That is why I keep coming back to this idea: creators who understand business will outlast creators who only understand content. Making strong work still matters. Of course it does. But in a maturing economy, professionalism becomes part of the creative edge. The creators who win are the ones who can connect storytelling to outcomes, relationships, and value.

That is the real takeaway. The creator economy is still growing. But more importantly, it is growing up.

I recently returned from this year’s SXSW, and one of my favorite parts of the trip has become a tradition: my son and I go together to learn.

There’s something special about sharing that kind of experience. We get to explore new ideas, compare notes, and occasionally discover the things we need the most.

This year, one session really stuck with me. My son and I took a class together led by the team at LEGO, and it focused on something deceptively simple: creativity and play.

That topic hit home.

Building with LEGO bricks is something my son, daughter, and I have often done together. It’s one of those rare activities that manages to be relaxing and creative. You sit down intending to build one thing, and before long you’re experimenting, improvising and solving problems.

And I’ll admit, I’m grateful for the AFOL movement — Adult Fans of LEGO. It’s a reminder that play doesn’t have an expiration date. There’s a whole community of adults who still build, imagine, collect, and create with LEGO. I find that reassuring. It means spending an unreasonable amount of time with tiny plastic pieces can still pass as a legitimate use of time.

Start the creative engine

The class began with a free-building exercise. We had just two minutes to build a childhood memory.

Two minutes.

That was enough time for some people in the room to start cracking a little under the pressure, which honestly made me feel better. Adults are amazing. Give us a pile of bricks and a playful prompt, and we’ll somehow turn it into a stress test.

I built a staircase to the basement.

I grew up in a duplex with my mom. She was a single parent and a school teacher, which meant we didn’t have a lot of money. But I did have some very cool space-themed LEGO sets, and I had my own space in the basement where I could play with toys, build starbases, and make my own universe.

It wasn’t fancy, but it was mine.

Looking back, that space meant a lot. It gave me room to imagine. Room to build. Room to disappear into a world I could shape for myself.

My son built a train.

When I asked him why, he reminded me of a LEGO train set he had as a kid and how we used to build together, laying down tracks in all sorts of wild patterns that made perfect sense at the time. He also reminded me that I occasionally yelled when I stepped on the bricks with bare feet.

In my defense, it hurt.

I’m pretty sure every parent in the room would back me up on this: LEGO bricks and bare insteps are a painful combination. Still, I apologized to my now 21-year-old son, Michael, who assured me that he understood and that my occasional yelps did not permanently scar him. So that was encouraging.

What I loved about that exercise was how quickly it cut past the polished adult version of ourselves. In just two minutes, people weren’t trying to build something impressive. They were building memories. They were building emotion. They were building meaning.

From physical to digital

And that set up the next exercise perfectly.

After working with physical bricks, we shifted into a digital exercise. On our phones, we built ducks using digital LEGO pieces. The challenge was simple: just six blocks and a few different styles of eyes.

That was it.

Then each person in the room made their own duck.

Pretty quickly, the shared pond filled up with a surprising variety of ducks. Some looked cheerful. Some looked cranky. Some looked confused. A few looked like they had been through some things. Each one was built from the same limited ingredients, but each one had its own personality.

That was the lesson.

Yes, the physical bricks were more fun. You can’t quite replace the tactile satisfaction of snapping real pieces together. But what struck me was how well the same ideas translated into the digital space. Constraint still sparked creativity. Small choices still revealed personality. Iteration still mattered. Play still opened the door to discovery.

Why this all matters

During the session, the LEGO team also shared what they called the five characteristics of play:

• Joyful

• Socially interactive

• Actively engaged

• Meaningful

• Iterative

That list has stayed with me, because it doesn’t just describe play. It also describes the best kind of creative work.

Play is joyful. It brings energy instead of draining it.

It’s socially interactive. Even when the work is personal, play often invites connection, collaboration, and shared discovery.

It’s actively engaged. Play isn’t passive. It asks something of us. It draws us in.

It’s meaningful. Even when it looks silly from the outside, it often carries memory, emotion, and identity.

And maybe most importantly, it’s iterative. You try something. It doesn’t quite work. You rebuild. You tweak. You try again.

That’s exaclty like the creative process. 

Listen to your kids

The LEGO team also played back interviews with kids and teens talking about why play is so important to them and why they think adults often lose touch with it.

Their answers were honest and insightful, and a little uncomfortable in the way truth often is.

Somewhere along the way, adults start worrying too much.

We worry about looking goofy.
We worry about being productive.
We worry about whether an idea is good before we’ve even given it room to become interesting.
We worry about being judged by people who are probably too busy worrying about themselves to notice.

And in the process, it’s easy to lose the spark.

I work in a creative field, and even then, it’s surprisingly easy to drift away from play. Deadlines, budgets, deliverables, revisions, expectations — all of that is real. Necessary, even. But it can also squeeze the life out of creativity if you let it. Somewhere between “be imaginative” and the fourth meeting of the day, the playful part of the brain can quietly leave the building.

That’s why this session landed for me.

It was a reminder to stop worrying so much about looking silly.

To have fun.

To let the mind roam.

That doesn’t mean being aimless. It means making room for experimentation. It means giving yourself permission to explore without needing every step to be polished or justified. It means remembering that creativity doesn’t always begin with a plan. Sometimes it begins with a staircase, a train, or a duck with crazy eyes.

Reconnect with your kids

And taking that class with my son made the lesson hit even harder.

As parents, mentors, and teacher, we spend a lot of time thinking about how to prepare kids for the future. We want to equip them with skills. We want to help them build confidence. We want them to be ready for a world that is changing quickly.

But maybe one of the most valuable things we can do is protect their ability to play.

And maybe reclaim some of it for ourselves too.

Because play is not separate from creativity.

It’s where creativity begins.

Once we reconnect with play, something opens up. We get a little braver. A little more curious. A little less afraid of getting it wrong. We start experimenting again. Rebuilding. Exploring. Making room for ideas that don’t arrive fully polished.

And that brings me to the biggest takeaway I brought home from SXSW.

The future is ours to create.

We should harness the power of play and creativity to equip children so they can dream big and have a voice in shaping the future.

Let’s inspire kids to imagine futures that reflect their passions and values.

And while we’re at it, let’s remember that adults need that invitation too.

Because creativity doesn’t disappear with age.

Sometimes it just gets buried under slack messags, JIRA tasks, meetings, and email and the mistaken belief that we always need to act like we know exactly what we’re doing.

Speaking for myself, that belief has been wildly overrated.

Special thanks to these two workshop leaders for an inspiring day.

Joana Lenkova

Director of Cultural and Futures Intelligence at the LEGO Group

David Pallash

Director, Global Initiatives Social Responsibility at the LEGO Group

Whether you’re attending a session or giving one, good notes matter.

They’re not just a memory aid. They’re a way to turn a fast-moving presentation into something you can actually use later. For attendees, notes help you remember ideas, capture action items, and share the best takeaways with your team. For speakers, notes can become recap content, follow-up resources, and even the foundation for future blog posts, handouts, or training materials.

The problem is that making truly useful session notes has always been a lot of work.

At SXSW this year, I started using a new process that combines human effort with AI. It worked surprisingly well.

The key is simple: don’t ask AI to do all the thinking. Use it to organize and refine what you captured on purpose.

What makes session notes actually useful?

Useful notes are not a raw transcript.

A transcript tells you what was said. Useful notes tell you what mattered.

That means good session notes should do a few things well:

They should capture the core ideas. They should preserve memorable phrases or examples. They should make it easy to review later. And they should be readable enough that someone who missed the session can still benefit.

The process I used

Here’s the workflow I used, and it’s one I’ll absolutely use again.

1. Open your notes app before the session starts

2. Record the audio for personal reference only

3. Take photos of important slides

If the speaker shares a slide that contains a key framework, a chart, a quote, or a list, snap a reference photo.

Even better, grab the speaker’s deck as a PDF if they make it available. That gives you much cleaner source material to work from later.

4. Launch your favorite AI tool after the session

After the session, I opened my favorite GPT tool. In my case, I used Claude because I found it especially good at organizing this kind of material. The specific tool matters less than the process. Use the one you trust and the one that gives you solid long-form output.

5. Generate the transcript

6. Paste in the session description, your notes, and your source materials

This step is where the magic starts.

I pasted in:

• the session description

• my own notes

• the transcript

• and any slide photos or PDFs I had

This gives the AI multiple sources to compare. That’s important, because each source has strengths and weaknesses.

Your notes show what you thought mattered.
The transcript fills in the details.
The slides help clarify structure and terminology.

Together, they produce much better results than any one source by itself.

7. Give the AI a clear prompt

I used a prompt along these lines:

1. Create meaningful speaker notes

2. Please add pull quotes or illustrations as needed

3. Create them for a high school reading level

4. Create both HTML and a DOC for download

That prompt worked well because it was specific about the output.

You’re not asking for a summary. You’re asking for a usable document.

That distinction matters.

8. Use a stronger model when it matters

This is one of those tasks where a more advanced model is often worth it.

You’re asking the AI to compare sources, find the important ideas, resolve inconsistencies, simplify language, and produce formatted output. That’s real synthesis work.

A better model usually does a better job.

9. Review and share with your team

Before you send anything out, read it.

AI can save you a ton of time, but it still needs an editor. Check names. Check quotes. Make sure the important ideas actually came through. Remove anything that feels too generic or too padded.

Then share the notes with your colleagues or your team. Good conference notes can extend the value of a session far beyond the room. Consider making a LinkedIn Article or blog post as needed to spread the knowledge.

10. Publish and credit the speakers

If the notes are strong, turn them into a blog post or LinkedIn post.

And if you do share them publicly, tag the speakers. It’s the right thing to do, and it helps connect your recap back to the original session.

Just remember: you’re sharing insights and notes, not republishing someone else’s talk word for word.

Final thoughts

• The best session notes don’t just document a talk. They preserve the value of it.

• If you build a simple capture workflow and then use AI to shape the material, you can create notes that are actually worth revisiting, sharing, and publishing.

• That’s a big step up from a messy notebook page or a transcript that just sits in a folder.

At SXSW, this process turned out to be one of the most practical conference workflow improvements I’ve tried in a long time.

And it’s one I’ll keep using.

Sometimes the best conference session is the one you find after the first choice completely falls apart.

This one was a total audible.

My son and I started in a different SXSW session, and within minutes it was obvious we had made a bad call. It wasn’t just a little off. It was awful. So we did what every conference attendee eventually has to do: we bailed, checked the schedule, and made a fast pivot.

That scramble landed us in Vibe Shift: How New Media Upended Our Ideas and Aesthetics, and I’m honestly glad the first session was a dud. On a whim, we walked into one of the smartest and most entertaining talks I saw at SXSW. Better still, it gave my son and me one of those rare conference moments where you both leave energized, talking a mile a minute, and immediately start comparing notes.

Speaker and topic

The speaker was Adam Aleksic, a linguist, author, and creator better known online as Etymology Nerd. His talk looked at how AI systems and recommendation algorithms are quietly reshaping the way we talk, what we notice, and even how culture gets packaged and pushed back to us.

What I appreciated right away is that this wasn’t a vague “AI is changing everything” presentation. It was much more specific than that. Aleksic focused on language, perception, taste, and the strange feedback loops that happen when machines start influencing the humans they were supposedly built to model.

Why this session worked

Adam Aleksic has that rare mix of deep expertise and stage presence. He can take an idea that sounds academic on paper and make it feel immediate, visual, and honestly a little unsettling in the best way.

The hook was deceptively simple: the word delve.

One of his opening examples was that large language models tend to overuse certain words compared to the way people naturally speak or write. “Delve” was the poster child. Once you notice that, you start seeing the bigger issue. AI doesn’t just reflect language. It nudges language. Then we absorb those nudges, start repeating them, and feed the changed language right back into the system.

That idea became the backbone of the whole session.

Key takeaway #1: AI is already changing how humans sound

This was probably the cleanest and most memorable point in the talk.

We tend to think of AI as a tool we use. Aleksic made the case that once a tool becomes conversational, it starts leaving residue. Word choice shifts. Tone shifts. Phrasing shifts. And because so many people are now interacting with chatbots, those changes can spread surprisingly fast.

That mattered to me because it turns AI from a software story into a communication story. It’s not just about prompts and outputs. It’s about whether our language starts getting flatter, more predictable, or more synthetic without us even noticing.

Key takeaway #2: Machines can model patterns, but they miss the feeling of words

Another strong section explained, in simple terms, how language models work. Words get broken into tokens, converted into numbers, run through math, and turned back into language.

Useful? Absolutely.

But Aleksic also made the point that human language has texture that goes beyond probability. Some words feel round. Some feel sharp. Some sounds carry tone and emotion before you ever define them. That was a great reminder that AI can sound polished while still missing something deeply human.

The grammar may be right. The emotional grain often isn’t.

Key takeaway #3: Bias isn’t a glitch you patch later

One of the stronger sections of the talk focused on bias entering the system at multiple stages: in the training data, in the human review process, and in the outputs that get rewarded.

In other words, you don’t get a neutral machine that later drifts off course. You get a system shaped by imperfect inputs from the start.

That’s an important distinction. These tools are not floating above culture. They are made out of culture, with all the mess, blind spots, and skew that comes with it.

Key takeaway #4: Algorithms don’t just discover trends. They help manufacture them

This is where the session widened out from language into aesthetics and culture.

Aleksic used examples like hyperpop, matcha, Dubai chocolate, and TradWife content to show how labels, recommendation systems, and visual reward structures can push a niche thing into a full-blown trend.

That’s a very different idea than “the internet found a cool thing.”

In many cases, the system helps define the thing, name it, cluster it, and amplify it until it feels bigger and more natural than it really is. That was one of the most useful ideas in the whole session because it applies to way more than music or food trends. It applies to taste itself.

Key takeaway #5: Your feed is not reality

Another idea I kept circling back to was survivorship bias in content.

We don’t see everything. We see what survives.

What shows up in a feed has already passed through filters for attention, platform rules, ad-friendliness, and relevance to the algorithm’s model of you. Once you hear it put that way, a lot of online life starts making more sense.

Outrage seems common because outrage performs. Extreme takes feel normal because they’re overrepresented. Camera-friendly products and lifestyles can feel universal when they’re really just highly optimized for attention.

That’s a useful thing to remember whether you’re looking at politics, culture, or just whatever weird niche trend takes over your feed next week.

Key takeaway #6: The best advice was also the simplest

Aleksic closed with practical advice, and honestly it was probably the part that stuck with me the most.

Touch grass.

Start with something real. Build outward from direct experience. Be more skeptical the farther away you get from firsthand reality.

I liked that because it didn’t pretend we can all unplug completely and live off-grid. It was more grounded than that. Pay attention to where your inputs come from. Add friction to your life. Compare tools instead of trusting one. Don’t anthropomorphize AI. Sleep with your phone in another room.

Simple advice, but not simplistic.

Final thought

If you get the chance to hear Adam Aleksic speak, do it.

He made a dense topic feel accessible without watering it down. More important, he gave the audience something useful to carry out of the room: a better vocabulary for understanding how AI and algorithms are not just tools we use, but environments we increasingly live inside.

Not bad for a last-minute audible.

Here are my full session notes below as a PDF file

https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:3356dbd5-5c0e-44da-8cd3-5145ea886e10

I went to SXSW this year because Radiant Imaging Labs is at an important moment.

We’ve bootstrapped the company from the ground up, and we’re now on the edge of some major change — the good kind. When you reach that point, it’s useful to step back and look at your business through a different lens. That’s what led me to attend “Pitching to Angels 101: Think Like an Investor.”

I wanted to better understand how investors evaluate opportunity, risk, and readiness as companies enter a new stage of growth. The team from Central Texas Angel Networks really delivered.

Fundraising Is Really a Filtering Process

One thing I appreciated right away was how practical the session was.

It didn’t glamorize fundraising. Instead, it framed angel investing for what it really is: a filtering process. Investors see a lot of companies, move forward with very few, and know that most bets won’t work out.

That was a helpful reminder. It takes some of the mystery out of fundraising and puts the focus where it belongs — on clarity, traction, timing, and trust.

Start With the Problem

The biggest takeaway for me was simple: founders often lead with the product when they should lead with the problem.

That’s an easy mistake to make, especially if you’re close to the work. You want to talk about features, workflows, or what makes the solution different. But investors first want to know what pain exists, who feels it, and why it matters now.

Before you explain the solution, you need to make the problem feel real.

Investors Hear the Story Differently

Another good reminder was that investors are listening for different things than founders.

Founders naturally focus on what they built. Investors are asking whether the business can grow, whether the market is big enough, whether the team can execute, and whether the opportunity is strong enough to justify the risk.

That changes how you tell the story. It means focusing less on mechanics and more on market, model, traction, and timing.

Clarity More Than Cleverness

The session also broke down what a solid pitch needs to do: get attention quickly, define the problem clearly, explain the solution, show the market, prove traction, and make a realistic ask.

None of that is complicated on paper. But it’s easy to overtalk, overdesign, or overexplain.

One of the best reminders was to keep things simple: one idea per slide, fewer words, less fluff. A clear pitch doesn’t just make the deck easier to follow — it signals that the founder really understands the business.

Traction Changes the Conversation

Another recurring theme was traction.

Not hype. Not polish. Not enthusiasm.

Traction.

Customers, revenue, retention, growth, or any proof that the market is responding in a real way. That’s what lowers risk. That’s what gives investors confidence that the story is more than a good idea.

Why This Hit Home

As a bootstrapped company, Radiant Imaging Labs has had to be resourceful from day one. We’ve learned by building, testing, refining, and growing carefully.

That experience is a strength. But this session was a good reminder that when you step into investor conversations, you have to translate your story. Internally, you may think in terms of product and progress. Investors are thinking in terms of risk, return, and scale.

Understanding that difference is valuable, whether fundraising is right around the corner or not.

If I had to sum up the session in one line, it would be this:

Don’t pitch the machinery. Pitch the fire.

Thanks to Katie Russeland Gary Fornifor a fantastic session at #SXSW. I appreciated the honest, hands-on approach and the clear insights into how investors evaluate opportunity, risk, and traction. It was one of those sessions that gives you ideas you can apply right away.

Here are my notes from the session as well - https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:656303c8-d57c-4ce3-ba91-678cedd0c34d

I attended an SXSW session today on how the Pop-Tarts Bowl became one of the most talked-about properties in college football, and it was a smart reminder that the best marketing does not start with visibility. It starts with truth.

On the surface, it sounds like a fun case study in mascot chaos and brand virality. But underneath it was a much more useful lesson about sports, identity, and what makes people actually care.

That hit home for me personally because I participated in college sports, and I have always been impressed by the passion they generate. There is something different about the energy around college athletics. It is emotional, tribal, loyal, and rooted in tradition. Fans are not casually consuming. They are showing up with history, habits, and pride.

The panel made the case that the Pop-Tarts Bowl worked because it understood that truth from the start.

It began with ritual

One of the smartest insights shared during the session was that both college football and Pop-Tarts are built around ritual.

College football has obvious rituals: tailgates, rivalries, chants, game watches, bowl traditions, and the emotional rhythm of the season. But Pop-Tarts has rituals too. People eat them in very specific ways, and those habits become oddly personal. Toasted. Untoasted. Frozen. Buttered. Corners first.

That may sound silly, but it is exactly the point. The partnership worked because it connected two things that people already experience with loyalty and personal attachment. It was not just a brand buying exposure in sports. It was a brand finding a real behavioral overlap.

Weird works better when it is true

The edible mascot is what made the Pop-Tarts Bowl famous, but the session made clear that the idea did not succeed just because it was outrageous.

It succeeded because it was rooted in brand DNA.

Everything about the activation pointed back to the product: the look of the mascot, the toaster imagery, the frosting aesthetic, the humor, even the willingness to make the food itself the star. The panelists emphasized that the brand had clear non-negotiables. The product had to look appealing. The idea had to celebrate the food, not diminish it. Every element had to feel authentically connected to what Pop-Tarts already was.

That matters because audiences can feel when weird is random. They can also feel when weird is earned.

The real metric is reaction

Another major takeaway from the session was how the team measures success.

They do not dismiss reach or impressions, but they do not treat those numbers as the whole story. What matters more is reaction. Are fans engaging? Are they commenting? Are they making the concept their own? Are they building lore around it in places like TikTok, Instagram, and Reddit?

That is a better way to think about sports marketing. Especially in college sports, attention is not enough. Participation is the real signal. When fans start extending the story themselves, you know the idea has moved beyond media and into culture.

Behind the fun is serious discipline

One of my favorite details from the panel was hearing that the Pop-Tarts Bowl has a 79-page run of show.

That detail says a lot.

From the outside, this activation looks delightfully ridiculous. But behind the scenes, it is tightly produced, carefully aligned, and operationally disciplined. That combination is worth remembering. The strongest creative ideas often look effortless in public because they were handled rigorously in private.

In other words, the lesson is not just “be bold.” The lesson is “be bold and be prepared.”

Why this case study matters

For me, the Pop-Tarts Bowl is not just a story about a successful sponsorship. It is a story about respecting the emotional reality of sports.

Because I played college sports, I have seen up close how much energy, loyalty, and identity they create. That passion cannot be treated as a media channel. It has to be understood as a culture. The brands that win in that environment are the ones that recognize what fans already care about and build ideas that belong there.

That is what stood out most from this session.

The Pop-Tarts Bowl did not become relevant by trying to act like college football. It became relevant by understanding something true about college football fans and then showing up with a concept bold enough, disciplined enough, and authentic enough to deserve their attention.

That is a much harder job than buying a logo placement.

It is also a much more valuable one.

You can download my session notes here – https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:US:4cf8cbd7-5cf6-4dec-b155-160b13e61495

This week, I’m headed to SXSW with my son during his spring break of senior year.

On a personal level, this trip feels significant. He’s steadily making that transition into adulthood, whether he fully wants to admit it or not. As a parent, those moments have a way of making you pause and reflect.

What makes this especially meaningful is that we’re both going to learn.

He’ll be spending the week exploring XR — extended reality, including VR and AR — along with artificial intelligence. Those subjects are closely tied to what he’s been studying, along with psychology. For him, this work is more than academic. As a young adult with autism, his interest in these areas is deeply connected to a desire to help others on the spectrum build more meaningful connections with the world around them and with the people in it.

That makes this journey especially rewarding to watch.

He’s come a long way, and I’m incredibly proud of the thoughtful, capable young man he’s becoming. A big part of that is thanks to my partner in life, Meghan, who is not only an incredible mom but also a special education teacher. She has brought extraordinary patience, wisdom, and heart to our family’s journey, and I’m deeply grateful for the role she’s played in helping him grow and thrive.

On my side, I’ll be focused on AI from a practical perspective, especially as it relates to the software projects I work on. There are big updates ahead for both Radiant Photo and Mylio, and I’m looking forward to sessions that help sharpen my thinking around where these tools are going and how they can be used in meaningful ways.

I’m also eager to spend time in conversations around the creator economy, marketing, and audience engagement, which connect directly to my consulting work with Fujifilm. It’s an interesting time to be working at the intersection of technology, creativity, education, and community.

One of the biggest lessons I continue to see, both personally and professionally, is that learning never really stops. The tools change. The platforms evolve. New opportunities appear. But curiosity, empathy, and the willingness to keep growing remain essential.

I’m proud that Meghan and I have worked to help both of our children understand the value of lifelong learning. More than ever, I believe that mindset is one of the most important advantages any of us can have.

I’m looking forward to a week of fresh ideas, practical insights, and meaningful conversations — and I’m especially grateful to share this experience with my son.

I’ll be back in Las Vegas for NAB Show and Post|Production World — conferences/workshops run April 18–22, 2026 (show floor/exhibits April 19–22) at the Las Vegas Convention Center. (NAB Show)

I first attended NAB in 2003. That’s a long run of bad coffee, great conversations, and new gear I absolutely didn’t need (but somehow still “required”). And honestly? Even after all these years, it’s still an honor to be invited back to teach.

This year is also a little extra special because I’m sharing the Post|Production World program manager role with my friend Eran Stern — a motion graphics educator and AI-minded creative technologist with decades in post. (https://sternfx.co.uk)

Thanks to my friend Ben Kozuch and Future Media Conferences for putting on this important industry event.

Why the show is meaningful to me

NAB is one of the few places where the whole ecosystem shows up at once — creators, engineers, editors, producers, vendors, and the folks who actually have to make the pipeline work on deadline.

A few reasons I keep coming back:

• It’s a reset button. You get out of your usual routine and look at your workflow with fresh eyes.

• It’s practical. You can hear what people are really doing (and what’s quietly breaking) in production and post.

• It’s community. The hallway chats, the “how are you solving this?” conversations, and the shared war stories are half the value.

How to sign up for Post|Production World

Post|Production World (PPW) is the training conference that runs alongside NAB Show. (NAB Show)

Here’s the simple path:

1. Go to the official Post|Production World page on the NAB Show site.

2. Choose a PPW pass that fits how deep you want to go.

3. Build your schedule once you’re registered — PPW notes you can mix tracks and no pre-registration is required for sessions with a conference pass. (NAB Show)

My session lineup

Below is a summary of what I’m teaching — trimmed down, but still specific about what you’ll walk away with.

What Brands Want from Content Creators

The goal: Make brand partnerships smoother and longer-lasting.
What we’ll cover:

• Clear deliverables, timelines, approvals, and usage/rights (before things get weird)

• How to pitch your value without losing your voice

• Negotiation basics: rates, scope, and protecting the relationship

• Reporting results with metrics that brands actually understand

From Story to Action: Strategic Content Creation for Brands

The goal: Stop “posting” and start publishing with intent.
What we’ll cover:

• Picking outcomes you can measure (before you make the content)

• Matching message to audience and platform

• Repurposing content without becoming repetitive

• Sustainable workflows: batching, cadence, and planning models

Color Correction Essentials in Premiere Pro

The goal: A repeatable “get it natural first” workflow — then push the look cleanly.
What we’ll cover:

• Scopes (Waveform/Vectorscope/RGB Parade) without the mystery

• White balance, exposure, and saturation in the right order

• Shot matching for consistency across a scene

• Curves + secondaries for precision (skin, skies, product colors)

• Rescue strategies for mixed lighting and tough footage

Productivity Strategies for Creative Pros (Interactive)

The goal: Protect deep work time without turning your week into a spreadsheet tragedy.
What we’ll do together:

• Identify your biggest blockers (interruptions, context switching, tool chaos)

• Time blocking/time slicing that survives client notes

• Eisenhower Matrix prioritization (urgent vs. important)

• A simple weekly review to reset and plan like a sane person

Creating an AI Ethics Policy for Your Company (Interactive)

The goal: Turn “be responsible with AI” into a policy teams can actually follow under deadline.
What we’ll build:

• Clear boundaries: what’s allowed, what’s banned, what needs review

• Disclosure and authenticity expectations (especially around misinformation)

• Consent/likeness and synthetic voice decision points

• Copyright/IP risk basics for AI-assisted and generative workflows

• A repeatable decision framework + workflow checkpoints

Edutainment: How to Produce Effective Training Content

The goal: Training that teaches clearly and keeps people watching.
What we’ll cover:

• Defining learning outcomes that shape every creative choice

• Structuring lessons for clarity and retention

• Working with SMEs/on-camera talent without scope drift

• Choosing formats that fit budget + timeline (screen capture vs presenter vs mixed)

• Measuring effectiveness (completion, comprehension, behavior change)

PS Dynamic Link: Advanced Photoshop Techniques for After Effects Users

The goal: PSDs that animate cleanly — and stay flexible when revisions hit.
What we’ll cover:

• Layer organization that prevents bloated comps and slow previews

• Smart Objects + Camera Raw workflows that scale

• Type and layer styles that behave in motion

• Lens/perspective cleanup before you comp

• LUT workflows and fast content-aware fixes for “save the shot” moments

Stay on Target: Project Management Essentials for Video Pros

The goal: Keep scope, schedule, and communication from quietly wrecking good creative.
What we’ll cover:

• Translating a creative brief into clear scope + deliverables

• Estimating timelines that include reviews, revisions, and approvals

• A simple project control cycle to spot problems early

• Managing handoffs with freelancers/teams

• Closing projects cleanly (and turning one job into the next)

If you’re heading to NAB this year, I hope you’ll carve out time for a few PPW sessions. Come say hi after class

I am making these statements as a father, not as a representative of the groups I belong to.

Scouting was founded in the early 1900s. And like any movement that’s lasted more than a century, it hasn’t stayed frozen in time—it has grown, modernized, and adapted as society changed.

That’s not a weakness in the program. It’s part of why it’s still here.

It’s also worth saying plainly: Scouting has never been only about boys in the simplistic way some people talk about it today. Even long before the recent changes that get argued about online, Scouting had co-ed pathways—like Exploring becoming coeducational in April 1971 (that was before I was even born).. Young women and men explored adventure together as well as programs like police and fire programs and much more.

I’m writing this as a father.

Im a dad who has spent years watching what Scouting can do for young people—when we let it focus on its mission instead of using it as a political trophy.

Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of the Scouting movement, wrote:

That’s not a political statement. It’s a character statement. It’s a parenting statement, honestly—the kind of thing you want shaping your child when the world is trying to teach them suspicion and contempt.

And that’s why I’m disappointed that our government has chosen to hold America’s Scouting program hostage with an untenable choice.

This didn’t start this week

If all you saw was a headline about a merit badge, it might feel sudden. It wasn’t.

In November 2025, reporting based on documents reviewed by NPR described the Pentagon preparing to sever ties with Scouting America—cutting off military support for the National Jamboree and restricting Scout units from meeting on military installations in the U.S. and abroad.

Then in early February 2026, the pressure turned public. The Pentagon warned Scouting America to implement what it called “core value reforms” or risk losing long-standing military support—right as many units and families were looking toward the July National Jamboree, which has historically relied on substantial military logistical and medical help.

So by the time we got to late February, this wasn’t a conversation. It was a squeeze.

What happened on Feb. 27

On February 27, 2026, the Department of War published a statement saying the Pentagon will conditionally continue support for Scouting America after the organization’s commitment to remove DEI initiatives, revise language in publications, discontinue the “Citizenship in Society” merit badge, and change membership and “intimate spaces” policies to align with “biological sex at birth.”

That same announcement described a signed memorandum of understanding (MOU) and made it clear the Pentagon intends to evaluate whether Scouting America is making “substantial progress” over time.

Whether you agree with these changes or not, the dynamic matters: this is a youth program being pushed around by the federal government in a way that feels less like partnership and more like leverage.

Why this hits my family so personally

Both my wife and I were Scouts as youth and now serve as Scout leaders. My wife is also a special edication teacher and helps other leaders learn how to help youth who need support learn how to adapt the program while preserving the challenges and intent

Both of my children are Eagle Scouts—one a son, and one a daughter. I’ve been a Scout leader in girls troops, boys troops, and a co-ed Venturing crew. I’ve mentored young men and women for about fifteen years. It’s changed my life. And I’ve seen Scouting make citizens—real citizens—who I trust to run the world.

My own children benefit from diversity and inclusion. I won’t share aspects of their lives that are theirs to tell, but I will say this: one child has autism, and the other has ADHD and related challenges. Nothing about Scouting has ever felt “woke” in our day-to-day life. But every Scout learns to do their best—and *that* includes the kids who need a little more patience, a little more clarity, or a different path to confidence.

That’s not politics. That’s community.

That’s not coddling. That’s leadership.

That’s not weakness. That’s courage.

Duty to God and my country” is bigger than a slogan

When Scouts say the Scout Oath, this is what we say.

"On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight." 

This is not a pledge to one narrow idea of God.

Morally straight is about ethics and integrity, not who a child takes to their Senior prom.

The Scout Oath is an acknowledgement that there is a higher calling—to be better, to serve, to live with integrity. Scouting has room for families who pray differently, worship differently, or are still figuring it out.

That isn’t dilution. That’s reality. And it’s part of why Scouting remains meaningful for families like mine.

Girls belong here—
because families belong here

I’ve helped many young women and young men on their journey to Eagle. They inspire me with their commitment and their willingness to learn, serve, and grow.

And I’ll say this as clearly as I can: the program was not “made easier” for girls. The trail is still the trail. The expectations are still expectations. Growth (and Eagle) is still earned.

Baden-Powell said it well:

“I think girls can get just as much healthy fun and as much value out of scouting as boys can.”

In Scouting, kids don’t join to “date.” That’s not the focus. Scouting is about the outdoors, service, leadership, skills, and character. It’s about learning to be useful and kind in the real world.

And modern Scouting has worked—hard—to become one of the safest places kids can gather. Scouting America’s youth protection standards include things like two-deep leadership and no one-on-one contact rules, plus training and reporting requirements designed to protect youth.

What I don’t understand—and what I can’t accept

I don’t understand why our government felt the need to force changes around “sex assigned at birth,” or to frame a youth organization’s attempt to teach respect and ethical leadership as something dangerous.

Because diversity doesn’t make us weak. It makes us stronger.

It teaches us to see more of the world—and more of each other. It widens our empathy. It makes us better neighbors. It helps our kids grow up prepared to work with people who don’t look like them, pray like them, or think exactly like them.

And it absolutely fits the heart of the Scout Law.

I’m grateful Scouting’s leadership drew a clear line

In reporting based on an NPR interview, Scouting America CEO Roger Krone described a January meeting where Secretary Hegseth demanded the organization change its name back and remove girls—something Krone said his board would not do.

Krone also explained the inclusion of girls as a service to families—saying that when he was a kid, families “left parts of the family in the parking lot,” and that the organization chose to serve the whole family.

Yes. That. A thousand times that.

Scouting is for families. All families.

And this is the part I need to say plainly

Mr. Hegseth: I don’t doubt you believe you’re defending something valuable.

But I believe you’re wrong about what Scouting is—and what makes it strong.

Scouting doesn’t become healthier by shrinking who gets to belong. It doesn’t become “more American” by pushing out girls. It doesn’t build character by teaching kids that the right response to difference is exclusion.

Strength is a Scout cleaing up a stream to preserve nature and the environment.

Strength is a patrol learning to listen to the quiet kid because the quiet kid has the map figured out.

Strength is a troop making room for a Scout who needs a different pace—while still expecting them to show up and do the work.

That’s the program I’ve served. That’s the program that served my children.

One more thing, parent to parent

If you love your child, love them for all of who they are.

That doesn’t mean coddling.

It means acceptance with expectations.

Belonging with challenge.

Support with growth.

We do not choose who we love.
We only choose who to hate.

And as a parent, I’m asking us to choose better.

https://www.scoutingnewsroom.org/press-releases/scouting-america-statement-concerning-department-of-war-announcement/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/02/03/hegseth-boy-scouts-scouting-america/

https://www.war.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/4417012/hegseth-says-scouting-america-support-to-continue-upon-orgs-commitment-to-drop/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/04/boy-scouting-america-pentagon-threat

https://www.businessinsider.com/defense-secretary-says-scouts-america-must-end-woke-merit-badges-2026-2

https://www.opb.org/article/2025/11/25/documents-show-pentagon-preparing-to-sever-ties-with-scouting/

https://www.wfdd.org/national/2026-02-27/pentagon-puts-scouts-on-notice-over-dei-and-girl-centered-policies "Pentagon puts Scouts 'on notice' over DEI and girl-centered policies | 88.5 WFDD

I’m 54. I tell myself this is the middle of my life, but the reality is I’m a little past that. Every day I wake up to reminders that I am getting older. Some are good, some are bad.

Today, I’m up early.  It is a cold rainy day, but I committed to my wife that I’d drop my daughter at school. She’s a senior, and soon these days will pass. I keep reminding myself to hold on to them—even if they’re only brief moments of connection that happen on a cold, repetitive drive to school.

Like most of us, I spend my day surrounded by screens.

My Apple Watch tells me I might have sleep apnea. It says that I had minor breathing issues 10 nights in the last three months. One more thing to talk to the doctor about. Earlier this year I had a cancer scare… I still need to write about that process a little more. Fearing for life can bring clarity. But let’s save that for a more dedicated and reflective post.

Today I got my labs back from bloodwork. I launched the app on my phone to see the test results from my 3-month checkup. The elevated PSA test was a pretty big scare this past summer, so the doctor has been doing regular bloodwork to keep an eye on things.

“Mr Harrington, Your labs were good, your chol was improved Total chol 185 to 179 (N=<200) Bad chol LDL 122 to 104 (N=<100) PSA 4.07 to 3.86, let me know about zepbound Rx C Turpin”

All my numbers got better. They’re all normal except for one. Normal… not great… but healthy.

It’s still kind of wild to see all of that—so personal, so important—served up on a screen I also use to check the weather and stay in sync with friends and family.

Next up: the Lumen breath monitor. Long inhale… hold for ten… then exhale. It checks my metabolic state. I woke up in a fat burn…. that’s good. I’ve been trying to get better about what I eat and when—especially late at night. And of course there’s an app for that too: take a picture of what I eat, get an idea of nutrition, track the patterns, try to do a little better tomorrow than I did today.

It’s all pretty amazing that these devices can tap into my health and help me understand where I’m at. Getting better, making progress… not great… but not bad.

I move down to my home office, where I’ll talk today with people on both sides of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. It still amazes me that I can stay that connected with dogs at my feet—working from home while still having colleagues at three companies who need me every day.

But the day needed a little analog.

So I put on a new record that arrived yesterday: “high. lonesome and then some.” It has been out for a bit, but not more than a year. It’s from Todd Snider… he’s one of my favorite musicians. We have history.

This hangs in the entryway to my home office.

Back in my days as a music journalist we sat in the basement of Peeples Bar and Grille in Ames, Iowa. I interviewed him as an artist who had just broke big with his “Songs for the Daily Planet”. Still one of the best records of all time that you should really check out. My girlfriend (now my wife) was with me, and Todd turned the tape recorder around and interviewed us. I learned that all the wit on the records was only a fraction of what was in his wonderful brain.

Through several years of seeing him at small venues and shows, I watched his rises and falls. He went from a critical darling to an independent artist. Bounced between record labels. Started his own.

And then the hard parts showed up louder.

His health slipped and the drugs increased. Earlier this year I saw he had passed. I won’t get into the details here, but it was clear that the life of a musician had been dificult and he’d drifted.

As I listen to his final album this morning it hits hard. I like to listen sometimes to the record player in my basement. It’s a low-budget model hooked up to some crappy speakers. The analog nature of it all is a nice distraction from my digital life.

The liner notes made me cry though… and serve as a reminder. I’ll share them here.

“Since the release of First Agnostic Church of Hope and Wonder in Spring 2021, Snider has experienced a lat of loss; not only in terms of estrangement from friends, family and lovers, but also the passing of all his most important songwriting mentors - Jerry Jeff Walker, John Prine, Jimmy Buffett, Kris Kristofferson and Billy Joe Shaver. Snider indeed has been high, lonesome and then some - and you can hear it on this record.”

I can relate as family members age and I start to lose friends to health or circumstance.

So forgive these sentimental ramblings a bit.

And if I may suggest:

• Tech has come a long way to put us in charge of our health, but you still need to go see the doctor and make the right choices.

• We can stream whatever music we want, but buying an actual record and going analog has its advantages. Both to the creator (and their family) and to you—because you can read the liner notes and look at the photos and stories. You can hold the thing. You can sit with it instead of letting it vanish into the background like everything else.

• And if you have friends and family, pull them close and tell them they are loved and important. You don’t know which day is your last.

“High, Lonesome, and Then Some

What might have been was always meant to be

High, Lonesome, and Then Some

Still looking for someone, looking for someone like me”

OK, here’s one of those Photoshop topics that sounds boring right up until it ruins your day.

Every Photoshop document lives in an image mode—and that mode controls what the file can do, what colors it can represent, and what kinds of output it’s suited for. Choose the wrong mode and you’ll run into weird limitations (filters grayed out, colors shifting, files that print ugly, or web graphics that look fine… until they don’t).

And yes—Photoshop will sometimes warn you that converting will flatten layers, discard channels, or reduce color information. That’s not Photoshop being dramatic. That’s Photoshop being honest.

The big idea: mode = color model + capabilities

Think of image mode as the “operating system” for your document:

• It defines how color is described

• It affects what tools and adjustments are available

• It influences file size, print behavior, and screen appearance

Rule of thumb:
Work in the mode that gives you the most flexibility while you’re editing, then convert only when you need to for output.

If Photoshop had a default comfort zone, it would be RGB Color.

RGB uses additive color—meaning it builds color from light. Combine Red + Green + Blue at full intensity and you get white. Turn them down and you get darker values. Mix them in different intensities and you can represent a huge range of colors.

Why RGB is so common:

• Monitors are RGB. Your screen literally displays color using red, green, and blue subpixels.

• Wider gamut. RGB generally holds more “possible colors” than CMYK.

• Best filter/adjustment support. Many features work best (or only) in RGB.

• Best for digital delivery. Web, video, slides, mobile—RGB is native.

When to use RGB

• Photo editing (almost always)

• Web graphics, UI, video frames

• Anything meant to be viewed on screens

Common pitfall

People convert to CMYK too early because they’re “printing.” Don’t. Do your creative work in RGB, then convert at the end if the print workflow requires it.

Professional printing typically uses CMYK inks: Cyan, Magenta, Yellow, and Black (Key).

CMYK is subtractive color. Instead of adding light, you’re subtracting it—inks absorb parts of the spectrum and reflect what’s left back to your eyes.

Here’s the practical part: CMYK has a smaller gamut than RGB. Translation: some colors that look electric on your monitor simply can’t be reproduced with ink on paper. Those neon greens and saturated blues? CMYK is going to do its best… and sometimes its best is still disappointing.

The smart workflow

• Edit and design in RGB

• Convert to CMYK near the end

• Soft proof if you can (more on that below)

When to use CMYK

• Print files that specifically require CMYK delivery (commercial presses, certain vendors)

• Projects where you must preview ink limitations accurately

Common pitfalls (the stuff that bites)

• Converting too early: you throw away color headroom while you’re still making creative decisions.

• Not using the printer’s profile: CMYK is not one universal thing. Different presses/papers/profiles behave differently.

• Judging CMYK on an uncalibrated monitor: that’s like color grading with sunglasses on.

Quick pro move:
Use View > Proof Setup and View > Proof Colors to preview how your RGB file will map to a specific print profile (when you have one). It’s not perfect, but it’s way better than guessing.

Grayscale uses shades of gray to represent image detail—no color channels, just tonal values.

An 8-bit grayscale image has 256 gray levels. A 16-bit grayscale image has 65,536 levels, which can preserve smoother gradients—if your workflow and output device can actually take advantage of it.

When to use Grayscale

• Black-and-white photography workflows

• Line art that needs clean tonal control

• Projects where color is irrelevant and file simplicity is a benefit

Common pitfall

Assuming grayscale will automatically print beautifully. The conversion is easy. The printing is where things get real.

Different printers and papers handle contrast differently, especially in the shadows. If the output matters, do test prints. Don’t trust the screen.

Duotone is one of those modes that sounds niche until you see it done well.

A duotone file can actually be:

• Monotone (one ink)

• Duotone (two inks)

• Tritone (three inks)

• Quadtone (four inks)

The classic example is sepia—but duotone isn’t just “old-timey.” The real purpose is tonal control. By using multiple inks (often black plus a gray or a warm/cool ink), you can create richer, smoother grayscale prints than a single black ink alone.

When to use Duotone

• Stylized black-and-white printing

• High-quality grayscale reproduction where ink control matters

• Cost-saving print jobs using fewer inks (when appropriate)

Common pitfall

Thinking duotone is a quick filter. It’s more like a print strategy. Use it when you’re controlling output, not just chasing a look.

Bitmap mode is not “a bitmap image.” Confusing, I know.

In Photoshop, Bitmap mode means 1-bit color: every pixel is either black or white—no gray, no color, no mercy.

To get there, Photoshop requires you to convert to Grayscale first, then convert to Bitmap.

When to use Bitmap

• Pure black-and-white line art

• Certain screen printing workflows

• Specialty printing or engraving workflows

• When you need ultra-small file sizes and you can tolerate the harsh look

Common pitfall

Accidentally converting a photo to bitmap and wondering why it looks like a newspaper from 1893. Bitmap is a tool. It’s not subtle.

Indexed Color limits your image to up to 256 colors. The idea is simple: fewer colors = smaller files. That’s why indexed color shows up in formats like GIF and PNG-8.

But it’s a tradeoff: fewer colors usually means banding, posterization, and ugly gradients—especially in photos.

When to use Indexed Color

• Simple illustrations

• Flat-color graphics

• Logos and icons (sometimes)

• Animated GIF workflows

Better workflow tip

Instead of converting your master file to Indexed Color through Image > Mode, use an export method that creates an indexed copy while leaving your original untouched:

• File > Export > Save for Web (Legacy) (common for GIF/PNG-8 workflows)

• Or export to the format you need and let Photoshop create the reduced-color version during export

Common pitfall

Destroying your original by converting it directly. Indexed color is output-focused. Keep your master in RGB.

Lab Color is designed to describe color in a way that’s more tied to human vision and less tied to devices.

It breaks color into three components:

• L = Lightness (luminance)

• a = green ↔ red axis

• b = blue ↔ yellow axis

Lab is often described as a “device-independent” reference model. In practice, it’s used by imaging pros when they need maximum color fidelity—or when they want to do certain edits more cleanly than in RGB.

Why people use Lab

Because separating luminance from color can make some adjustments easier—like boosting contrast without shifting saturation, or pushing color in controlled ways.

When to use Lab

• Specialized color correction work

• High-end imaging workflows where you know why you’re there

Common pitfall

Wandering into Lab without a reason. It’s not a beginner mode, and it can create surprises when you go back to RGB/CMYK.

Multichannel mode is for advanced separations and specialty printing workflows. Most people never need it.

One common way people end up here is accidentally: Photoshop can convert to Multichannel if you delete a channel from an RGB or CMYK image. At that point, Photoshop can no longer accurately describe the color onscreen, so what you see isn’t trustworthy.

When to use Multichannel

• Complex professional separations

• Specialty ink workflows

• Very specific repair techniques (rare)

Common pitfall

Trying to “fix” a normal image while in Multichannel mode. If you’re there by accident, you probably want to back up and return to RGB or CMYK.

Practical “what should I use?” cheat sheet

If you remember nothing else, remember this:

• Editing photos / web / video / screens: RGB

• Black-and-white output: Grayscale (or keep RGB and convert later)

• Commercial print delivery: RGB while working, convert to CMYK at the end if required

• GIF / PNG-8 / reduced web graphics: export to Indexed Color formats, don’t convert your master

• Specialty print looks: Duotone

• Line art / 1-bit workflows: Bitmap

• High-end color work: Lab (when you know why)

• Very specialized separations: Multichannel

1) Accepting the Bill (Remove Friction Before You Invoice)

Set up “yes” long before Accounts Payable sees a PDF.

Do this at kickoff

• Collect AP details: billing email, portal logins, PO requirement, vendor forms, invoice format, and preferred payment method. Put AP on the project distro list.

• Publish thresholds: “Unwatermarked masters and project files release upon receipt of final payment.” “Media releases at ≥50% paid.”

• Embed pay methods: ACH by default; card or wire as alternates (note fees). Add a Pay Now link to every invoice.

When you send the bill

• One PDF packet (invoice first, then SOW page, change orders, receipts).

• Subject line: INV-1427 | [Project] – Production Milestone | Net 15 | PO 55831

• Two contacts: your client lead and AP@client.com. Ask for an AP ticket number.

Approval script (copy/paste)

“This invoice matches SOW §3.2 and CO-002. Please reply ‘Approved for AP’—we’ll release finals per our payment thresholds.”

2) Review Changes (End Surprise = Payment)

Surprise is the #1 reason invoices stall. Eliminate it.

Mid-project

• Keep a live Change Log: CO-###, description, cost/time, status.

• Share a budget snapshot at each milestone (Planned vs. Actual vs. EAC).

Pre-close (10-minute huddle)

• Walk the client through the final tally: base scope + approved COs + pass-throughs.

• Confirm who signs off and when AP can cut payment.

Mini agenda

1. What changed (CO list)

2. What it costs (delta)

3. What’s next (invoice date + release conditions)

3) Use Discounts (Reward Speed, Don’t Devalue)

Incentives work—design them so they help cash flow without killing margin.

Options

• Early-pay discount: 2/10 Net 30 (2% off if paid within 10 days).

• Prepayment bonus: 3–5% off labor for paying an entire phase up front.

• Retainer advantage: lower rate for monthly pre-funded hours.

Guardrails

• Apply discounts to labor only, not pass-throughs (music/stock/talent).

• Make discounts time-bound and automatic (“paid by Day 10 = 2% off; Day 11 = full amount”).

• Don’t discount because someone asked nicely—tie it to cash-in-advance behavior.

Line to add on invoice

“2% early-payment discount applies to labor if remitted by [DATE]. Pass-through costs excluded.”

4) Use Deadlines (And a Calm, Firm Cadence)

Deadlines move money. Publish them, then follow them—without drama.

Terms that work

• Net 7/15 for new clients; extend to Net 30 once trust is earned.

• Late fee (e.g., 1.5% per month or legal max).

• Work stop / hold delivery after X days past due (state it in SOW).

Reminder rhythm (Net 15 example)

• Day 0: Send invoice (PDF + AP copied).

• Day 7: Friendly check—“Landed with AP? Anything else needed?”

• Day 15 (due): Reminder with invoice attached.

• Day 20: “Holding delivery/next phase pending payment per SOW; please share status.”

• Day 25: Escalate to the decision maker with a statement of account.

Footer language (paste into template)

“Unwatermarked masters and project files release upon receipt of final payment. Late balances accrue 1.5% per month (or legal max).”

Templates You Can Steal

Early-pay email

Subject: INV-1427 — Early-pay option (2% if paid by May 10)
Hi [Name], attached is INV-1427 for the Production milestone (SOW §3.2; CO-002). If AP remits by May 10, a 2% discount applies to labor. ACH and Pay Now link below. We’ll release finals upon receipt. Thanks!

Overdue nudge

Subject: Past due — INV-1427 (holding delivery per SOW)
Hi [Name], quick follow-up—INV-1427 is 5 days past due. Per our SOW, we’re holding delivery/next phase until payment posts. Can you share AP status or the remittance advice? Happy to resend the packet if needed.

Make acceptance easy, remove surprises, reward speed, and enforce deadlines with a steady hand. That’s how you stop chasing checks—and start getting paid on time.

Resolution is one of those topics where the industry has done a spectacular job of making simple things sound complicated. Worse, a lot of people (and plenty of companies) use the wrong words. So you’ll hear “dpi” thrown around for cameras, scanners, Photoshop files, websites… and none of that is technically correct.

The good news: once you understand the handful of common terms—and when each one actually applies—you’ll make better choices when you’re buying gear, scanning old photos, prepping images for print, or exporting graphics for the web.

Let’s walk through the four big ones:

• dpi (dots per inch) → printers

• ppi (pixels per inch) → screens + image files as a measurement

• spi (samples per inch) → scanners

• lpi (lines per inch) → commercial printing / halftones

Dots per Inch (dpi): A printer term

dpi is the most common “resolution” word you’ll hear—and it’s also the one that gets misused the most.

A printer doesn’t print pixels. It prints dots of ink. So dots per inch (dpi) is an output measurement: how many ink dots can be placed within a 1" × 1" area.

• Higher dpi can mean smoother gradients and cleaner detail.

• Newspapers generally use relatively low effective output resolution.

• Magazines and high-end printing can go much higher.

• Consumer photo printers often advertise very high dpi numbers, and with good paper they can look fantastic.

The big takeaway: dpi only makes sense when you’re talking about physical output—paper, canvas, labels, packaging.

Common pitfall:
People say “My camera shoots 300 dpi.” No, it doesn’t. Cameras shoot pixels. Printers deal in dots.

Pixels per Inch (ppi): The screen

When you view an image on a monitor, you’re seeing a grid of pixels. So for screens and image editing, the term that makes sense is pixels per inch (ppi).

Historically:

• Early Mac systems often used 72 ppi as a “logical” screen reference (tied to points/typography).

• Windows often used 96 ppi as a baseline.

Modern reality: it’s all over the map.

A laptop display, a 27" desktop monitor, and a phone screen can have wildly different pixel densities. And operating systems also scale UI elements (especially on high-density “retina”-style screens), which adds another layer of “logical” vs “physical” size.

So what should you do with that information?

• In Photoshop (and most creative apps), ppi is the standard way resolution is described

• For screen work, pixel dimensions matter more than the ppi number

  • Example: 1920×1080 is 1920×1080 no matter what ppi field says

• For print work, ppi becomes important because you’re mapping pixels to inches

Practical example (this is the one to remember):
If your image is 3000 × 2400 pixels:

• At 300 ppi, it prints at 10" × 8"

• At 150 ppi, it prints at 20" × 16"

• Same file. Same pixels. Different physical size.

Common pitfall:
Changing only the ppi value doesn’t magically add detail. Pixels are the detail. If you need more detail, you need more pixels (capture bigger, scan higher, or resample carefully).

Samples per Inch (spi): What scanners actually do

Scanners don’t spray ink dots. They sample an image—capturing information from the original (photo, paper, film, etc.) and converting it into pixels.

So the accurate term is samples per inch (spi).

Manufacturers often market scanners with “dpi” numbers. That’s sloppy language. What they’re describing is scan sampling—spi.

Lines per Inch (lpi): The commercial printing world

If you’ve ever been around a print shop, you’ve probably heard lpi.

Lines per inch (lpi) comes from halftone screening—how continuous-tone photos get translated into printable patterns. In traditional workflows, film screens were used. Today, it’s handled digitally by an imagesetter or RIP, but the language stuck.

• The dots are arranged into lines

• lpi measures how many of those lines fit into one inch

• Higher lpi generally produces smoother photographic reproduction (assuming the paper and press can handle it)