Open The Dialogue

• Google Maps now includes real-time traffic information for a bunch of new cities, including right here in Chicago. No actual commute times but still a nifty guide to see what routes to avoid. (CT)
• I so very much would love to be a fly on the wall as marketers in Boston discuss guerrilla marketing tactics. (CT)
• Steve Safran puts yesterday's stock market drop in perspective, something that was sorely lacking amidst all the screaming headlines. I'm not saying it wasn't bad, especially for those directly affected, but in the grand scheme of things a little bit of big picture reporting wouldn't have hurt anything. (CT)
• At least I'm not the only one frustrated at the crazy way "old media" sometimes reports about online happenings. (CT)

Posted by Chris Thilk at 11:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

• Nice round-up, if you're not already up on such things, about the business potentialof Second Life. (CT)
• Cramer-Krasselt has been let go by CareerBuilder.com after the Super Bowl ads it created for the jobs site failed to win the USA Today poll. Jaffe, Collier and Green all chime in on just how ridiculous it is to make strategic decisions like this based on the results of one poll, especially one as oddly put together as this one. (CT)
• Heather Green is looking for input for a panel on blogging she's moderating. Go help her out if you have a minute. (CT)

Posted by Chris Thilk at 03:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

• Bloglines, which launched its Image Wall almost two weeks ago (mentioned here), has made some updates to it after comments, complaints, and other information came in after its use by many. Check it out. (TB)
• Hope you didn't think you would get away with all those sales on eBay without paying taxes. (TB)
• Somehow last week I missed that Nick Bradbury pointed out an killer feature for the next instance of FeedDemon, namely that News Bins could be synched with NewsGator Online. This rocks, so now I can catch up on those while I'm not in the office, and on my MacBookPro on NetNewsWire. W00t. (TB)
• Vitamin's Michael McDerment posted a great item on how to name your new company a couple weeks back (I just subbed to Vitamin, so I'm catching up). He doesn't mention being able to get the best domain name as a constraint (though he does suggest getting another name if you're a company and it isn't available). These days, I'd put domain availability really high. For instance, when O&M/JWT had "Mindshare" as their name, they didn't seem to think it was a bad thing for them to have to go with "mindshareworld.com" as their to domain. I think it was a horrible idea, and took every opportunity to share that with my contacts there when I worked with them and they made the name change. It's important. In any case, it's a valuable item that I dedicate to my co-worker Lauren Selikoff, who has a favorite activity of making fun of company logos - and names. (TB)

Posted by Tom Biro at 11:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This morning, while catching up on my RSS feeds for the week, I noticed this item where Jason Kottke was pointing to the Wikipedia definition of "sock puppet," which a lot of user group and social bookmarking site users will recognize and be familiar with. It's something that sites such as Netscape and Digg are surely dealing with on a regular basis, and that Wikipedia feels very strongly about.

The reason I wanted to call attention to this, however, was that when looking through that definition, was the portion of the page addressing meatpuppets. What I find most interesting here, and this is not at all in the sense of my position in the public relations community, but as a very regular user and periodic editor (for my own purposes, not clients) was that there was a request that people do not "invite" others to the site when there are articles being debated. I definitely agree with the sentiments that "the arrival of multiple newcomers, with limited Wikipedia background and predetermined viewpoints arriving in order to present those viewpoints, rarely helps achieve neutrality and most times actively damages it, no matter what one might think," I think that a small part of that goes against what Wikipedia is about. I would hope that not every single person who was directed to see something that was causing a stir at Wikipedia wouldn't just open up an account and edit freely or comment in a negative way, but I don't see how users of Wikipedia, who might not be overly regularly watching every single item being edited, shouldn't be made aware of things that could have an effect on what the future of Wikipedia's pages might hold.

While I'm sure that this is done so that people aren't inciting a riot of sorts on the pages of Wikipedia - something I would agree with - I'm sure there have been plenty of times when a blogger or forum user has published a notice saying that there was a large debate over something. Should those notices, innocent as they might be, not be published? Say that there is a debate forming over whether or not someone is "important" enough to stay in Wikipedia or not (I've seen this happen with Peter Rojas, for instance), is the link in to the debate of this something negative, or only if it's done if the suggestion that people should start participating?

I know it's written there that it's "highly inappropriate" to do so to "attract users with known views and bias, in order to strengthen one side of a debate," but if I post this on my blog when it's regarding something important to me, isn't that going to do just that, whether I am trying to do that or not? If so, does that mean that only the "usual" editors of Wikipedia should be having their say?

I only ask this because I know of far fewer "participants" in Wikipedia than I do regular users, the latter of which I'd say would be a lot of my friends and colleagues, especially those younger than myself.

Thoughts? Hate mail? Discussion points?

Update: In other news, Slate's Timothy Noah is probably getting evicted from Wikipedia, and he's taking it pretty well.

Posted by Tom Biro at 02:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Reading blogs is a lot like listening to the radio, I've found. If someone doesn't put their picture on their site I wind up constructing an image of them in my mind. Sometimes that winds up being close and sometimes not.

That's why it's interesting what Joe Thornley has been doing on ProPR. At a series of meetups he's been taking pictures of people holding up their name so that we can, quite literally, put a face with a name. And each picture is a link back to that person's blog. He's also posting all those pics to his Flickr account. This is exactly what social media is supposed to be about, the exposure of new voices to an audience and the graphic representation of those voices just makes it all that much better.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 04:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

• The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (Read: The internet is bursting! The internet is bursting!) (CT)
• Some interesting findings on why PR people aren't using blogs via Kami Huyse. (CT)
• As other's have already mentioned, Feedburner has a bunch of good pie charts (Who do they think they are, USA Today? on clicks and engagement of items served by them now that Google is counting Reader subscribers. (CT)
• A new study has concluded that newspapers are spending too much on ad efforts and not enough on actually reporting the news. (CT)
• All of a sudden corporate America has a much more critical journalistic environment thanks to a bunch of big scandal stories. I feel just awful for them about this. (CT)

Posted by Chris Thilk at 02:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If you don't happen to live in one of the markets where JetBlue's apology letter ran as a full-page advertisement, and aren't on the airline's mailing list as a customer or member of its frequent traveler program, then you'd have missed the following thoughts that just landed in my inbox, and which I've attached in a PDF here:

Dear JetBlue Customers,

We are sorry and embarrassed. But most of all, we are deeply sorry.

Last week was the worst operational week in JetBlue's seven year history. Following the severe winter ice storm in the Northeast, we subjected our customers to unacceptable delays, flight cancellations, lost baggage, and other major inconveniences. The storm disrupted the movement of aircraft, and, more importantly, disrupted the movement of JetBlue's pilot and inflight crewmembers who were depending on those planes to get them to the airports where they were scheduled to serve you. With the busy President's Day weekend upon us, rebooking opportunities were scarce and hold times at 1-800-JETBLUE were unacceptably long or not even available, further hindering our recovery efforts.

Words cannot express how truly sorry we are for the anxiety, frustration and inconvenience that we caused. This is especially saddening because JetBlue was founded on the promise of bringing humanity back to air travel and making the experience of flying happier and easier for everyone who chooses to fly with us. We know we failed to deliver on this promise last week.

We are committed to you, our valued customers, and are taking immediate corrective steps to regain your confidence in us. We have begun putting a comprehensive plan in place to provide better and more timely information to you, more tools and resources for our crewmembers and improved procedures for handling operational difficulties in the future. We are confident, as a result of these actions, that JetBlue will emerge as a more reliable and even more customer responsive airline than ever before.

Most importantly, we have published the JetBlue Airways Customer Bill of Rights—our official commitment to you of how we will handle operational interruptions going forward—including details of compensation. I have a video message to share with you about this industry leading action.

You deserved better—a lot better—from us last week. Nothing is more important than regaining your trust and all of us here hope you will give us the opportunity to welcome you onboard again soon and provide you the positive JetBlue Experience you have come to expect from us.

Sincerely,

David Neeleman
Founder and CEO
JetBlue Airways

I'm actually really pleased that JetBlue chose to use the words "we subjected our customers to unacceptable delays" here, rather than try and place blame elsewhere. Additionally, I think the fact that JetBlue chose to set up its Customer Bill of Rights before any legislation was put down on the airlines (and I'll be surprised if it doesn't), and utilize YouTube for a video address from JetBlue CEO David Neeleman was very smart. No, not that they published it on YouTube and simply walked away, but that they were smart enough to publish the YouTube video on their own site to make it available to the public.

Irrelevant of what people are saying about how this airline or that airline don't ever have problems, I think what JetBlue has done here, like it's done with its legroom and other in-flight amenities (that includes attitude and service, by the way), has set itself apart from the pack. As a lot of you already know, JetBlue has had a lot of positive commentary by "fans" of the airline who pretty much swear by it. I, for one, am not convenient enough to JFK to take it as regularly as I'd like, but do so whenever it's worthwhile for me for time and destination convenience. It's one of the easier airlines to deal with, from booking to boarding, and I think it will continue to be as such. What'll be so important here is whether or not we all "forget" about this, including the company, and they end up resting back on its laurels, or if the company's staff truly takes care of business as the CEO has proclaimed. As Ben Popken mentioned yesterday on Consumerist, we'd fly JetBlue again, too.

Posted by Tom Biro at 05:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Seems that NBC Universal is the latest big media company to demand that its content be pulled from YouTube. That comes as an expansion of the deal between it and CBS seems to have hit a snag and just a couple weeks after Viacom demanded the site take down all of its videos. Viacom, for its part, has signed a deal with Joost, a deal that includes Viacom getting a cut of the advertising revenue from the videos. Here's my favorite part:

The basic idea behind Joost is to get as close to possible to replicating the television viewing experience on a personal computer.

Is this really what consumers are looking for? Personally I think internet video, if it's really going to add value to the viewer experience, needs to be more than a simple repurposing of TV material. Think beyond this to videos that are really going to attract an audience. TV can be viewed on TV. If you're looking for new ways to get TV content to people, then let's rethink TV, not make the same mistakes on the internets.

That being said, it can be useful for companies to have their own, approved outlets for online video. It can help build brand loyalty, provide for copyright control and allow marketers to collect useful data on the users who watch it. But it would be best to find a strategy that allows for both corporate control and the ceding of some control to users.

If companies decide that the hording of control is more important and continue to pull their material from venues where it's the user that's in charge it simply means there's more exposure to by gained by non-professionally produced material. Users will not abandon their favorite sites because a media conglomerate has decided to work against and not with the community. It just means they'll continue to use it and not be exposed to the professional stuff.

Of course all these moves could, as some have suggested, be bluffs and maneuvers as companies negotiate business deals with YouTube, in which case the content will be back but with ads or some such. It's important for all companies to figure how best to utilize online video in a way that makes sense for them. But don't forget that a lot of people are out there spreading the word for you on these sites, efforts that mean extra exposure for you at little to no cost. Don't get in the way of them doing so.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 11:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

• It's great that more marketers are trying to get what the hip kids are talking about and doing but things like this "Trend School" seem to have the same problems as other focus groups, in that they're snapshots and not evolving pictures. (CT)
• Am I the only one who sees the XM/Sirius merger as going nowhere once federal regulators realize that approving it would create a monopoly on satellite radio service? (CT)
• A startup firm wants to make parking spots something you can find and even reserve ahead of time from your mobile phone. (CT)
• Blogging do's and dont's get spelled out, something it's good to read and be reminded of every now and again. (CT)
• Apparently you can't trust everything you see on the internet, which is something I did not know. (CT)
• Eric Tatro links to a couple new blogs that are worth reading and subscribing to as I have. (CT)
• WOO HOO - Chicago is finally getting its own blogging conference this March! Go check out David Armano's write-up for more information on SOBcon 07. (CT)

Posted by Chris Thilk at 05:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

• Google has finally made the wise decision to allow the number of subscribers using Google Reader to be counted by FeedBurner. I'm always amazed, considering how much some people seem to be in looooooooovvvvvve with Google Reader that they haven't made a bigger deal out of the fact that Google doesn't like opening up its subscriber numbers. (CT)
• David Armano is being all mysterious and such. (CT)
• DA and Karl Long also have good takes on when it comes to doing product outreach to online influencers. (CT)
• Illinois thinks it's a good idea to ban access to social networks in public places. Eric Tatro disagrees, as do I. (CT)
• The Onion reports on the unscrupulous linking practices of some websites. I think this might be the most important story of the day. (CT)
• Getting Things Done is a hot topic that many a blog covers, and now, even popular shopping blog Uncrate is in on the action. (TB)
• Bloglines, whose blog is always one to keep an eye on for what fun stuff they're doing, has unleashed what they're calling The Bloglines Image Wall, built on the mass of images that come through its servers for feeds, as it happens. Link clouds and threads of what is being searched on search engines are awesome, but this has to be one of the coolest things I've seen in a really long time. (TB)

Posted by Chris Thilk at 12:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

• On Wednesday, Consumerist seemed to have ticked off some members of the Flickr community, and posted a mea culpa regarding their use of images found on the photo sharing site (TB)
• Does Microsoft's hiring of Michael Gartenburg as an "evangelist" remind anyone else of Journey hiring someone to replace Steve Perry in the band? In this scenario Robert Scoble is Steve Perry. (CT)
• Speaking of evangelism, Blogspotting has a neat look at how blogging is often like religion. (CT)

Posted by Tom Biro at 07:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

• The wife of Blogcritics.org founder/publisher Eric Olsen has opened up a new celebrity gossip blog for all of you to check out - GlossLip. Good luck, Dawn! (TB)
• Mike Manuel breaks down the 90-second news cycle. (CT)
• Trust is a valuable thing and, if the wrong thinking gets applied to maintaining it, it can become just as perverted as anything else. (CT)
• Mike at HackingNetflix gives Blockbuster some free advice as they advertise for a Blog/Viral Marketing Manager. (CT)
• Richard Weiner shares how one can leave a journalist a message when trying to make a pitch. Yeah, it's not new media, but probably helpful for new media folk who don't have a traditional PR background. [via ericeggertson on del.icio.us] (TB)
• Not surprisingly, ISPs have, when providing information to the RIAA, "misidentified" individuals being charged with stealing music. (TB)

Posted by Tom Biro at 03:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

On Monday afternoon, I caught this question on LinkedIn's Answers system, discussing people who were "open networkers" on that system, meaning people who just connect up with anyone and everyone who asks them to. While I see some of the points for the pro-open network being valid, I think it ends up defeating the purpose of a LinkedIn in the first place, which was to get rid of all kinds of "unqualified" or "unwanted" sales calls, random pitches, or emails from people you don't know or trust. Should LinkedIn halt the practice? Nope, there's no reason to halt what these folks are doing in amassing 20,000 "connections" to their lists, just like regulating a lot of other things on the 'net doesn't make sense. But when I choose to connect up with people on LinkedIn, and I'm at about 250 right now, it's to people that I either know pretty well in a flesh-and-blood kind of sense, have regular communications with online and/or off, or are a part of a group or organization with, and by design, have a level of trust in. That's not to say that any person who has 1,800 links or whatever doesn't "know" those people, but as you stretch yourself that way, the believability that one could potentially know enough about that many people to make a solid recommendation for a job inquiry, sales call, or interview request becomes smaller and smaller.

What do those of you who use LinkedIn think about this, and do you connect up with people you really don't know at all just to build a list of connections?

[ed: as I'm about to post this at 2:07pm Eastern on Tuesday, LinkedIn is, of course, down for the moment]

Posted by Tom Biro at 02:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

• Uploaded YouTube videos are becoming more popular both with those seeking jobs at TV stations and with those doing the hiring. (CT)
• The specialized and community-building nature of "mommie blogs" mean women are devoting more of their attention to them than to the networks' morning shows, which have seen female audience numbers drop 10% from last year. (CT)
• Erin Caldwell points out that understanding new media is a valuable set of skills to have, but if you want to work in PR you still need to master the basics. (CT)
• I blame the fact that the "death of the page view" topic has hit the mainstream press on all of you who encouraged him. (CT)
• The Tribune appears likely to try to create an in-house solution for its financial situation as opposed to accepting outside bids. (CT)
• This one's egregious, but I don't care. Our own Zoe Hamburger was interviewed by the A Hamburger Today blog recently, and it's up for your reading pleasure. (TB)

Posted by Chris Thilk at 11:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Over the weekend, Dave Winer posted a link to Sue Polinsky's item at Download Squad about RSS, where she asked "Why do you care about RSS?" in her title. She mentions some things that I see every day, about how you really don't have an event without something about RSS being mentioned, and has the same attitude that Chris and I do about it - once you really start using it, you kind of don't know how you used it beforehand.

A few days ago, I showed someone how I read my feeds on my laptop, to scan headlines and find news for posting in our fun and exciting Links Of The Day posts, on my other blogs, or to just keep an eye on what's going on any and everywhere. It's a rough task made simple, and while it's hard managing hundreds and hundreds of feeds, RSS helps you realize that you don't have to read *everything* nor do you have to go to those hundreds of Websites individually, like you used to, it's easy to grasp how powerful of a tool RSS is - and that's just the simplistic way of looking at it as the solution for news and information distribution to readers. So, I'd ask that you post why you love RSS, either here or over at Polinsky's Download Squad post.

Posted by Tom Biro at 12:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

• Emily Chang points to a new buyers and sellers space for those looking for some new digs, tenantmarket.com (TB)
• While I'm not really so big of a fan of the whole Flickr-Yahoo! username dustup that's going on (again), but you'll find it of interest to note that if Pro account users don't want to go through with this and would like a refund, that was a possibility this week, sez Jason Kottke (TB)
• Notice the nifty tab navigation over at Read/WriteWeb? (TB)
• Gmail for everyone, yeah, yeah. (TB)

Posted by Tom Biro at 01:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I know that I'm supposed to be falling all over myself to shower Steve Jobs with praise over his recent open letter to the music industry on the future of DRMed music. It's extremely tempting to read it as the modern version of Martin Luther's 95 Theses. Some have called it Jobs' "first blog post" but let's get serious. Jobs actually blogging in a real, honest to goodness manner is about as likely as Rex Grossman winning a Grammy. Anyway, I don't actually think Jobs is acting in any sort of altruistic manner. Yes, he wants the user experience to be better and wants music interoperability to be open for all. But that's all an effort to increase Apple's marketshare of both the online music and digital music player markets.

If the music labels were to drop their DRM requirements in not only the iTunes Store but others as well, more people will buy iPods since they won't be locked into competing players that only work with competing stores. And by putting up this letter, Jobs has made himself look like the hero of the working man, a position that it's hoped will bring more shoppers to iTunes.

I applaud Jobs calling the record labels out like this but wish that more people would apply the same natural skepticism toward his big pronouncement and announcements that they would if, say, Bill Gates had said all this.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (1)

It's kind of interesting to watch as big media companies dance and move around as they attempt to keep as much of an audience as possible.

• The Washington Post is debuting a new feature called onBeing, which allows people to upload videos of themselves talking about what's important to them. You know, like people have been doing on YouTube for a year now. New videos will be available for viewing every Wednesday. CORRECTION: These videos are professionally taped and not user-submitted. Sorry.
• Warner Music is now allowing its music to be streamed for free on Last.fm's ad-supported service.
• Variety has dropped its paid wall for online articles and added an electronic version that mirrors the look and feel of the print pub. The first part of that is likely a tactic to get more online linkage from bloggers since many are hesitant to link to partial articles that require payment to read.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 10:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The WSJ has a curious item today about retailers in the fashion space covering their trade on blogs in a way to drum up interest. Quoted is Bob Cox, who heads up the Media Bloggers Association, a group I'm a member of. Cox calls these sites "clogs," or corporate blogs, which is an unfortunate moniker, although it's true in some (if not many) cases. Unfortunately, I think that Cox misses the mark by giving that negative connotation, as pretty much any blog, whether for a non-for-profit or a township, has a "marketing or public relations mission." In fact, I'd make the serious argument that the MBA's own blog on the site does exactly that. My personal blog isn't a "clog" by this definition, but that doesn't make it "better" than one that might be put together by an executive at a company.

I think Cox would be better served by discussing whether or not the blogs that were written were done so for a purpose that serves the community it intends to reach. Sure, Neiman Marcus is intending to "sell" product by getting people to read its blog on fashion, but it does two other things. One, it gives some access to Ken Downing, the company's fashion director, and shows his commentaries on product that the store isn't necessarily selling, and can show the perspective of why the store holds the products it does. Second, it puts the retailer in the odd position, that journalist Vanessa O'Connell wisely points out, to be "in the awkward position of reviewing their own suppliers." Her following words are absolutely spot on, about how the blogs are there to "boost sales rather than offer impartial critique," but if the blogs are completely annoying and don't appear to have any serious creedence to them, they will be weeded out by the communities they are trying to embrace (or at least be embraced by). All you do by saying "oh, those are corporate blogs" is continue to drive yet another wedge of "us and them" that so plagued bloggers when the whole "bloggers vs. journalists" thing was the only thing that people were talking about every day. Sure, you don't like certain corporate blogs? I don't have a problem with that, and it's the reason why it isn't something I'm cranking out for every single client I represent. But that doesn't mean there isn't a place for it, and a valuable one at that.

Posted by Tom Biro at 09:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm completely in denial over the fact that Rex Grossman appeared to have suffered a sharp blow to the head right before yesterday's game. Did his teammates wear Colts jerseys during practice?

• I more or less agree that the editing of Wikipedia entries to correct factual errors should be OK, but I understand Jimmy Wales' reluctance to allow PR people editing access.
• Wiki, wiki, wiki, wiki, wiki, wiki, wiki, wiki, wiki, wiki.
• Josh kind of has a point. Bloggers spend so much time railing against big media and then we fall all over ourselves to cover the biggest media event of all, the Super Bowl.
• Seems that while ads might be a source of concern for parents worried about the messages their kids see, the shows those ads are embedded in also have parents furrowing their brows.
• Federated Media and comScore are partnering for blog metrics reporting.
• eBay will no longer allow you to sell virtual items, such as gear and such for World of Warcraft, through their auction service.
• The corporate minds behind MySpace don't like it when you try to link to a competing media site like YouTube or Revver. Lets see how this affects the Google/Fox advertising negotiations that are happening now.
• Todd has added a number of nifty feed options to his Power 150 list of marcom blogs.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 04:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

And the Bears are playing in the Super Bowl this Sunday. That's why I wore this today. Even the Picasso (located in the Honorable Richard J. Daley Plaza) got in on Bears Fever.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 04:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I received an inquiry from Strumpette, who apparently is having a malfunction with the GPS device she's implanted in the rest of the PR community, asking - and I quote - "Hey, where the hell’s Biro?"

After pulling my Star Destroyer out of the asteroid field (it helps in sending a clear transmission) Tom responded by saying, "Unlike some other notable PR people-cum-bloggers, I actually do client work and presentations."

Posted by Chris Thilk at 03:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Before I get into this link round-up, let me just say that if I read one more story like this or this about what a great pitchman Peyton Manning is, it's going to end badly. He won't be so great in those ads after Urlacher rips his arms off this Sunday.

• Microsoft, despite having an operating system it's launching and a $500 million budget for said launch, will not be buying a Super Bowl spot.
• In addition to the ads and the game, there's also food to think about when watching the Super Bowl.
• Let's be honest - If the ads haven't made you at least a little uncomfortable they probably haven't done their job.
• BusinessWeek goes behind the scenes of GM's development of the "fired robot" spot they created for the game.
• Max Kalehoff asks a good question: Will media coverage of the Boston marketing SNAFU overshadow the media coverage of the Super Bowl ads themselves?
• According to the Chicago Tribune, the ads during the game are kind of a bid deal. I did not know that.
• MediaPost wraps-up some of the sites to watch postgame.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 02:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Oh sweet crikey, it's February already? Wasn't it January just a couple days ago?

• Looks like former Weblogs, Inc head Jason Calacanis is starting a new company but it's unclear as to what that's going to wind up looking like. Knowing Jason it will certainly be interesting, though.


• Joe Jaffe is showing off two potential book covers for his upcoming book, Join the Conversation.


• Yes, the more mainstream media adopt RSS and other new technologies the more that will spur widespread adoption by users.


• I would probably be more excited about the Technorati WTF new feature if it 1) Didn't look like just another blog platform and 2) I weren't thinking about how much the search got neglected during the development of this.


• Another story on how Hollywood is looking to people creating their own stuff as a pool of potential talent.


• A lot of people are on the web while they have the TV on in the background. This, as much as anything else, is leading to the problems with TV's current advertising model - no one's paying attention when the ads are on.


• A bunch of smaller Web2.0 companies have created their own Super Bowl-type ads that will run on a branded YouTube channel.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 02:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Here's an interesting idea from David Singer, the guy who runs the VodkaFish blog. With AOL shutting down a number of the Weblogs, Inc. blogs (including AdJab, which Tom and I wrote for regularly) it would be fascinating to see the downward curve as people unsubscribe from the RSS feeds for those blogs. Not everyone, as he says, is going to automatically go and delete their subscription, it might take months before people get around to it. After all, there's no additional cost to subscribing to a feed so it doesn't really matter. I'd love to see this kind of report since I think it, as much as anything, would show how regularly maintain their feeds.

Posted by Chris Thilk at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)