What Sort of Social Media Services Should An Online Marketer Offer Clients?
Monday, March 03, 2008
Here are the services an online marketing company can (or should) offer clients:
- Blogging: Providing blog content, including content that has a "real" voice and is calculated to drive traffic/comments/interaction. Metrics to measure the effectiveness of this include # of comments, traffic, link-tos, and Technorati ratings.
- Blogger Outreach: This involves first creating contact lists carefully targeted to the client in question – and having the ability to identify the influential bloggers within a particular niche. Then the bloggers are contacted regarding the client story in question. This is similar to traditional PR, but involves a far more personal hand, and the ability to network and create relationships online. Traditional press releases do not work in this outreach – they must be short, friendly letters. Metrics for this include hits and link-backs to your site.
- Forum Outreach: Similar to blogger outreach. Part of this is identifying in advance what forums might be useful to the client and developing a relationship with them BEFORE making the "pitch" on the site (or else you are labeled a spammer).
- Social Networking Sites: The creating/maintenance of MySpace and/or Facebook accounts for the client, including the creation of Groups, Friending, sending out bulletins, etc. In addition to Facebook & MySpace there are many other social networking sites to focus on, both broad-based (like Bebo) or specialized (depending on client’s needs). Part of offering this service is the ability to tell clients what specific sites will be best for them demographically, and keeping up with trends. Metrics for this would be page hits, increase of hits on referenced URL, number of "friends" and comments.
- Podcast & YouTube: Some clients will be particularly suited for these forms of viral marketing. Marketers should offer very basic services in making simple podcasts & videos with the goal of going "viral" within the social networks. There is also a social networking component to these podcast and YouTube communities that have to be maintained and "worked." Metrics for this would be hits, # of downloads, link-tos from other sites, and increase of hits on referenced URL.
- Social Bookmarking: Interfacing between client blogger and bookmarker to shape content most likely to be bookmarked. Metrics include # of "Diggs" or "stumbles" a bookmarked story gets, and corresponding hit spike on referenced URL.
Within all of this is the need to provide the client a list of metrics to demonstrate that the social networking is creating a result. Companies are more likely, even in the case of budget cuts to their overall online marketing plan, to keep a budget for social networking because it is relatively inexpensive – but because the technology is so new, they want to see tangible results. It will be necessary, then, for a shop to create their own methodology and protocol for collecting data for metrics and presenting them in a convenient and comprehensive manner for the client.Labels: blogger, buzz, Facebook, Myspace, new media, social media, social networking, Stumbleupon, video, Web 2.0, Youtube
Will Google’s Vendetta Against Baidu Impact The Future Of Free Music Downloads?
Wednesday, February 06, 2008
Google’s mission to oust the success of Baidu in China has been uphill, despite a move by the American search giant to larger offices in the country and increasing staff. Now Google hopes that offering free music downloads to the Chinese via a partnership with Top100.cn will turn the tide. By cornering the popular music search market – something Baidu has become quite popular in – Google hopes to make crucial inroads on Baidu’s supremacy and gain a foothold in the continent. Most intriguing in all this is the possibility that the precedents Google might set in China for free music downloads and music search, if successful, will spread to the rest of the world as well. Beyond the immediate questions of how this will affect the music industry, what impact might a legal music search/download system implemented by Google have on SEO? What sort of data might be generated by this new system of legal free downloads and the keywords used to find them? When I think of the online marketing matrix that might be created between Google, music search/free downloads, and the possibility of melding social networking with SEO, I marvel at the possibilities. For example, the music searches can be tagged in Google with keywords, particular searches bookmarked for other users to browse. Google could have a social network set up of just saved searches and playlists, a competition brewing between users as to who is the “top” searcher. Meanwhile, you have all this keyword data cropping up, including what I would think would be some great long tail results. So will Google do what Napster could not – popularize legal free music downloads? And how will this change the online marketing playing field? Stay tuned to find out…don’t touch that dial! Labels: Google, music downloads, new media, seo, social media, social networking
And they’re off
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
With the primaries well on their way, we are beginning to see the real impact social media is having on the voter turnouts as well as the actual votes cast. For reference sake, I will note that on Facebook, Obama has an overwhelming lead with 61% of participants of the US Politics feature supporting him. Clinton has just 18%, and Edwards comes in 3rd with 10%.
On the Republican side, surprisingly, Ron Paul is the front runner with 37%. The support for the other candidates is split fairly evenly. In order, Huckabee is 2nd with 19%, Romney 3rd with 14% and McCain 4th with 11%.
Facebook doesn’t break down these figures further, for example, indicating the median age of supporters. However, it can be safely assumed that the majority of these folks are in their 20s and 30s and, thus, represent a voice younger than that captured by the polls conducted by CNN and other traditional news organizations.
With that said, the argument can be made that social media is having a relatively big impact for Democrats. In Iowa last week, where Obama was victorious, young people came out in record numbers. According to Time, “[t]urnout among the youngest slice of the electorate more than doubled from 2004.”
The same was true in New Hampshire yesterday. In a press release today about the state’s voter turnout, the presence of youth - deemed as adults under 30 - increased 25% from 2004, from just 18% to 43%.
An article from MTV.com about Clinton’s win in NH broke down the numbers. In Iowa, just 10% of Democrats aged 17-24 voted for her, while 57% voted for Obama. In New Hampshire, 22% of 18-24 year olds supported Clinton, but an astounding 60% rallied for Obama.
So how did Clinton manage to win in New Hampshire? While young voters are taking the most active role in history in the primaries, so is the rest of the population! In that same article, strong support from women, 46% to be exact, was cited as the reason for her win in NH. Apparently, women in Iowa don’t care much for other women.
Perhaps what’s even more telling about the success of social media in these elections is CBS’ announced plans this week to partner with Digg on coverage pertaining to the campaigns. It’s a you-scratch-my-back-I’ll-scratch-yours kind of deal. CBSNew.com will feature stories rated highly on Digg on their site and Digg will feature articles from CBSNews.com.
It’s nice to know that when all is said and done in November, our country is already well on its way to creating real change. Through the integration of social media, apathy is quickly becoming very passé.Labels: 2008 elections, digg, Facebook, new media, politics, social media, Web 2.0
Connors in the New Year
Friday, December 21, 2007
It’s hard to believe that Christmas is just days away and that 2008 is looming around the corner. The decade, which we have yet to name, is almost over!
It’s early still to reflect on the first ten years of the 21st century, but I think it is safe to say that we have come a very long way since the days of Y2K. In fact, in that short time, we have overcome the first web revolution and found ourselves basking in the glory of the second.
Some people laugh at the phrase Web 2.0, but it’s not just a gimmick. For example, yesterday there was news from the San Francisco Chronicle about a study recently conducted by Pew Internet & American Life Project on the propensity of teens to engage in online content creation and sharing.
The study found that “almost two-thirds of online teens have created something online.” The article then goes into the specifics of the data, the most impressive of which is the rise in the percentage of blogging teens. In 2004, the number was just 19%, where as now, almost 30% of teenagers blog in some shape or form.
And it’s not just a phenomenon reserved for the younger generation. We are all coming to rely on the Internet at an exceedingly growing rate. If you’re skeptical, just look at what’s happening to print publications. We’re clearly no longer getting information in the ways that we grew accustomed.
It is for all these reasons that in the new year, Connors will no longer be doing PR in the same old way. We have been split between traditional PR and SEO for years, but taking society’s changing ways into consideration, it is becoming more and more clear that the traditional PR road is no longer paved in gold. The road online, however, is looking very bright.
Our president, Connie Connors, recently spoke to Enid Burns of ClickZ about our changing direction. In the resulting article, Connie points out that the communication channels no longer equate to “one-to-many.” Rather, “many-to-many” is the formula that dominates, creating a “sphere of influence.” Meaning that, with the help of the Internet, we are all now playing a more active role in each other’s lives.Labels: Connie Connors, Connors Communications, Internet, new media, Public Relations, seo, Web 2.0
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
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
More Ad Money Going Online
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Online advertising is a growing business. According to a report by the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, “U.S. Internet advertising revenue rose 25 percent in the third quarter to about $5.2 billion,” signaling a new record for the industry.
Why the jump? Gavin O’Malley from Online Media Daily explored the topic in an article posted on Tuesday. In it, he quoted Nick Brien, worldwide CEO of Universal McCann, as saying, “ ‘If this happens for another year, significant clients will want to walk,” because all of them are “just waiting to increase their online spending to 50% or 60% [of their total budgets]’"
McCann’s clients are not the only companies dissatisfied with traditional avenues for advertising. In fact, many are “discontent due to increasing viewer fragmentation, disruptive technologies, and the resulting decrease in ROI.”
The truth of the matter is that each year, more and more people find themselves increasing the time they spend online. This shift is only natural.
However, marketing execs might soon reach a different frustration with the fact that ads online do not seem to stick in the same way as TV or radio spots. Josh Quittner and Jessi Hempel of Fortune asked readers on Tuesday to name 3 memorable ads they saw online. I couldn’t do it and chances are, neither can you.
Their article went to point out that Google is one of the few companies that has succeeded in creating a thriving ad platform online. Facebook is trying to follow suit, but only time will tell whether their interesting idea of users sharing ads with one another will work.
The bottom line for us is that all things related to marketing (if not all things in general) are expanding their footprint online. Yet, it’s not as simple as regurgitating traditional media campaigns online. The Internet is a different medium, after all, and it demands a little ingenuity.Labels: advertising, Adwords, new media, Web 2.0
Google Phone
Friday, November 09, 2007
This week, Google revealed their plans for what they predict will be a revolution for mobile telecommunications. It’s called the Android and it’s about as sexy as you might expect an android to be.
Google, along with 33 telecommunication companies, has created the Open Handset Alliance. Their aim, according to the LA Times, is to “spur innovation by giving independent engineers the chance to write programs for phones, with no need for permission from mobile network operators or phone manufacturers.”
It’s a noble and hefty goal, especially when you take into consideration the current state of the mobile telecom industry in the States, which many deem to be a monopoly of sorts. The most recent news to hit this cord, of course, was that the iPhone can only be purchased if you have AT&T service. To put it lightly, we Verizon customers felt short changed.
The U.S. is one of the few, if not the only country to have this kind of set up. In other countries, cell phones are independent from service carriers and can be changed with a simple switch of a sim card.
Another issue Google aims to tackle through this endeavor is the inability for its ads to show up on many current smartphones. With Android, Google is creating a web browser for mobile phones that will show a website so that Google ads are visible and clickable. Google is then leaving it up to the companies in the Alliance to create the applications for their cell phones.
So, what can we, both the costumer and the marketer, expect? As a costumer, all phones with the Android technology will not look the same, so style and features will still highly depend on the manufacturer. However, we can all rest assured that surfing the web on the phone will become much easier and will resemble the experience we have on our computers much more.
As a marketer, it will mean the true beginning of mobile telecom marketing. Right now, we talk about it, but few truly consider it when developing a campaign. And for good reason, because for those of us without an iPhone, the Internet experience on a smartphone is frustrating, to say the least.
As the Android and its spawning cell phones develop, we marketers will be keeping a close watch. Overture (a former Connors client) and Yahoo may have brought us SEM, but it was Google that really made SEO popular. And now we also have Google to thank for the next step in MTM, mobile telecommunication marketing.Labels: Google, Marketing, new media
A Brief History of the Huffington Post
Friday, November 02, 2007
This past Monday, an interesting article by Fortune's Richard Siklos was published on CNNMoney about The Huffington Post. It caught my eye because we usually don't think of these Web 2.0 media outlets as businesses, but The Huffington Post turns out to be a high prized commodity for its founder Arriana Huffington.
Siklos' lengthy piece takes us to the very beginnings, when the Post was simply an idea, and a rocky one at best. "When the site first went live, the heavy betting was that it would quickly become a footnote in the sad annals of online ventures by celebrities -- anyone remember RodmanTV.com?"
I don't, but I guess that's the point.
The Huffington Post not only survived, but thrived in an environment that was not yet inundated with news social networks. In those days, Arriana started things off by hiring editors who would sift through the day's news and link to articles that they deemed interesting or worthy of a read. Original content was also provided by self-recruited team of volunteer bloggers.
These bloggers are perhaps the thing that sets the Huffington Post apart from most other sites of its kind. Arriana ran and still runs in celebrity circles. When she began her venture, she wanted to make sure to take advantage of her connections by asking some of these folks to write for her site. After all, whether we like to admit it or not, we all take interest in what celebrities think. She got a bunch of eager names in the beginning and now, most of her friends and acquaintances who are asked to contribute to The Huffington Post are honored.
The site now attracts over 90 million readers a month, which is approximately the amount of traffic the Philadelphia Inquirer site gets. Granted, the Huffington Post aims to reach a national audience, so the numbers are not staggering, but still significant enough.
The lesson learned here is that while there are no shortage of bloggers out there who serve a niche interest, even the ones that are trying to please the masses are having notable success. Labels: blog, new media, Public Relations, Web 2.0
The Growing Internet
Friday, October 12, 2007
Yesterday, a bylined article on the topic of our soon-to-be antiquated Internet infrastructure was published on CNET by Michael Keenan from UC San Diego. In it, Keenan stressed the significance of the fact that in the near future, the Web will no longer hold the demand that we are putting on it.
Michael explained that when the Internet was created, its size and use was undermined, but the limitations of the structure were not truly felt until recently. After all, it was not that long ago that we used the World Wide Web for just email. Now-a-days, we use it for pretty much everything. In Keenan's words, "[t]he Internet has gone from a complement to everyday living to a principal platform for business and personal activities."
While his article went down the path of discussing the sad state of broadband in the U.S., which, by the way, is in 15th place worldwide, behind countries like South Korea, I would like to go back to this notion of the Internet's importance in our role as influencers. I think this idea is hard for some to grasp because those Internet-free days or days of it being "a complement" are not too far gone. Yet, it is undeniable, we don't just use it to stay in touch with family and friends, but for essentially any information that we need. At which restaurant to eat; how to get there; and what to do afterwards. We decide all these things and more from the information we get online.
This is why it is crucial to have an optimized website. Meaning, your site needs to come up in search results that are initiated by words that are associated with your business. What am I talking about? For kicks, try typing "pr firm" into Google. In the first 2 pages of Google results, you will find 3 or 4 actual PR firms, one of them is Connors Communications. Is it such a leap to say that many businesses begin their search for a PR firm just this way?
In another article in MediaPost, Anand Subramanian writes about the concept of "The Long Tail" and its importance to advertising. He references eMarketer's 2006 report that found that "Internet users spent 61% of their time online outside of the top 20 domains, which includes most major social networking sites and web portals."
For advertising, it means that media buyers need to spend money outside of the top 20, and for public relations professionals, it means that we have to channel these niche markets with as much vigor, if not more, than those top 20.
But don't panic! This should come as a relief. Of those top 20, perhaps half are actual news sites like The New York Times and Google News. We all know the challenge in getting placements in this type of media. What these results indicate is that by compiling a list of relevant and attainable blogs and niche news sites, our PR campaigns can be even more effective than hitting the New York Times once or twice. Labels: Internet, new media, optimization, Public Relations, search, The Long Tail, Web 2.0
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
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 1st 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
Decision '08 and Web 2.0
Friday, August 31, 2007
Next year's election is certainly driving old and new media to become more creative. First, we had the CNN/YouTube debate and now the online divisions of the Washington Post and CBS are teaming up to create a unique kind of coverage. The two media moguls plan to announce the news on Tuesday. Both websites will feature material from the other media. The Washington Post site will have political clips from CBS affiliates and the CBS site will feature political commentary from The Washington Post. In addition, visitors will be able to interact with reporters by commenting and asking questions in a live exchange. This last bit has yet to be detailed, so who knows what it really entails. Sure it's nothing super groundbreaking, but it is an interesting step, considering how fiercely territorial media companies are with their material. If successful, it could signal the first of many big media convergences online. It should be noted, though, that this seemingly unorthodox approach has been in the making. Research firm, the Bivings Group, reported that 92% of the 100 largest US newspaper websites are offering video, which is a 31% increase over last year. Some of the sites pull the video from the AP or local news stations, while some make their own original content. So it is a natural step for these two big players to team up to try to stomp out the growing competition. Labels: new media, politics, video, Web 2.0
A Voice through Google News
Friday, August 10, 2007
Just when we thought we could foresee where the world of PR was headed, Google throws us a curve ball with its revamped Google News. Yesterday, word came out about Google featuring a truly unique option on their news site that would allow people and companies to respond to articles in which they are mentioned. The feature is currently in an experimental stage, but if it is to succeed, which with Google's track record is highly likely, it holds incredible implications and possibilities for the PR profession. You're probably wondering how Google will be able to determine whether the comments submitted are truly from the company or person mentioned in an article. According to Google, a new division will act as the gate keepers to qualify sources submitting comments by validating email addresses and/or calling the sources directly to confirm identities. While their methods do not sound exactly scientific or efficient in terms of time, I have faith that Google is not approaching this endeavor blindly. An example of what we might expect is up on the news site. The scenario involves an article on a study that found children prefer to eat food from McDonalds that comes in visually appealing packaging to food that does not look kid-friendly. Following is a lengthy response from the Corporate Communications office of McDonalds and a much shorter response from a professor of pediatrics in the University of New Mexico. Even from this 1st example, PR professionals should be taking notes. Who seems to be the party with something to hide? Might it be the one with the convoluted 550+ word statement? I vote yes! McDonalds clearly doesn't appreciate the fine art of brevity. Also, it doesn't help that their "statement" is simply regurgitated marketing material. A simple, "Of course children like food that has cartoon characters on it! But we also have cartoon characters on our apple slice containers, so the choice in our establishments is based on food, not on packaging." would have been sufficient and effective. We in the PR world know that few issues are black and white, and so it often becomes our job to simplify matters in favor of the companies we represent. Yet sometimes the problem with an article isn't that it was swayed in favor of the opposing viewpoint, but that a company was simply misquoted. As Calcanis, co-founder of Weblogs, Inc, pointed out in an Information Week article on this topic, "Journalists have misquoted people for so long," and it is high time technology offered a way for meaningful corrections to be made. Labels: Google, new media, pr, Public Relations
Web 2.0 in Full Bloom
Friday, July 27, 2007
This past Monday, history was made as CNN hosted the first ever presidential debate with questions posed by ordinary people via YouTube. The consensus on the debate's success was unanimous, leaving YouTubers along with the rest of us marveling at the prospect of us, the people, finally having direct conversations with our leaders. Declan McCullagh of CNET reflected, The video questions posed in Monday's Democratic debate were more personal and more direct than the circumlocutions that political journalists tend to prefer, which I admit may not be a compliment to our profession. Don't worry, Declan. Journalists still have an important role, but now we also have a voice. The complaint that our current technology is grossly underused in the realm of communicating meaningfully with our government has been around for years. Some might even say that low voter turnout amongst the younger generations reflects this disconnect. How refreshing to see that steps are being taken to reconnect. As I write this, however, I find news that a GOP version of the debate, slated for Sept. 17th, might not happen as Republican candidates are feeling squeamish. "The presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," said Rep. presidential candidate, Mitt Romney, referring to a question on global warming posed at the last debate by an animated snowman. I suppose this backlash is to be expected. Old habits die hard. But I am fairly confident that this is not the last debate of its kind. Web 2.0 is permeating into every crevice of our society, and this latest infiltration essentially cements the relevance of social networking. On another note, this Tuesday, the results of an analysis conducted by Neilson/NetRatings for the Newspaper Association of America came out indicating that online newspaper readership is up 7.7% from last year. So while print is on the decline, it seems that we still crave reliable news from familiar sources. When piecing together these two tidbits, we begin to foresee what lies ahead. Social networking creates new communication channels through which new influencers emerge. Yet, news from established authoritative voices for the masses remains significant. Labels: new media, Web 2.0, Youtube
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
The Mixing of Old and New Media
Friday, May 11, 2007
This week the topic of new media infringing on the old was brought up at the 56th annual National Cable & Telecommunications Association conference. Reuters reported that executives from the industry “said talk of the demise of traditional media in the digital age was overblown.” Elaborating that television still has a firm place in the homes of media consumers and that the “new” technologies have actually resparked interest for some. This type of talk is to be expected from media moguls, and there is also truth in their claims. YouTube, for example, drove thousands to Saturday Night Live after million watched Justin Timberlake perform with Andy Samburg that hilarious Christmas song Andy wrote. Of course, such admitted claims beg the question of why Viacom would be suing YouTube if there is such potential to gain viewership. Regardless, Internet has yet to conquer the complete entertainment spectrum. After all, is there any substitute to sitting in front of the television and being amused so effortlessly? In my opinion, clicking around on the computer screen is not an equivalent… yet. However, what clearly is in peril is the news business. Because while I enjoy watching my favorite TV shows the old fashioned way, I prefer reading my news online. As PR people, we are keenly aware of this phenomenon. We have discussed it at length on this very blog. This week, I ran across another example of how print media can perhaps salvage itself by changing with the times. A new free Boston weekly print publication, BostonNow, has started printing commentary submitted by local bloggers to its website. Editor, John Wilpers, felt this unique inclusion would spike interest in the newspaper by adding a distinct community feel. In a CNET article, Wilpers explained, “It doesn't take a whole lot of smarts to look out at the Internet and see thousands writing on their communities, whether they be geographic or thematic." So why not include their thoughts in print? In this exchange, Wilpers also hopes to generate fans for the bloggers as the bloggers are not paid for their submissions. Instead, it’s a form of free advertising. And with a circulation of 85,000, it’s not a terrible waste of time on the blogger’s behalf. Another point worth noting is that the bloggers’ posts will be scanned by an editor so as to ensure similar standards that we have come to expect from news sources. This notion is certainly interesting and we will have to see whether others adopt the convergence of blogs into the print world in quite this same way. Perhaps this trend will spark interest with the older generation to be more blogger-friendly and for the younger generation to be more newspaper-friendly. For those of you who are wondering why anyone would even bother to create a new print publication, it is safe to say that print still has a pretty healthy pulse. As e-books are still in their infancy and Internet is inaccessible underground, for us urban commuters, print media is actually still very relevant. Labels: blog, new media, pr, Youtube
The New Rules of Journalism?
Friday, March 23, 2007
Amanda Congdon, ABCNews.com video blogger, was making headlines this week as controversy broke out about her other role as a spokesperson for Dupont in their “infotainmercial”. When folks questioned whether her dual partnership goes against the ethics of journalism, she asserted on her own personal blog that “under the "blogger" title… I am not subject to the "rules" traditional journalists have to follow.” Legally, in this case, she is in the clear. Both ABC and HBO – for which Congdon has a show in the works – approved the Dupont commercials. In Matea Gold’s article yesterday in the LA Times, Jeffrey Schneider, a spokesman for the ABC news division, explained that she is a contributing commentator and not a “journalist”, implying that she is not expected to be fair and neutral in her commentary on news. From a certain perspective, this rationale is sound. We as “non-journalists” are entitled to our opinions in our professions and, for the most part, our side projects are our own. However, from another perspective – the one that takes context and history into consideration – we have come to expect that our media, whether it be commentators or traditional journalists, are not to be bought or forced to report through ulterior motives. Congdon raises this issue in her blog, asking: “Isn’t that what new media is all about? Breaking the rules?” Perhaps some rules. The “new media” is online and it consists of blogs, commentators, and traditional print and broadcast media, which is still very much premature. Next to the journalists and media business executives, no one knows this reality better than us public relations practitioners. With this shift, news reporting will certainly experience a transformation. The expectations one has for ABCNews.com is completely different than those one has for their neighbors’ blogs. In essence, we expect all contributors of global authoritative sites like ABCNews.com to maintain the golden standard of neutrality, which involves being barred from accepting any form of inexplicit payments from corporate America. Yet Congdon’s affiliation with Dupont is not reflected on her ABCNews.com bio. If this core expectation is not met, then trust will be lost in the offending media. In the LA Times article, Jeff Jarvis, director of the interactive journalism program at the City University of New York's new Graduate School of Journalism, says it best: "Your readers and viewers are going to judge you and your credibility based on your actions and your transparency about them…A lot of the old rules are rules for a good reason." Labels: blog, new media
 |
