PR & SEO Blog from Silicon Alley

I found this interesting blog post on iMedia Connection about conversational marketing, and it made me think of how it relates to SEO…

Back in the old days of traditional marketing (which really weren’t so long ago), communication with the consumer was generally a one-way street. The consumer was told, “BUY THIS.” Period. End of conversation.

But, today’s marketers & businesses must keep that conversation going.

It’s called “Conversational Marketing,” a buzzword brought to global attention by 1999’s “ClueTrain Manifesto.”

Here is a simple example of conversational marketing: a business sets up a blog on their webpage. The blog is there to, of course, help sell the product -- but also to provide some good content and a place where customers and potential customers can engage in Conversation about said product.

Having something valuable to say and being there to listen – the hallmarks of a good friend, or at least somebody you’d want to hang out with. And that’s the key to conversational marketing, and of the sea change that has taken place in the world of marketing in general.

The consumer of today is tired of being talked down to, ordered around, and generally told what he or she should do with his or her money. He or she is also getting too savvy for the bells and whistles marketers and advertisers dream up to coax them into a purchase. No, what they want is not bells and whistles – but a person to talk to.

The meteoric rise in social media of all stripes – blogs, message boards, social networking, social bookmarking, news aggregate sites – have provided the perfect platform for this conversation between Business and Consumer to flourish. And, it’s incumbent upon every company, big and small, to make use of these resources.

Now, how does conversational marketing relate to a public relations firm that has transitioned to SEO?

Well, we can extend the conversation over to SEO pretty easily. In conversational SEO, you are not merely looking at a list of keywords, but really understanding how your audience is conversing – and then optimizing on the words they use to search! Again, the art of conversational SEO – like that of conversational marketing -- is a distinctly two-way, personal interaction. One-to-one (or many-to-many) versus one-to-many.

Now certainly, one cannot live on “conversation” alone. However, making the most of social media in conjunction with a skillful SEO campaign is a winning combination!

Labels: conversational marketing, conversational SEO, Marketing, media, seo, social media, social networking

posted by Valerie D'Orazio  0 comments

Circular Entertainment

Friday, December 07, 2007

Just when we thought we had it all figured out, Nokia released the results of a study it conducted on how we will entertain ourselves in the future. The prediction is grim, folks. Apparently, in the future, being a couch potato is very passé. Instead of basking in the euphoria that is sitting mindlessly in front of the television, just 5 short years from now, we will be engaging and actually creating our entertainment 25% of the time.

This phenomenon is being dubbed “circular entertainment.” Nokia gives the example of someone capturing footage with her cell phone, then sending it to a friend, who would add a soundtrack in the way of an mp3 file. This friend would then pass it to another, who would contribute yet another creative component.

Is this really how we will unwind in the future? Just thinking about it makes me tired, not to mention bored!

Tim Leberecht from CNET also blogged on this subject, cleverly pointing out that we should “take surveys sponsored by big brands with a grain of salt.” After all, it’s no coincidence Nokia uses the example of a mobile phone. Wouldn’t they just love it if we relied on our phones for more than just phone calls!

Well Nokia, I have news for you. Sadly, I rarely find myself wishing I had a video camera handy. My daily trip in and out of New York City is just not that exciting. Not to mention that I, along with about everyone I know, still absolutely prefers passive forms of entertainment to anything that requires more than a mouse click of effort.

But perhaps if we put aside Nokia’s ulterior motives with the cell phone example, we will see some truth in their prediction. As Leberecht pointed out, circular entertainment already exists in the form of social networking and reporters allowing comments to be made to their articles. Just this morning, a good portion of Good Morning America was devoted to reading viewer emails and responding to them. Isn’t this the embodiment of coming full circle?

It’s not much of a leap to “predict” that in 5 years, this phenomenon will only get more sophisticated and ingrained in our culture. Although, I am still a firm believer - or maybe just wishful thinker – that good old fashioned passive entertainment will still dominate our lives in the future.

Then again, if this writers’ strike goes on much longer, we will all have to get a little more creative…

Labels: entertainment, media, new media, telecom, Web 2.0

posted by Gina Bolotinsky  0 comments

Social Networking & Decision ’08 Take 2

Friday, November 30, 2007

This week, the Republican version of the YouTube debate aired on CNN. Compared to the Democratic debate, which aired several months ago, the conservative bunch did seem a bit more uncomfortable, which made it all the more interesting to watch.

If you recall, when the Democratic debate aired, there were rumors that the Republicans would not participate. I believe Mitt Romney said explicitly that he did not want to disgrace the sacredness that is political debate by allowing YouTube to lead it. Looks like technology won this round, and it is in the running for the next.

On Monday, news of Facebook and ABC’s partnership emerged, signaling another revolutionary step in our approach to elections and garnering news. ABC developed an application for Facebook called “US Politics,” which users can add to their profile. The application presents news on the election, and allows Facebookers to voice their opinions on certain topics, participate in polls and, most importantly, communicate directly with reporters!

How? The ABC reporters, whose articles are fed through the application, have Facebook profiles. As a Facebook user, you are invited to send them private questions and comments on their articles. Within this exchange, you can feel free to pose questions and issues that they can then raise with the candidates or investigate on their own.

Sure. This may not seem so profound to us, as in our profession, we engage the media on a regular basis. But the rest of the public does not. Actually, it is not far fetched to say that the majority of people are not even aware of how news comes about. Think about it…. How often have you been asked something as nonsensical as, “Can’t you just write a story and get it published?”

And while the ABC/Facebook partnership will be focusing on the presidential race, its success will determine how reporters interact with the general public in the future. Pretty soon, we might all find ourselves in the driver’s seat.

Labels: media, new media, politics, Public Relations, Web 2.0, Youtube

posted by Gina Bolotinsky  0 comments

Christmas before Thanksgiving

Wednesday, November 21, 2007

The holiday season is upon us, yet it seems that in recent years, Christmas is center stage before turkeys are even bought or stuffed for Thanksgiving.

If we lived in most any other part of the country, this would be most evident in the malls, where sometimes even before Halloween, Christmas trees, wreaths, elves and Santas mingle with crazed shoppers. But we live in New York City, where instead of malls, we find ourselves in a stampede on 34^th Street with Salvation Army volunteers incessantly ringing their bells for people to throw pennies into their red buckets.

And it’s not just a result of getting older and time seeming to pass faster, it’s practically a scientific fact. Heather Dougherty from Hitwise points out in a Reuters piece about Cyber Monday that, "The holiday season is starting earlier and earlier every year, which is what consumers joke about, but it's honestly happening.”

So what happened to Thanksgiving? It’s a holiday after all, so why does it fall out of line with the “holiday season?” Once our jack-o-lanterns are extinguished, and sometimes before they are even lit, the holiday “spirit” in the form of growing anxiety about what to buy loved ones sneaks up on us. Couple that with story upon ad upon story about shopping this holiday season, and we are thoroughly inundated with one message: BUY BUY BUY!

Thanksgiving thus becomes irrelevant. As I was looking through the top dailies today, I was unable to find much on the actual holiday. Rather, articles on Black Friday and Cyber Monday were abundant.

But don’t get me wrong. I am not knocking consumerism or even the media’s approach to greeting the holiday season. Chances are that I too would be less inclined to read a story about how the pilgrims celebrated the first Thanksgiving than I would about where to find the best sales on Friday.

Happy Thanksgiving… But more importantly, Happy Shopping!

Labels: advertising, Marketing, media

posted by Gina Bolotinsky  0 comments

Advertisers do not buy media

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

One notion that has consistently irked me over the years is the concept of a "media buyer". Rupert Murdoch is a media buyer. He made an offer the Bancrofts couldn't refuse. Now he can essentially do whatever he wants with the Wall Street Journal as long as it remains profitable for shareholders.

Advertisers, however, use the term "media buyer" to designate someone that negotiates with the media for the use of their time and/or space to deliver a message. Doesn't the word "buy" denote ownership? Ads are about media renting. And, to be honest, advertisers merely rent the medium as a communication vehicle. They are not really renting the reputation of the media outlet. When a company places an ad in the Wall Street Journal, they are not paying to have Walt Mossberg write a favorable review. Ads in nearly every medium are denoted as such, or else you lose the credibility that brings people back. In other words, ads are not the reason people consume media (except perhaps for fashion magazines when some ads can become art in and of themselves).

How effective will advertising be in the future as a one-way communication vehicle? Behavioral targeting or geotargeting helps make advertising relevant, but it's still rarely the message that consumers really want. People consume media because they are looking for specific answers or entertainment. Isn't it better to be in the conversation or in the path of research instead of trying to force feed a message that people actively try to avoid?

So when iMedia asks if we pay too much for media, the answer depends on who you are. If you're Rupert Murdoch, then no. If you're Joe Advertiser, then probably yes.

Labels: advertising, media

posted by Adam Edwards  0 comments

Blogging, Inc?

Friday, October 05, 2007

Douglas A. McIntyre from Wall St. 24/7 suggested in an article earlier this week that big media companies might start buying popular blogs. The reason for it being that the blogs of some newspapers and other news sites have not captured the same volume of attention as blogs like the Huffington Post and TechCrunch.

Rather than trying to compete, it would make sense for big media companies to just eat these blogs up. After all, relatively speaking, they wouldn't cost very much and would be fairly easy to maintain. AOL is already ahead of the game on this one with its purchase of Weblogsinc, which includes Engadget.

I suppose it's not really a novel concept for a big company to swallow up a small, popular fish, but will writers of these blogs be interested to sell? For many, I assume, it will be a personal decision. Do I want to maintain my own business and my complete creative freedom or do I want to hand the reigns over and feel secure in the financial footing of a media giant?

Regardless of what the likes of Michael Arrington might decide, if these purchases were to become rampant, our role in attracting the attention of the influencers would once again begin to narrow.

Another thought worth contemplating is how the public would react. Is it the independent nature of these blogs that we value or do we just like the writing style and quick turnaround these have over the traditional media channels?

This concept certainly raises a lot of questions and it will be interesting to see how this aspect of Web 2.0 unfolds.

Labels: blog, media, new media, Public Relations, Web 2.0

posted by Gina Bolotinsky  1 comments

It's Free!

Friday, September 21, 2007

To no one’s surprise, the New York Times announced Monday that its TimesSelect service will now be available to all readers for free. It took them two years to realize that even though they were generating money with people signing up for the service, they were losing tons of advertising money by not having the content available for free.

So how is it that now, thanks to the Internet, companies are able to make more money by offering things for free than by having people pay for them? The answer is simple: search.

People visiting the NY Times website would be frustrated that they couldn’t access the TimesSelect material. But these folks only made up a small percentage of the advertising money that was being lost. The overwhelming amount was coming from those who were searching for specific topics and were being routed to material from this paid section.

So, let’s say I wanted to learn more about France (which happens to be where I just went for my Honeymoon). I would Google “France” and towards the top of the 1^st results page, I would find a great article from the New York Times. Because I know the Times to be a reputable source, I would be eager to see what it had to say about France. However, when I would try to open the article, I would find that I didn’t have access because I was not a paid subscriber.

You can only imagine the millions of people who had the same dilemma.

Simple as it may seem, there is a very important PR lesson to be learned here. People are no longer putting their faith into their trusted news services. Now-a-days, the collective majority Googles whatever it is they want to know about. Sure we might still be more likely to go to the Times than to some random blog, but (as we PR people well know), the Times does not and will not write about most things.

What it means for us is that the days of traditional media being the gatekeepers to influencing the public are slowly fading. That role is now shifting to the Internet. With this change, we must pay more attention to not only the press we get online, but the kind of persona our clients have online. What is their voice? Do they even have a voice?

Because as I was Googling France, I didn’t find very many helpful websites ending in .fr that were in English, which I am sure isn’t terribly helpful to the French tourist industry. Yet, literally and metaphorically, France is on the map. But for those companies that aren’t, having a solid presence on the Web is starting to make all the difference.

Labels: Google, media, new media, Public Relations, seo, Web 2.0

posted by Gina Bolotinsky  0 comments

Google Newswire

Monday, September 03, 2007

There was a lot of news made last month out of nothing. The fact that nothing happened 12 months after Google made an ominous deal with the AP was, in fact, quite newsworthy. Many speculated that the agreement was just a payment to allow Google News to avoid royalties and continuing to run as intended (...the kind of agreement that YouTube would love). Turns out that the timetable for unveiling something was 13 months instead.

That something was the minor footnote that Google is now hosting AP news on its own servers... as well as articles from the AFP, CP, and PA. An example here shows the story being reported on by the Canadian Press, but delivered by Google.com. This partnership as it stands now is not particularly innovative. Yahoo has been delivering articles from these newswires on its website for years. Newspapers, TV stations, and many other media sites do the same thing.

For publishers, however, that is just the problem. They may not readily admit it, but newspapers need newswires. For over a century, they have allowed regional media to cost-effectively deliver national and international news. Yahoo News adopted this model long ago. That was never too surprising given its history as a content-centric destination (and the most visited site on the Internet).

Google, on the other hand, rose to prominence as a middle man. Tell them what you're looking for... and be on your way. Later, they started showing ads alongside search results like GoTo / Overture had pioneered. That seemed like a fair deal to get a free, quality search engine. Then they started showing ads on other people's websites with AdSense and providing bloggers with free tools to let people publish their own websites. That was another good idea, even if it led to quite a bit of spam. Meanwhile, Yahoo's Publisher Network hasn't gained the same amount of traction, and their web content has always been focused on keeping people on Yahoo's servers (Geocities, 360, etc.) so the two models have peacefully coexisted.

Now Google is dipping its feet further into content hosting with Google News 2.0 and other initiatives like Google Base or Book Search. Google becoming a publisher instead of just a content locator or aggregator is one of the most dramatic underlying changes taking place on the Internet today. Media outlets better be taking notes. The advertising networks running on those sites better be paying attention. If Google becomes a destination instead of a middle man, then you both lose.

It sounds like good business for Google, but they're still not hedging their bets. They're still happy to send people elsewhere as long as AdSense or DoubleClick ads are shown.

The question is: does the partnership makes sense for the newswires?

Certainly the future of news is online, and the AP/AFP/CP/PA would all be blind to ignore the 800 pound gorilla. However, there are thousands of media outlets paying for newswire subscriptions worldwide. They provide countless articles everyday to fill up print issues and websites around which publishers sell advertising. If Google begins to pervasively deliver news from their server while showing only their advertising, that cuts out a lot of revenue for many different companies.

Of course, your local newspaper is still going to subscribe to newswires even though they made a deal with Google. I just wonder how much longer they are going to be able to afford the fees when their ad revenue declines thanks to Google News, iGoogle, and Google OneBox results.

Labels: advertising, Google, media, newswires, Yahoo

posted by Adam Edwards  0 comments

Blogs Surpass Newspapers

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

"It is a press, certainly, but a press from which shall flow in inexhaustible streams" - Johannes Gutenberg

Whether you believe mass printing developed in Europe or Asia, there is no debating that movable type transformed society. The written word then went digital, and the information revolution was born. The sheer volume of data accessible today online has long since surpassed anyone's imagination. Yet for the better half of a decade, publishing on the World Wide Web remained exclusive to those technically savvy enough to deal with obscure acronyms like HTML and FTP. To some, it was no easier than dealing with picas and pigments.

Today, that time has come and gone. Blogs, which are really no more than chronological journal posts, have transformed the Internet. Indeed, they have altered the media and therefore our very view of the world. Even if someone still has never read a blog, the fact that influential reporters both read and write their own blogs have shaped the mainstream media... which means they ultimately affect the economy, politics, and somehow our everyday lives.

Today, user demand has caught up with the marketing hype. More people searched today for blogs than for newspapers according to Google Trends.

Many in old media may still hope that blogs are just a passing fad. Sure, the term "blog" may one day become passé, but the inexhaustible streams of everyone's own virtual press cannot be silenced. There is no going back, as Gutenberg would surely have attested.

Labels: blog, Internet, media

posted by Adam Edwards  0 comments

Future of PR

Thursday, August 09, 2007

The world is changing, but the signs as to how are always there if you know where to look. If you want to find out where the media and PR industries are headed in the near future, one only needs to read between the lines on Silicon Alley Insider this week.

1. Newspapers are embracing blogs, but the online divisions are still not seeing revenue like their counterparts in print. The online division of the New York Times is bringing in 10% of the company's revenue.


2. Yet online advertising budgets are expected to surpass that of newspapers in four years.


3. Meanwhile, bloggers can make a decent living on their own thanks to a chunk of that advertising -- in the realm of six figures.


4. And, in an effort to keep up, editors at the Times are asking reporters to cut down on article length. It's not just to save paper or for people's attention spans; it's also to compete with those very same bloggers in search engine results. Short stories can be just as influential as novels in PR (meaning PageRank), so it's better for editors to get two shorter pieces for the price of one.

What does it all mean? You can expect more editors and journalists leaving high profile publications to become independent bloggers. It's no coincidence that journalists Mark Frauenfelder, Jeff Jarvis, and Om Malik have been made into celebrities through their blogs. They are smart guys with devoted readers, and they figured out how to build their own brand and create new destinations online. Even those who stick to their day jobs are branching out, from Walt Mossberg on All Things Digital to David Pogue's musical vlogging at the Times.

That begs multiple questions. Do you go to read a publication because of its reputation or because of its writers and editors? What is your loyalty to said publication? If your favorite columnist left the Times to go to the Post a few years ago, that might not have been enough to get you to switch your paid subscription -- but now it's easy to read both in your RSS feeds. This is just another indication that media consumption is going from one-to-many to many-to-many.

How does that affect PR? Blogs are leveling the playing field with traditional media, so future PR professionals had better start learning their names now. Clients, too, need to realize it's not always about getting a cover story. A post on the blog of that publication's former editor can be just as effective in getting your message across, if not more. That blog post you once thought was quaint probably has a link to your website providing a clear call-to-action and increased online authority in search engine algorithms. Plus, the blog post is more likely to come up in search results than a corresponding online version of a print article, meaning it has longer shelf life. That doesn't even include the viral marketing opportunities in such a post!

We see the future, but we understand it can be hard for some people to give up the past. Publications often have such vaunted histories that there is still a tendency to cherish the printed story above all, despite the fact that getting written up in influential blogs can often have equal or higher ROI.

Labels: blog, media, pr, RSS, Silicon Alley

posted by Adam Edwards  0 comments

Is Wall Street Heading for Main Street?

Friday, August 03, 2007

The Wall Street Journal being acquired by Rupert Murdoch is raising interesting questions about the future of the paper's integrity and its structure. Will all of its articles adopt a sudden a FOX News slant to the right and will its rebirth give life to sports and culture sections?

On the first note, Time reporter Edward Gomez is not convinced that the paper had much integrity to begin with. In an opinion piece published on the San Francisco Chronicle website he proclaims that "it's media outlets like the WSJ that, over the years, have championed exactly the kind of more, more, more, bigger, bigger, bigger, corporate greed and unrestrained consolidation of ownership that Murdoch's latest buy represents." Hmmm… perhaps they are just getting a taste of their own medicine?

Of course there are also the theories that Murdoch, with his very hands-on management style, will steer the paper away from its core financial focus to a more mass appeal. This would pin the Wall Street Journal directly against the New York Times, which is multifaceted with sections devoted to culture, style and theatre.

Other compelling points were brought to light by Ad Age's Nat Ives in his video commentary on the deal, in which he discusses the change in perception the public might have of the media because of the merger.

He says that Murdoch's purchase might "further the realization among Americans that media is a business." Though this fact may seem obvious to PR people and our colleagues in the marketing world, few people outside of this field actually understand the nature of the media. Specifically, that being fair and unbiased is an aspiration, but often not a reality. It's no secret that in small trade publications, advertising drives editorial content. What are the big ones driven by? This answer is certainly more complex, but part of it involves the views of their tycoon owners like Rupert Murdoch.

Labels: media, Web 2.0

posted by Gina Bolotinsky  0 comments

Is Any Press, Good Press?

Friday, July 20, 2007

Probably the most anticipated book in history is being released tonight and fans are actually avoiding the Internet and newspapers at all costs so as not to get wind of what happens to Harry, Ron and Hermione.

J.K. Rowling’s books have achieved a level of fame so immense that it can be argued that the promotion is now counteracting sales efforts. How is this possible?

An online retailer, DeepDiscount.com, sent copies of the preordered 7^th and last installment of the Harry Potter series on Tuesday to buyers. Once Scholastic, the book’s publisher, got word, calls were made to the book buyers, requesting that they remain mum on the ending. Gift cards and Harry Potter t-shirts were offered as incentive. One of the early receivers was Baltimore Sun reporter, Mary Carole McCauley’s brother-in-law, who gave the book to Mary, who wrote a review, which was published on Thursday. The New York Times was also able to receive a copy pre-launch and published an early review.

To add to the mayhem, several versions of an ending have been leaked on the Web causing an uproar among fans. I will admit that even I was cautious in reviewing articles on the topic as I plan on reading the book and don’t want the ending spoiled.

It is without a doubt that Harry-obsessed devotees will be buying the book anyway, but what about those who have yet to be sucked in? If they know the ending to the entire series, why would they read it?

These circumstances raise the question of whether it is really true: Is any press, bad or good, beneficial?

From one perspective, it is; especially, if your company or product is not very well known. In our diverse world, there are bound to be people who will disagree with the negative coverage, gaining your company positive impressions. From another, however, bad press can cause serious damage.

In the case of Harry Potter, there is probably no amount of bad press that can drive people away. The 5^th movie, for instance, got mixed reviews, but it is still topping the box office. It has become almost cliché, but I have to say that Harry has cast a spell over us all.

Labels: Marketing, media, Public Relations

posted by Gina Bolotinsky  0 comments

Google’s Public Voice

Friday, June 22, 2007

This week, Google launched a public policy blog on which Andrew McLaughlin, Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs, shares his thoughts. And for this blog, Google is facilitating a conversation by permitting comments.

McLaughlin blogged:

Yes, we're a multinational corporation that argues for our positions before officials, legislators, and opinion leaders. At the same time, we want our users to be part of the effort, to know what we're saying and why, and to help us refine and improve our policy positions and advocacy strategies.

Looking at this from the PR point of view, one has to wonder how much of this dialogue is driven by the negative press Google has received lately on issues of privacy. Whether or not I feel Google is truly a culprit, comments on blogs are an excellent PR tool and I commend Google’s efforts.

The blog itself also creates a great buffer zone for allegations by providing Google with a distinct voice that can comment almost instantly. Only time will tell if Google is truly proactive in its crisis communications; yet, something tells me that we will not be disappointed. I predict a chapter on Google in PR 101 text books of the future, if there is not one already.

From the other PR perspective - that being the emergence of new media - it doesn’t take a fortuneteller to foresee that if Andrew keeps up with relevant news and posts with a consistent frequency, this blog has the potential to become a true authority on public policy matters. So this could very well be the birth of actual media being generated by Google. For example, news could be broken right on this blog.

So the outcome of this blog clearly holds vast possibilities for us PR folks. In the meantime, we’ll be keeping tabs, taking notes and offering insight as this experiment unfolds.

Labels: blog, crisis communications, Google, Internet, Marketing, media, new media

posted by Gina Bolotinsky  0 comments

Playing Catch Up

Friday, April 20, 2007

The tragedy at Virginia Tech taught us many lessons this week. While most relate to social and psychological matters, the PR field learned that citizen journalism is becoming more prevalent with every major event. First Post, an online magazine, referred to the phenomenon in an article titled “Citizen journalists seize the day”.

This Monday, we were glued to our computer screens and not to the television as we watched the unbelievable horror unfold. The traditional press was slow and clumsy to stay on top of the events, while the students and passersby wasted no time chronicling their accounts on websites like Twitter and Flickr. Students’ LiveJournal entries were later used by the traditional media outlets to compile their stories.

So what was the role of the media giants that we are accustomed to for news?

On Wednesday, The Today Show was taping from the Virginia Tech campus and the entire three hour show was devoted to covering the tragedy from every imaginable angle.

In the middle of the three hours, Meredith Viera interviewed Regina Rohde, a young woman who was a freshman at Columbine High School during that incident in 1999 and is now a senior at Virginia Tech.

After she shared her raw emotions with America, Meredith brought up the fact that Rohde was hesitant to do an interview with Today, because she had ill memories of how the media’s attention on her community at Columbine had affected her as well as her peers and family.

The community needs time to grieve without cameras recording their every tear, Rohde explained. A community needs space to heal on its own.

At the same time, Rohde acknowledged that the news has an obligation to report these tragic events to the world and to honor those who were affected. But there is a fine line between reporting and prying.

In the days of the Columbine tragedy, citizen and online journalism was in a premature state, yet Rohde’s point remains relevant to this issue of the role of traditional media. For example, does Today have to be parked outside of the campus and devote their entire three hour show to interviewing various affected parties? Is this even news, or is it a tactless attempt at tear jerking?

As we come to rely more on the Internet, perhaps news shows, such as Today, will focus on providing commentary to events as opposed to reporting them in the traditional newsy fashion. In the midst of this transition, we will undoubtedly encounter more of these awkward attempts to offer original content. Certainly, a new set of standards and ethics will come into play.

Because while this week it was Virginia Tech – an event that probably deserves the air time it is getting – last week it was Imus and some months ago, Anna Nicole Smith.

Viewers, if they haven’t already, will surely come to rely on the Internet for breaking news and might only tune into their television for something extra.

Labels: media

posted by Gina Bolotinsky  0 comments

Building Brands Online: The Power of the Internet

Friday, March 16, 2007

The Viacom lawsuit against Google's YouTube will perhaps bring us closer to identifying the influencing role the Internet plays in our lives today.

With Viacom's main concern being that its clips are generating an obscene amount of advertising revenue for Google, it seems that Viacom is naively wondering: What is this "internet"?

Surely, when the case begins to get under way, an examination into the benefits of these MTV, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon clips (reported in the New York Times to be seen an estimated 1.5 billion times) will reveal that this exposure is actually increasing these channels' viewership.

Furthermore, in a recent Online Media Daily article, Gavin O'Malley quotes Eileen Naughton, Google's New York regional sales director, commenting on YouTube's revenue. Naughton explains that "the ad effect has not even begun to be felt. There is no well-built-out [business] model for YouTube right now."

Perhaps the real issue being put to the test here is the power of persuasion over the Internet. The media is only recently getting the message. USA Today revamping its website to allow users to comment on articles is a clear indication that this thing called the "internet" is forcing all forms of business to do an about face.

So is Viacom just scared of change and is this lawsuit a last attempt to shoo this big bad Internet away?

Maybe. But maybe this is Viacom's attempt to get a good deal out of Google. Their way of haggling, if you will.

Because, even the Viacom executives, who might not scout YouTube on a regular basis, have to understand that having their material absent from YouTube will only reduce their viewership as our generation has entertainment options that extend far beyond MTV, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon.

Labels: Google, Internet, media, Viacom, Youtube

posted by Gina Bolotinsky  1 comments

Influence the Influencers

Thursday, December 08, 2005

When asked who should know about your product or service, the most obvious answer may be, "well, everybody." However, few companies, if any, truly have the resources to reach out to everyone all at once. What you need to be able to do is locate the opinion leaders and reach out to the key people that will help you to reach everyone else.

Connors maximizes our efficiency by knowing how to influence the media and the search engines, which in turn influence the public. By hitting key places, we can start a message which will reverberate. By influencing the key people or search engine criteria, we start the ball rolling down the hill and any time it starts to slow down, we give it a push. Once the right people start talking about it, others are sure to follow. This maximizes your budget and gets your message out to as many people as possible.

The most successful PR campaigns have a strategy and a goal beyond simply raising awareness about a company. You want the control the public discussion and this involves crafting the appropriate message for the right contact in order to get the ideal message out. Connors will help you craft this strategy and get you mentioned in the right media and ranking on the right keywords to help you attract the qualified customers you're looking for. Connors Communications is successful because of our focused ability to influence the influencers on behalf of your company.

Labels: Connors Communications, media, pr

posted by Jessica Ek  0 comments

Search engine use shoots up in the past year and edges towards email as the primary internet application.

Wednesday, December 07, 2005

From PEW Internet & American Life Project...

Search engines have become an increasingly important part of the online experience of American internet users. The most recent findings from Pew Internet & American Life tracking surveys and consumer behavior trends from the comScore Media Metrix consumer panel show that about 60 million American adults are using search engines on a typical day.

These results from September 2005 represent a sharp increase from mid-2004. Pew Internet Project data from June 2004 show that use of search engines on a typical day has risen from 30% to 41% of the internet-using population, which itself has grown in the past year. This means that the number of those using search engines on an average day jumped from roughly 38 million in June 2004 to about 59 million in September 2005 – an increase of about 55%. comScore data, which are derived from a different methodology, show that from September 2004 to September 2005 the average daily use of search engines jumped from 49.3 million users to 60.7 million users – an increase of 23%.

This means that the use of search engines is edging up on email as a primary internet activity on any given day. The Pew Internet Project data show that on a typical day, email use is still the top internet activity. On any given day, about 52% of American internet users are sending and receiving email, up from 45% in June of 2004.

Labels: media, search

posted by Mike Levin  0 comments

Filling the Gaps: SEO Copywriting Strategy

Thursday, October 06, 2005

What do you write about when what you do write about doesn't matter?

I saw this article today. It's another piece on how to make SEO copywriting effective. Being a copywriter myself, I'm very interested in these articles and, as they come out, I jump to see if they have any insights into SEO writing that I may have missed.
http://www.mediasyndicate.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=1931

However, they all seem to be more or less the same. The title is the most important part, as well as any other short pieces of writing that stand out from the main text, such as bulleted points, the first sentence in each paragraph and any photo captions. Why? The internet is drowning in text and much of it will only be scanned and never read. I've seen plenty of advice on how to optimize the few, crucial phrases that are most likely to be read, but what about the rest? Is it merely an exercise in filling the digital page?

While the advice offered is worthwhile, I think the main text does not get nearly the attention it deserves. I would like to argue that this text is actually very important. Yes, most text gets skimmed, but some will certainly be read. Think how much you read online everyday. And even if it doesn't, this text is still important for search engines. Writing about a subject is bound to bring up more related words and these words will in turn bring in more searchers on varied phrases that you may not have thought to target. So every single word you write can become a piece of valuable market research on what your consumers are looking for. Filler text is so much more than an alternative to lorem ipsum copy. It's a chance to be relevant and interesting and experimental. Hone your craft.

Yes, we all need to have intriguing and keyword-rich titles, but there's more to it than that. After all, if all you're doing is writing to fill space between the introduction and conclusion, why would anyone take the time to read it?

Labels: media, search, seo

posted by Jessica Ek  1 comments