Joel Mark Witt asked me to elaborate on my thoughts originally published in my post The future strength of PodCamp is in three verticals.
Podcasting has been around for three-and-a-half years, PodCamp for one-and-a-half. Both have acheived a certain amount of recognition and the merits of both are consistently disected and debated. I believe that the age of generalism in the podcast community is drawing to a close. PodCamp, in particular (rightly or wrongly), has been about covering as much ground as possible to appeal to as many people as possible and draw as large a crowd as possible to each event. Organizers have measured success by the number of people that register then attend and how many “Rock Stars” participate.
I believe that ship has sailed.
I believe it’s time to expore verticals — three of them.
I’ve mulled this over in my head quite a bit over the last week to further develop my thoughts on tracking and what I’ve discovered is that the three verticals that I will describe here can be used individually, in any combination or not at all. This flexibility is what makes PodCamp such a great model. What I will describe here can also be left in the hands of the community if properly communicated by the initiators of the event. In that respect, the ethos of PodCamp can continue to be central to its success.
VERTICAL EVENTS
This is something that Whitney Hoffman has been talking about for a while. Vertical events are those that cater to a specific niche, theme, demography or geography. Some PodCamps have already organized themselves around a specific theme.
PodCamp Ottawa organized itself around a theme: Welcome to Podcasting and Beyond. In fact, the event in Ottawa was structured to cater to a specific geography and achieved that goal by taking place within three weeks of its announcement. While a few people came from a two-hour drive away and one couple did a six-hour drive to attend, a majority of the nearly thirty people at the event were from the Ottawa area.
I believe that PodCampEDU was the first specifically vertical PodCamp that has taken place so far. Organized by Vivian Vasquez and Andy Bilodeau, the event focussed on the use of new and social media technologies in an educational setting. By all accounts it was a huge success and explored new possibilities with input from both educators and the social media community. Talk about potential. And because the event was vertical, it attracted a captive audience.
There are as many ideas for vertical events as there are hobbies, products, services, ideas and locations. Consider events that cater specifically to people who want to learn about the use of podcasting about (or for) broadcast media, music, writing, NGOs, public sector communications, politics, design, marketing, health, emergency services, sports, municipal government, etc… You can also structure events around specific new media skills such as being an effective host, editing, audio production, engaging an audience, etc… Bring together and include people who have different backgrounds and, automatically, it will be hard to identify who is teaching and who is learning. If you give everyone an opportunity to speak about the challenges and skills of both the traditional and modern in a specific niche, you have a success in the making.
VERTICAL TRACKS
Consider using discussion tracks for your event as a way of making it easy for event participants to find what they’re looking for. A track organizes presentations by a specific topic area in a single thread, typically in one room, for the entire event. With any luck there will be a logical flow — an arc of the story, if you like — to the track.
I recommend that the tracking system not be used to pack too many diverse topics into a single event (e.g. don’t have an event with a track for music, one for education and another for gaming). Doing so could lead to several mini-conferences within one event. It makes far more sense to use the tracking system to focus the discussions within a topic area. For example, an event that focuses on health care could have a track on legal issues, another on the impacts of institutional structure on internal and public communications, and another on audio recording and production.
Of course, there are pros and cons to organizing tracks in this manner. The pros are that people with a specific interest will be able to easily find and follow the information they need. However, we know that in new media a lot of people perform many roles requiring them to learn many skills and understand many issues (I recently heard of a large company that has a Director of New Media with no department, staff or contractors. She exists and works on her own). Events like PodCampEDU and Podcasters Across Borders address this problem by having one room for the event. The community stays in that room and the content comes to the participants thus allowing everyone to experience and participate in everything offered by the conference. Of course, that approach requires either a significant degree of community cooperation and collaboration to sequence sessions, or lead organizers that are willing to invest the time to structure the event.
VERTICAL RELATIONSHIPS
PodCamp Boston (the first one) did it by accident. People of all disciplines, backgrounds and levels of new media and social media experience connected while trying to navigate the halls and funnel through doorways between sessions. It was natural and it laid the groundwork for long term friendships and mutual growth.
The buzz on mentoring within the PodCamp community has started to pick up. Besides the informal — and sometimes formal — mentoring relationships that have sprouted, events such as NewBCamp and PodCamp Toronto have experimented with specific programs and activities to encourage those connections: NewBCamp unveiled Speed Mentoring while PodCamp Toronto allowed people to meet in the calm of its Mentorship Lounge.
There are some very important reasons why we need vertical relationships. If you believe in the idea of celebrities in the community, then you also have to believe in the idea that those who have been called the “Rock Stars” can only be “at the top” so long. There’s a new wave of “Rock Stars” that are joining this space that have new ideas and a fresh perspective. If vertical relationships aren’t established, the new dogs won’t gain the benefit of the experience of the old dogs and the old dogs won’t learn new tricks. In fact, as someone who has been engaged in social media and new media for three years now, I can safely say that it’s easy for people in my position to forget about the challenges we faced when we were first figuring this thing out. That doesn’t account for the fact that times and technologies have changed somewhat. Zero to Podcasting (at PodCamp Toronto) was just as much a learning experience for those who facilitated the workshop as the newcomers who attended. Talk about a vertical gain!
THE MORE THINGS CHANGE…
If you’re planning — or thinking of planning — a PodCamp, remember that adopting these approaches doesn’t mean that you need to take control of the event from the community. As a member of the organizing team your job is to provide a structure (physically and figuratively) for the event. An event can’t succeed without some level of focus and organization. By setting a theme for your event, defining tracks and establishing some ways for people — however many — to connect, you’re making it easier for the community to make the most of “your” event.
P.S. Since I alluded to “Rock Stars”… I’ve often heard interviews with members of music supergroups who claim that their best and most memorable gigs didn’t take place in sold-out soccer stadiums, but in small bars that facilitated a close connection between the band and the audience during the show and between sets when everyone was able to drink together.
Flickr Photo: those are tall by DimsumDarren
“Organizers have measured success by the number of people that register then attend and how many “Rock Stars” participate.”
Hmmm… I have to say, if this is how the success of Podcamps was being measured, I am very guilty of misunderstanding what all these Podcamps have been about, and of not measuring the success of the ones I’ve been involved with correctly.
Comment by Jay Moonah from Media Driving — March 4, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
Jay… I have to admit that was a generalization based on some conversations I have been a part of in which PodCamp organizers seemed to focus on the numbers of people that were registered for and that attended their events. I have picked up the sense that many folks aren’t satisfied unless they have two hundred or so people in attendance.
Comment by Mark — March 4, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
Mark: Understood. I can speak only for my own goals for Podcamp Toronto, and that was to have as many _engaged_ people as possible. Pure numbers honestly don’t matter a bit to me, personally. If we had ended up with fewer people than last year I honestly wouldn’t have minded as long as those people showed that high level of engagement and participation.
Personally, I still believe in the spirit and practice of the first Podcamp in Boston, and I think we have kept some of that alive at the Toronto Podcamps. Once again this year, some of very favorite moments happened not in scheduled sessions but in spontaneous hallway conversations, circles and evening events. I understand the interest in verticals, but I see a PodCampEDU, for example, as being different than a Podcamp. One of the best things about Podcamp is the mixture of people of all levels of experience with a huge range of interests being thrown together, and my fear would be parsing things out into verticals would destroy that wonderful chaos, which for me has been the root of so much inspiration.
One common complaint about Podcamp Toronto was the physical distance between the Z2P room and the rest of the sessions. This was 100% my decision and my fault, but what I take most from the comment is that people LIKE the mixture of new & old, expert & newbie, rockstar and rockstars-that-may-not-know-they-are-rockstars-yet (i.e. everyone at Podcamp!)
Comment by Jay Moonah from Media Driving — March 4, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
Jay… The mistake people will make in the context of vertical events (or tracks) is that they will exclude themselves by virtue of the fact that they are not specifically in that community. The reality is that those people can gain a fresh perspective on their own activities by understanding the challenges and strategies of another niche — and may have experience and ideas to offer to them. The value of the vertical event (or track) in this respect is that it sets the stage to discuss a particular niche and offers depth of value to that community.
People need to think outside the box. I believe that unfocused events keep us trapped in our current state.
Comment by Mark — March 4, 2008 @ 2:41 pm
“The mistake people will make in the context of vertical events (or tracks) is that they will exclude themselves by virtue of the fact that they are not specifically in that community.”
But that’s my point exactly. If you have, for example, something called PodcampEDU, that says to me that I have to be a member of the education community to get some benefit from that. Do you honestly think anyone from, say, a marketing discipline would attend, even if there is potential benefit for them?
Also not sure what you mean by “unfocused events keep us trapped in our current state”, could you clarify?
Comment by Jay Moonah from Media Driving — March 4, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
The dynamic has changed significantly from 2005/2006. People aren’t flocking to the events in the same way to hear the same things. While there is clearly a need to offer sessions on entry-level skills, a lot of individuals and organizations think that a free, community organized, un-conference on a broad subject area isn’t going to deliver the information they’re looking for. Those people want to see that there will be depth of content that’s relevant to their area of interest. So… you don’t need a vertical event, but you would benefit heavily withy structured, vertical tracks.
I believe that a marketing person who lived nearby a free PodCampEDU event (especially since it will deal with reaching a specific target market — students), would be crazy to not attend and absorb the discussion. That goes for pretty much anyone interested in new and social media.
To give this some context… when the movie “Apollo 13″ came out, businesses around the world went crazy for the problem solving case study in the movie. Even though very few organizations deal with the combination of rocket fuel, pure oxygen environments, limited power capacity and the risks of manned spaceflight, everyone picked up many lessons from the story.
You never know what you’re going to learn and where you’re going to learn it. The challenge is to not separate yourself from the learning opportunity.
Comment by Mark — March 4, 2008 @ 3:22 pm
“…a lot of individuals and organizations think that a free, community organized, un-conference on a broad subject area isn’t going to deliver the information they’re looking for…”
Mark, I simply don’t agree with this statement — unless the 200+ people who were at Podcamp Toronto last week (over half of them at their first Podcamp) were a figment of my imagination. Or unless they all came up to people other than me and said they wanted a more focused event, ‘cus they certainly didn’t say it to me.
Am I just totally out to lunch here?
Comment by Jay Moonah from Media Driving — March 4, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
I think in some ways we’re arguing the same point. I agree that the number of people attending says a lot about the need of the event.
That said, I believe that a few questions come up in post-event analysis:
1) What kept the other 200+ people from attending the event?
2) What will keep the momentum of PodCamp going?
3) What will take the PodCamp movement to the next level?
If PodCamp doesn’t evolve, if it stays where it is today, it may outlive its usefulness at some point. That’s fine if the goal of PodCamp is to eliminate the need for itself. However, I think there is so much more that can happen with PodCamp, so much more that can be done with it to keep it going and serving the community — newcomers and veterans, alike.
Comment by Mark — March 4, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
Yeah… I think this is where I’m differing with a lot of folks these days. Not to get cheesey, but I feel there’s something really special and fundamental about the Podcamp model as it was originally conceived (including the idea of remaining free, which I also see as fundemental even though it’s technically no longer required) whereby each Podcamp takes on the form and content that the community needs because it is defined by the community.
One of my favorite guys at Podcamp is Vergel Evans. Vergel will be involved in like one scheduled session on the Friday night of Podcamp Toronto, and by the end of Sunday he’s done 3 or 4 sessions ‘cus he sees “hey, nobody is talking about X”, so he schedules a session or grabs a partner and just does it. THAT’S the magic of Podcamp, and personally I don’t EVER see Podcamps loosing relevance as long as there are guys like Vergel who are sensitive to the needs of the community in the moment of the event.
Put another way, I see Podcamp evolving naturally with the community as long as we don’t keep trying to “fix” a model that is a long way from broken, IMHO.
Comment by Jay Moonah from Media Driving — March 4, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
I never said the PodCamp model is broken. I’m suggesting that the PodCamp model as it exists today will have a finite life. If we want PodCamps to continue to be effective and valuable events, the community (because it is a community event) will have to find ways to revise the model at some point.
Vergel is an incredible asset to this community. He can speak on an incredible number of subject. The verticals shouldn’t prevent him, or others, from filling openings in the schedule while the event is on. What it will allow them to do is identify tracks with holes in them and fill those holes will sessions that fit with that track. A conference with holes in multiple tracks should offer plenty of options for speaking topics for someone like Vergel.
Comment by Mark — March 5, 2008 @ 5:47 am
Mark, could you explain why the word you are using is ‘vertical’? This word is usually used as an adjective (as you know) and now it has been nounified (like that’s a word….) So, what is the significance of ‘vertical’ here?
Comment by Dave Brodbeck — March 5, 2008 @ 7:33 am
@Dave… I was waiting for you. The significance of vertical here has to do with something of depth and common relevance. Consider the difference between breadth of scope and depth of scope.
Comment by Mark — March 5, 2008 @ 9:18 am
Mark, again I think we differ on this. I think the Podcamp (or whatever-camp) model is actually self-revising without the need for strict verticals or tracks. I believe it adapts naturally to the needs of the community.
In fact, I’ve been thinking about this more and I think if anything we need to expand the reach of events like a podcamp, not restrain it with verticals. Hmmm, I feel my own blog entry coming on…
Comment by Jay Moonah from Media Driving — March 5, 2008 @ 10:06 am
I completely agree that the reach of PodCamp should be expanded. I don’t believe having fewer massive events is the answer. I believe having more regular and focused events is a better solution.
I think we’re getting stuck discussing tracks as ways to target specific niches. We’ve strayed away from talking about the need for more local and regional events that can be structured to cater to the needs of a specific area. Those events are easier and faster to organize, have fewer logistical challenges, and I believe that they will go a longer way to building sustainable communities.
Comment by Mark — March 5, 2008 @ 10:41 am
It’s funny- I wrote some similar ideas over at Parent’s Eye View http://ldpodcast.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/podcamp-revisited/
Podcamp works as a mash-up of people from different communities getting together and sharing- otherwise, audio people and video people might never realize that writing a blog and getting the text that drives search engines might be important as well. That’s what’s great.
But not everyone “gets” showing up to a free event where the attendees are the speakers and anything can happen, until you’ve experienced this at least once. It’s like the “problem” with the name podcasting- some people still feel it’s an ipod thing, and don’t understand, but that is slowly changing. (I got a thrill when I heard someone on a NPR show talking about having just discovered the show through the podcast…) So to reach outside the fishbowl, we may want to bring “topical” elements or verticals into Podcamp, at least as an experiment if nothing else.
Interestingly enough, there is a chance we may be widening the scope of Podcamp Philly this next time around, but then you always deal with whether or not the event will outgrow the intimate nature thaht works so wel, how many sessions verge on ‘Too Many’, and other questions that come from growth.
Podcamp works well when it’s small, intimate and about community, especially the local community.
There’s been some informal talk about whether Podcamps should be local events and then should we have one larger event, sort of like an East Coast Portable Media Expo. featuring kind of the “best of” the regional podcamps, while still trying to keep it unconference-y and low key.
Would anyone come? Is it worth while? What kind of events hit the bloggers and video bloggers and podcasters and SEO guys and the marketers? So far, Podcamp is the “biggest tent” out there, encompassing most of these folks comfortably. Is narrow better? Is a wider net better? I don’t know for sure, but it will be fun trying to find out, speed bumps along the path and all.
Comment by Whitney — March 5, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
“So far, Podcamp is the “biggest tent” out there, encompassing most of these folks comfortably. Is narrow better? Is a wider net better?”
Whit, I think this sums up nicely the difference in opinion here. When it comes to Podcamp, I’d definitely a “big tent” guy. I totally get that there are opportunities for smaller, more focused events, but I still think the “pure” pod-type-camp model needs a certain amount of chaos to work well, and I feel like that chaos is best cultivated, now and for the foreseeable future, through the wide net. Other kinds of events could certainly be more focused and organized, and I agree that is through a combination of these that things will move forward. Let’s see what happens!
Comment by Jay Moonah from Media Driving — March 5, 2008 @ 1:21 pm
[...] My thoughts on three verticals for PodCamp [...]
Pingback by John’s Place » What happens in Podcamp cannot stay at Podcamp — March 5, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
I think Boston2 made a bunch of us wary of “big.” I am. I want small, intimate. But that’s me. I’m biased by having gone to MANY events. I have to remember that it’s the participant’s view that needs touching.
I think there are new elements at each event that should fall into use at MOST of our events, and yet, “should” is a dirty word.
I love the conversation here. Thanks for starting it, Mark, or continuing it, or adding to it, or…hey, let’s ride bikes!
Comment by Chris Brogan... — March 5, 2008 @ 11:16 pm
Most of my experience, besides the two PABs, is at academic conferences. I have been at great conferences that have been very broad, and somewhat outside my area, and stuff right up my alley that blew. In general, the quality of the presentations and conversations, to me, is what matters. So broad vs deep (horizontal vs vertical if you will) are not as important, I think, as content. Content and delivery.
Comment by Dave Brodbeck — March 6, 2008 @ 11:02 am
I agree, Dave, but the problem with that in terms of Podcamp is that all the speakers are community people, so there is no selection based on quality of presentation, or even subject matter.
How do you think we can address this? Should we have a session or a section of the web page all about “how to present”? It’s tough when part of the getting good at presenting requires presentation experience….
Whit
Comment by Whitney — March 6, 2008 @ 11:10 am
Hmm. That gets back to my thought that maybe we should mentor presenters as well as mentoring podcasters. Some of that happens at local meet-ups where people get to float an idea, and get some feedback on the spot from a small group that they probably feel comfortable with.
But things like speed mentoring or a mentoring lounge could also be a place for people to hone their skills, without the need for putting together a full-blown presentation. And I think we need to seek people out for those situations who *aren’t* the rock stars, but who we know have some specific knowledge they can share in that kind of situation.
I’m wondering, too, if we have to look at expectations, especially on the part of the organizers — Jay clearly knows what he wants to see at Podcamp, and can articulate it passionately. I know that the numbers game makes an impact if you’re trying to figure out how much coffee to provide or how many sandwiches to buy for lunch, but perhaps that’s something that needs to be re-thought.
(Though I agree with Whitney that coffee is a must, purely for the socializing it permits.)
I think the idea of verticals is an interesting direction to consider, but I don’t think it should supplant the horizontals.
But I’ve reached the point, personally, where I think that for me, smaller is better, and I’ll be happier at meet-ups where I can ask questions of a smaller group.
Comment by katherine — March 6, 2008 @ 12:19 pm
I think my comments about vertical events have overshadowed the possibilities of “big tent” events.
General events can and should still happen. For those events I think it will go a long way in helping newcomers if the organizers offer some sense of focus (tracks) within a broad-brush event. Even tracks can be open to someone unrelated sessions that fall in the same category. For example, one track could focus on any aspect of technology, another on any aspect of show planning and hosting, and another track could explore the use of new media in various niches (hobby, marketing, government, media, etc…). The concept of tracks in this case help people know where to go to find specific information. While we want people making connections with others in the hallway, it shouldn’t be at the cost of making the community chase the sessions they’re interested in.
Comment by Mark — March 6, 2008 @ 10:04 pm
Mark- I couldn’t agree mor- it all comes down to making the events user friendly by making them easier to navigate, to find the information you need, rather than obscure it for the sake of happenstance- that just breeds frustration.
Comment by Whitney — March 6, 2008 @ 10:24 pm
The key to most conferences, in my experience, for whatever that is worth, is content, but I am defining content very broadly. I usually learn more over a beer with a conference buddy (I have several that I have only ever seen at conferences over the last 20 years) than in the formal sessions. Good company, good sessions and halfway decent beer are the keys, not necessarily in that order, make a good show.
Comment by Dave Brodbeck — March 6, 2008 @ 11:46 pm
Maybe this is all a problem of audience definition. Podcamps, as I see it, are not for the meek. They are true self-directed, andragogical learning opportunities. You have the power to control your learning but, as Uncle Ben said, with great power comes great responsibility.
I’m personally less interested in making Podcamp more friendly. I’m interested in making it more scary. I want to see an event that challenges peoples assumptions and gets their mental juices flowing. That’s not say there isn’t a place for intro sessions, but I don’t think there is a place for hand-holding. If people don’t want to jump in, unconferences might not be the right thing for them.
BTW, I’m not at all anti-conference. I love conferences. I love organized tracks and getting speaker line-ups two months in advance that I can can go over with three different colours of highlighters. I like bags of swag even if I throw half of it out ‘cus there’s usually at least a couple of fun do-dads and some decent magazines. I like all that stuff. But that is conference stuff.
Podcamp is NOT A CONFERENCE.
Comment by Jay Moonah from Media Driving — March 7, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Verticals remind me of easel formats.
I’ve always compared PodCamp to an art easel. Organizers put out easels and brushes, and participants do the rest. Verticals might be compared to different easel formats – portrait, landscape, etc. Participants still have freedom, but especially for new folks, it might be nice to have a little focus to start.
Comment by Christopher S. Penn — March 10, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
Jay…just to clarify…for PodcampEDU we basically encouraged anyone interested in exploring intersections between podcasting, new media and education, to participate. We didn’t invite speakers or ask for proposals etc. Folks who added their names to the wiki, volunteered to do particular sessions and not all these folks were educators, and yes of course there were imperfect, ‘chaotic’ moments. We did end up slotting people into particular time slots but only because the folks who put their names forward didn’t do this themselves.
Whitney, I’m sure can attest to the diversity in interest with regards to education and the diversity in experience with regards to tech and new media. The only difference between PodcampEDU and other Podcamps is that we specifically said we were interested in intersections with education.
My bias here, as you might imagine, is that we all should have a vested interest in education and therefore could all potentially participate in ways that make sense for each of us (as a parent, as a consultant to ed settings, as a citizen interested in the future of young people…).
As someone who has experienced PAB, PNME, PodcampNY, and PodcampEDU I think different events offer different things but the smaller events have been the most rewarding for me.
I like Chris Penn’s take of different formats. In my thinking, Jay’s notion of ‘pure Podcamp’ is one such format. I think if we want the Podcamp framework to live on, we have to keep it moving, and that means it might look different in different places and it should. I believe what Mark refers to as verticals is one way to keep Podcamp alive.
Comment by vivian vasquez — July 4, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
Vivian: Totally understood. I certainly wouldn’t want to give the impression that I’m against niche events or unconferences. Quite the contrary. When I said I didn’t see PodcampEDU as a Podcamp, I only meant that I didn’t see it having the same ‘broad’ appeal (insofar as Podcamps could be said to have broad appeal) as a Podcamp with no suffix. I certainly did not mean to imply that I didn’t think the event would be run in the same spirit and manner as other unconferences.
As someone who worked in academic technology at universities for almost a decade, I can see the value in PodcampEDU 100%, and I applaud your success. I can also see tremendous value in creating Podcamps that focus on other verticals or themes in much the way Mark outlined in the original post.
I appreciate you supporting the idea of ‘pure’ Podcamps which I still think have tremendous value. My original points were to argue against Mark’s assertion that “the ship has sailed” on these. I still feel this assertion is flat out wrong.
Comment by Jay Moonah — July 5, 2008 @ 11:12 am
Jay: Thank you. As I think back to PAB2008, your presentation was one that really stood out for me (and not because I have U of T roots but because you created space for conversations regarding positioning, perspective and discourse). I think your session would have been a welcome addition to PodcampEDU…#2 is coming up…
Comment by vivian vasquez — July 5, 2008 @ 6:18 pm
Mark: Understood. I can speak only for my own goals for Podcamp Toronto, and that was to have as many _engaged_ people as possible. Pure numbers honestly don't matter a bit to me, personally. If we had ended up with fewer people than last year I honestly wouldn't have minded as long as those people showed that high level of engagement and participation.
Personally, I still believe in the spirit and practice of the first Podcamp in Boston, and I think we have kept some of that alive at the Toronto Podcamps. Once again this year, some of very favorite moments happened not in scheduled sessions but in spontaneous hallway conversations, circles and evening events. I understand the interest in verticals, but I see a PodCampEDU, for example, as being different than a Podcamp. One of the best things about Podcamp is the mixture of people of all levels of experience with a huge range of interests being thrown together, and my fear would be parsing things out into verticals would destroy that wonderful chaos, which for me has been the root of so much inspiration.
One common complaint about Podcamp Toronto was the physical distance between the Z2P room and the rest of the sessions. This was 100% my decision and my fault, but what I take most from the comment is that people LIKE the mixture of new & old, expert & newbie, rockstar and rockstars-that-may-not-know-they-are-rockstars-yet (i.e. everyone at Podcamp!)
Comment by Jay Moonah from Media Driving — December 31, 2009 @ 3:03 am