« July 2007 | Main | September 2007 »
Everyone knows that the announcement of Hulu as the name for the NBC/News Corp video outlet, an outlet devoted to the TV and movie content from those two media companies, and NBC Universal's decision to pull their TV episodes from iTunes at the end of December are completely related, right?
Just want to make sure.
About half an hour ago, I was forwarded a link to an item on News.com's News blog, where Matt Asay asked an important question related to Google Apps, "Does Google own your content?" after seeing this post by Joshua Greenbaum on ZDNet's Enterprise Anti-matter blog.
He's commenting as a lawyer, and is going to have a much more solid understanding than most of us probably would, and it definitely looks grim. That being said, this comment by someone identifying himself as one of the people behind Writely clarifies that the way it's worded is done so that the ability for you to forward your information to a third party for review and editing. Also, this person discussing how the grammar in the TOS is used is probably just confusing for the average reader.
We could go on all day about this discussion, but what I wanted to point out here was how Google managed to get slapped around in two pretty big headlines, and these items have probably been passed around quite a bit, and it doesn't appear that anyone has actually contacted Google PR or the folks behind Apps directly. This is still, unfortunately, one of the things that drives me batty about the posts that go flying up on blogs without a thought to ask someone what the issue is. Even if you are going to post, send an email at the same time, let the PR person (or whomever you're reaching out to) know you're posting something, and say that in your post. Instead, we get a ton of pot-stirring.
Whether this is or isn't an issue for users of Google Apps isn't even the big thing here in this case, it's that no one's taken the time to contact Google directly about it. So, we'll be doing so this afternoon, and will post an update accordingly.
If you're a Cubs fan like myself than you (hopefully) accepted the fact that all the Tommy John surgeries in the world (not a reference to how many he could have, but actually did have) would not bring Kerry Wood's arm back to what we all hoped it would be. I don't even say "what it was" because it wasn't healthy long enough for us to see what it was. We collectively had this belief until about 2005 that just one more trip into the operating room would bring back the pitcher we saw in 1998 striking out 20 Astros. But now we've largely given that up. It's just easier and, frankly, more realistic.
But the corporate advertising world still seems to be stuck in the "It'll all work out" phase familiar to Cubs fans, survivors huddled in the basement after nuclear wars and people who think J.J. Abrams has a plan for "Lost." Advertisers still see a situation wherein a company or retailer faces the challenge of gaining market share or stemming sales declines and think that celebrities are the answer. Macy's picked Donald Trump and Martha Stewart, meaning they can cash in both their "place" and "show" tickets "The Apprentice" window. Ben McConnell dissects this effort nicely. HP has tapped rocker Gwen Stefani for a new campaign, since she had that big hit "Color Cartridge #22" and so is known as a printing industry guru. And don't get me started on The Gap, which launches celebrity-driven campaigns with the same regularity Sisyphus pushes the boulder of the hill, and with about the same effect.
Wouldn't it be better for companies to spend a fraction of what they are on lining up celebrities - celebrities that will endorse their competitors at the drop of a larger check - on seeing how they can build up their existing customers and empower them to spread their own word-of-mouth? They could create online communities where people talk about the brand, share their own stories and meet other like-minded people. And all this could probably done for a fraction of what Trump asked to utter a couple lines and pose for a handful of pictures.
People want to connect with each other - it's a natural human instinct. The myth of the celebrity has been almost shattered by tabloids - both print and online - and that has taken much of their endorsement credibility with it.
Dear Eric Zorn,
Chris and I really love you and your blog. Just one piece of feedback I'd like to share after seeing this gem of a post title earlier today (for link click slackers, it's "The call is coming from inside the house!!!!"), I wanted to point out that if you'd get the fine folks at the Trib to make your title tags as your post titles, you'd get far better search engine traffic for whatever pithy witticism you chose to put in there.
Cheers!
Tom
Dear writers and editors for mainstream news publications,
Please do not label something as "viral" simply because it mentioned on a couple blogs. "Viral" should be a term we use sparingly for those instances when something gets passed around with little to no help from the marketing department. Very few of the examples in this article that are actual ad campaigns would get that designation. Things like Will it Blend? and the "Flagpole Sitta" agency video? Yes. Brawny Academy? No.
Regards,
--Chris Thilk
It's kind of interesting to me that there's a story in Brandweek today about how advertisers are slowly building momentum on Facebook. It's interesting because it comes one day after I noticed, while writing up a post for my personal blog, that Sony Pictures had indeed discovered Facebook as a marketing tool.
A button on the official website for their new flick Across the Universe allows you to add the movie's trailer to your profile with just a couple simply clicks. It's really the first time I've seen Facebook integrated in such a way into a movie's campaign.
MySpace, on the other hand, has become lousy with profiles related to new movies, most of which don't add any value to the user. They're mostly made up of content that's just been repurposed from the official site.
I really hope that Facebook learns the lessons of MySpace and - at the very least - makes new mistakes as they progress. Right now I'm seeing value in Facebook that I never really saw in MySpace, even if I still don't use it very much. Yes, there will be eventual burnout, but it can still be something that works with the community there instead of working against it.
The full- versus partial-text RSS feed debate has been one that has simmered in the background of the online world for years now, occasionally flaring as people decide to make known that they're unsubscribing to X site because it's a partial feed or whatnot. The passions on this issue usually run high and everyone believes they have the key to understanding why the other side is wrong.
I bring this up because of the recent switch from full to partial feeds on the Freakonomics blog following its partnership with the New York Times. The blog is now hosted on the NYTimes site and many readers have apparently voiced their criticism of the switch rather loudly. The authors have tried to explain what happened a couple times but now author Stephen J. Dubner has written what may be the best rationalization of partial feed publishing to date.
Dubner explains that advertising is sold on the NYTimes site based on page views. So putting out full-content feeds would cut into page views, thereby decreasing the paper's ad revenue, thereby decreasing the pot of money that the Freakonomics crew gets a small cut of. He states this is not selling out - that the content is still free - you just need to come to the NYTimes site to read it. Yes, the paper could sell ads in the full feed but they chose not to based on their own comfort level as well as that of their advertisers. In the end Dubner says the resources they now have access to at the NYT are valuable enough to them that they feel the partial feed decision is worth it.
It is, as Dubner says, up to the reader to decide whether they're willing to pay the cost, the exposure to advertising, to read their content. If not that's up to them. Whatever each individual's decision might be I think Dubner and the team there is to be commended for providing such a logical and compelling explanation of their thinking to their readers.
Via The Disney Blog comes what is the first instance I've seen of an actual back-and-forth (at least as much as is possible) relating to a story that's happening using the new comment feature on Google News.
Last week a study came out from The University of Washington's Institute for Learning and Brain Science relating to language development in toddlers and how it might be impacted by videos such as Disney's Baby Einstein series. This resulted in a number of headlines in the mainstream press as well as the online world. But now the two parties, the study's authors and the Disney company. Disney wants the study retracted since it didn't actually include any looks at the Baby Einstein videos and so it feels its being wrongly labeled as contributing to toddlers who can't make with the usage that is good of the words.
I'm going to make this point again: Why is this something Google had to think of? Why isn't the news media either 1) Getting their facts straight in the first place (I know - but I had to say it) or 2) Doing this kind of thing on their own site? "Here's the story as we've reported it. Click here for participant reaction." Barring that sort of media buy-in, this is very much the sort of thing that could be covered on a corporate blog, where executives could weigh in with a company point of view on a story related to them.
Seeing this comment function in action also makes it seem to me like a very clunky tool. The reactions seem to be tied, in some cases, to a particular version of the story. One of the comments from Disney is labeled as being a response to the Time Magazine story. Good idea, but why so specific? And what does this accomplish that, if the party in question has a blog of their own, wouldn't be achieved by adding some sort of trackback functionality?
As John Frost at The Disney Blog says, this is now another outlet for corporations and their agencies to monitor, but with the no-spiders rule and other problems with automated tracking it's not exactly easy to do.
I'm sure we've all been CC'd on at least 100 emails in the last year that include "viral" website/video/other as a bullet point for something that's being planned. Everyone's trying to replicate the success of The Blair Witch Project or Subservient Chicken or any of a number of other efforts that really worked and have subsequently become case studies.
So it's important, I think, that we all bookmark/print out/include in our email signature this post by Mike Manuel. Mike correctly points out that things like YouTube are tools, that's it's the content that will ultimately decide whether the video/site/game/whatever will "go viral." If we want something to be passed around from user to user then it's our responsibility to guide the creation of compelling content. That needs to be followed up by work on making it findable through search or tags or other tactics.
After that it's up to the audience.
The Chicago Tribune's first blogger, Eric Zorn, is reflecting back on his first post four years ago and asking for feedback on going forward. I've been reading Zorn's blog since its inception and am always fascinated on how he uses the blog platform to its hilt. Not only does he put up great original content but also uses it to provide expanded related and supporting material to the columns he writes for the Tribune proper.
Really in a good number of the things I've done I've used Zorn's blog as a guidepost. It was the fact that I enjoyed it so much that prompted me to make my first foray into blogging, so you all can blame him for the fact that Chris Thilk is now moderately Internet famous. He mixes personal anecdotes with local news items with national topics and manages, by taking strong positions himself, to provoke strong reactions in his readers. For that I respect him greatly. I don't care if I offend you, I'm just happy people are engaging in the debate.
Zorn's blog has changed a bit over the last four years but still, I think, provides a great example of what the addition of a blog can bring to the Web site of a newspaper or any other media outlet. It's a strong connection with readers that goes beyond the print edition. Here's hoping, by me at least, that Zorn keeps going strong and continues to spearhead the Tribune's new media activities.
There have been a slew of studies and news stories coming out in recent weeks about teens and their spending habits. From their increasing ignoring of mall-based retail outlets built specifically for them to their desire to turn dorm rooms into statements of personal expression, teens are increasingly looking for ways to spend money that are unique to themselves.
The "marketing to avatars" meme has run through the online world several times. The gist of the topic was that since teens, the favorite demographic of marketers because of their highly social nature and vast disposable income, are spending so much time in virtual worlds such as Second Life that that's where those marketers needed to be. This was epitomized by so many brands rushing into Second Life and building stores, kiosks or islands that it was getting a bit ridiculous. Actually it was more than a bit ridiculous, as proven by the fact that now so many stores, kiosks and islands are unmanned by store personnel, unvisited by members and are gathering virtual dust. it turns out that, despite the breathless hype, people didn't want their virtual existence to be subjected to marketing.
But the mindset of people who create Second Life avatars, MySpace and Facebook profiles and Miis that they share with their friends is emerging in those real-life habits mentioned at the outset.
It's becoming clear that teens, with so many outlets for self-expression, are seeking that same sort of goal with their buying. Their preference to create customized environments, customized outfits and other products. But mass marketing can't do that, and doesn't. Instead the world expectation of teenagers is being formed by targeted online advertising, avatar creation, inputs and recommendations from friends in their Facebook network and other personalized inputs. So it should be no surprise that what they're creating/buying is more personalized.
And can you imagine these people, who have spent so much time making sure their environment is a reflection of themselves, entering the housing market? How popular do you think cookie-cutter sub-divisions where all the houses look the same are going to be?
There needs to be a massive shift in marketing, retail and other consumer-focused thinking that addresses the minds of people who are creating their own experiences. Without that there's going to be a lot more trouble in the overall economic pictures.
Google News has announced it will begin including comments on the stories it links to. These won't be comments from readers or trackbacks in the way we've come to define them in the blog world, but limited to the subjects of the story in question. This allows those people to add their additional perspective on a story that might not have been possible through the couple of quotes selected by the writer.
A major move? Absolutely, but not necessarily for the obvious reasons.
Google in the past has positioned News as something that's just an aggregator. Every time Google has responded to jittery news organizations who say they're stealing content and subsequent ad revenue Google says "No, we're actually pointing more people to your site" by just showing a headline and an abstract. And they've been right.
But this neatly lifts out the news organization from the user experience. This is something that brings the reader right back to Google or prompts them to never leave in the first place.
It seems to me that this wouldn't even be an issue if news sites did a little more innovating - and I don't include adding video as innovation. I mean what if a news site put up a story just like before but then allowed room for participants to add comments right there? Or put up the whole text of an interview online for readers to peruse on their own? Seems like both of those would add to the value of the site and to the engagement (read: time of visit, the all-important ad metric) on that site.
Someone asked what kind of impact this is going to have on us as public relations professionals. I don't actually think it's that much of a new thing for PR folks, at least not in and of itself. If we've worked with our clients to develop a sensible online strategy, including how to respond to blog postings, problematic Wikipedia entries and such than this is just an extension of that. It's something else to keep in the back of your mind. Same best practice guidelines exist, at least to my mind.
LATER UPDATE: Seems Google has disallowed spiders from crawling the comments content, setting off a firestorm of charges of hypocrisy. Those are somewhat warranted, especially since Google News is kind of, you know, built on a foundation of spiders. The fact that Google's first foray into content creation is inaccessible to search engines should not be overlooked by anyone who covers the media space.
I was lucky enough to be asked if I'd like to get a review copy of a new marketing book by Lois Kelly titled “Beyond Buzz: The Next Generation of Word-of-Mouth Marketing. I'll admit to being a tad skeptical about the book, despite my definite interest in reading it and seeing what Kelly had to say. The skepticism came simply from wondering if Kelly would really find something new to add to the conversation. I'd read some pretty decent WOMM books before and I was interested in seeing if this would be a retreading of familiar ground or if there was a fresh take that could be offered on the subject.
Fortunately it was the latter. “Beyond Buzz†focuses not on word-of-mouth marketing and indeed, as the title promises, does go beyond simply outlining how to generate buzz. What Kelly focuses on is how to begin, nurture and act on conversations both within a company and among a consumer base. From the CEO to the sales rep and everyone in-between, Kelly makes a strong case for conversations as the most effective marketing tool a company could use to connect with potential customers at all levels.
As part of her point on how to create authentic conversations Kelly often comes back to her advice that we, as communications professionals of all stripes, “write to be said†instead of writing “to be read.†The two are, of course, very different tactics. If you've met me in person you likely know that how I write is very much how I speak and that's what Kelly encourages all marketing professionals to do when trying to connect with a community of any sort. Using “I†(which I generously do in help for marketers my writing) helps people see the writer as a person and creates a deeper connection between the two parties. That can be of tremendous use to marketers who are trying to win over customers and influence behavior. After all, who would you trust more, someone you feel some level of connection with or some really bland and darn-near unreadable marketing copy. Yeah, me too.
“Beyond Buzz†is written with that same sort of personal take. Kelly's passion for the topic comes through loud and clear. Other books I've read I “hear†in my mind like someone who's speaking frantically and passionately about something that they're desperately trying to convince me of. And that passion is great. This one has the same sort of passion but it's much more focused. It's kind of like someone who is incredibly passionate about the topic but funneled that passion through a formal presentation to help me fully understand why they think what they think and so I can find ways to incite my own passion.
That's probably the biggest take away I have from “Beyond Buzz.†This isn't a book that will convince a CEO in clear, uncluttered language that I need to have a new style of marketing approach. But it is a book that I could use as a marketer to find ways to change the culture of the sales and marketing departments slowly and surely, bringing everyone around to my way of thinking with some clearly delineated steps.
It's a good book and a good read and, if you're looking for ways to invigorate your own thinking as well as the thinking of the people around you, it's something you should definitely check out. I'd like to thank Kelly and her publicity firm for hooking me up with a copy.