The current legal battle between Viacom and Google/YouTube is going to have significant ramifications beyond today’s headlines.  It’s getting surprisingly little play amongst much of the social media digerati, but it’s something we all need to be aware of.

The lawsuit and the proceedings around it are truly a sign of the times.  It’s a direct outgrowth of what we’ve been emerging via the internet over the past several years.  Sites such as YouTube have essentially become free communicative vehicles to not only view, but  share and alter video productions of all types.  The concept of “share” is important because most of us use it.  But in reality, it is a nice way of saying “distribute”.  And from distribute comes distribution - a fundamental with tremendous legal ramifications.

Alter is a tough one too.  The “mash-ups” that many in social media and digital marketing talk of enthusiastically can be as problematic.  As, I guess, it should be.  At least in some cases.  An artist creates an original piece of work.  Then distributes it, usually netting some sort of financial gain.  Others take it, and now because of new tools can alter it and redistribute it.  Many times this new process leads to lost potential revenue for the original artist. Read more…

Throughout this past week, I’ve been thinking much about how America was founded. There’s plenty of articles written lately on patriotism, on liberty. From Time Magazine’s cover piece to essays on Washington, Franklin, Hamilton, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.

If you read the great documents such as the U.S. Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Federalist Papers, you get a sense that these men were perhaps America’s real “Greatest Generation”. They not only understood the beauty of the philosophies of Locke and Voltaire and Rousseau, but were able to translate them into action, establishing a new nation based upon freedom and liberty.

They were also amongst the most elite of their time. The wealthiest, the most educated, the most “connected”.

A study put out this week by George Washington University’s Henry Farrell, John Sides, and Eric Lawrence bring out to the surface an issue that I think is problematic for American politics and culture: the polarization of the political blogosphere. This had become more evident over the past few years as the country’s political dialogue has grown ever more coarse.

The study finds that those that participate in the political blogosphere are more likely to be further to the right or further to the left, more rigid in their beliefs, less likely to engage in discussions across political ideologies and (as I have personally discovered in my own involvement on blogs) less tolerant opposing views.

I find this troublesome because their study also shows that those whose views are more tolerant, less rigid, and less idealogical are less likely to be politically involved as those who take an active participation in the blogosphere. That’s not good. Here’s why…

Read more…

U.S. District Judge Louis Stanton may have opened up a Pandora’s box.

Last year, Viacom, the owner of  such major cable networks as Black Entertainment Television, MTV, VH1, Comedy Central, and Nickelodeon, sued YouTube and Google because YouTube, through it’s uploading system, was allowing it users to upload Viacom copyrighted videos.  YouTube was profiting from this as it increased its audience and, thus, advertising revenue.  Viacom was, in turn, losing online audience and potential revenue.  It saw itself, legitimately in my mind, as a content provider for YouTube, without receiving compensation.

YouTube immediately began scouring its databases and removing copyrighted video from Viacom. But considering the amount of videos that are uploaded - every hour on the clock, 780 hours of video are sent to YouTube’s servers - the task of finding and identifying copyrighted material is daunting.  A lot can get by the YouTube’s regulators, so to speak.

So the lawsuit stayed, with Viacom demanding access to YouTube’s database of user info.  The database is larger that that of the Library of Congress mind you.

YouTube’s database essentially contains four pieces of info:  the user’s unique login ID, their IP address, the time frame that the video was watched, and the video itself.  Usually, a login ID and an IP address can’t be used to identify an individual, but “usually” is a very inexact word.

Viacom is saying that they aren’t doing this to go after individuals.  They’re not doing this to nail someone who uploaded last night’s The Daily Show.  I believe them, at least for now.  But that doesn’t mean that they keep to that forever.

It makes no sense for them to try to use this data to sue people who have been uploading copyrighted videos at this juncture.  The ‘YouTube culture’ is one that has permitted this to happen and Viacom needs to work to change that culture over a year or two.

Viacom is saying that it wants to gauge the popularity of its copyrighted material.  Again, that makes sense.  We are talking revenue generating material that, while on YouTube, ins not directly generating measurable video.

There is some good news here.  Google, while not appealing, has asked Viacom to give them time to erase user names and IP addresses.  Viacom is open to the idea.

That’s great.  But that’s only this case.   You can be that this is opening a can of worms.

I’ll be investigating this further.  Stay tuned.

APCO Worldwide and the Council of Public Relations Firms just released a study on the similarities and differences on how public relations executives and bloggers view blogger relations. It confirms common sense, but it also shows me that common sense is not always applied.

The first thing that jumps out to me is that 52% of PR execs think that they and/or their firms do a good job reaching out to bloggers, while 65% of blogger felt otherwise. That means that, essentially, two-thirds of bloggers believe that PR efforts are poor.

This is important for what it says and for what it doesn’t say.

First of all, it means to me that we, as an industry are at least partially failing to effectively create best practices. There are probably too many haphazard efforts that are designed for mass exposure - meaning no effective targeting. And pitches may often empty of any relevance or filled with a false sense of camaraderie. And this probably occurs because a firm gets a client and off they go promoting.

In defense of agencies, however, it’s hard to see how it often could be that much different at times. While I agree PR practitioners should familiarize themselves with a blogger’s subject matter and style, it is impossible to do it on such a large scale. There are no Bacon’s or Cision’s media guide to work off. And clients often want results fast.

This is not to excuse the practice. It means that we in the profession must constantly seek to create methodologies that work for both the client and the blogger. I also see a potential business opportunity here for online directories to enhance their listings and perhaps charge a fee for a higher level of service.

Nevertheless, that gap is too large and the 65% of dissatisfied bloggers is abhorrently high. This brings me to a second point because the study points out that 63% of the bloggers surveyed that they get pitched at least once per week, 42% get pitched once per day, and 27% get pitched more than once per day. I talked to Matt Shaw, the Vice President of the Council of Public Relations Firms to clarify who these bloggers are. Essentially, they were approximately 400 “top” bloggers who responded to their survey.

Now we’re talking. Because it’s those A-List bloggers who are key here. Because they have the ability to make or break this whole blogger relations phenomenon. They’re the ones that are going to be getting pitched to more often - often as we see as being more than once a day.

Part of the problem is seen in the further findings by the study. Only 36% of PR execs agreed with the statement that “Bloggers are journalists and should be treated as such”, yet 62% of these execs nevertheless agreed with the statement “PR firms should reach out to bloggers essentially the same way we do to traditional media.”

This shows me two things. One is that the ways we reach out to traditional media are entirely adequate as methods that can be transferred to reaching out to bloggers. And/or it could mean that PR execs have yet to come to terms as to what the hell bloggers really are in the first place.

I suspect it’s both. Often, an honest respectful engagement can win over a reporter as it can a blogger. But sometimes it can’t . Bloggers themselves often don’t have any standards. They got into blogging and had no idea that they would soon get pitched on an almost daily basis. And what at first may have been flattering has now become annoying.

More on this study to follow…

Yesterday, I was on Steve Rubel’s Micro Persuasion and saw the above. I like the idea. But I’m not sure what the long term implications are. But both American Express and the agency are sticking their necks out.

My feedback? It’s a decent, but not spectacular ad.

What’s your feedback?