Filed under: Abraham Harrison, Blog Counter-Messaging, Blog Messaging, Blog Policies, Blog Search, Blog Training, Blog of Personality, Blogger Activation, Blogger Code of Conduct, Blogger Effect, Blogger Engagement, Blogger Ethics, Blogger Gifts, Blogger Influence, Blogger Outreach, Blogger Relations, Blogger Response, Blogger Support, Blogging, Blogging Policies, Blogging Primer, Blogosphere, Blogvertising, Blowback, Brand Advocacy, Brand Promotion, Brand Protection, Brand Reputation, CEO Blogs, Chris Abraham, Citizen Generated Media, Citizen Media, Client Service, Controversial Marketing, Conversation, Conversation Marketing, Customer Reviews, Customer Service, Disruption, Edelman, Facebook, Flogging, Flogs, Honesty, How to Blog, Influence, Influencer Identification, Influencers, Influencial Bloggers, Influentials, Inside PR, Integrity, Mainstream Media, Managing Conversation, Marketing, Marketing Blogs, Marketing Conversation, Marketing Ethics, Marketing Hubris, Marketing Industry, Marketing Language, Marketing Psychology, Marketing Strategy, Markets are Conversations, Media Consultancy, Media Virus, Messaging Online, Microblog, Microblogging, Naked Conversations, New Marketing, New Media, New Media Marketing, New Media PR, New Media Strategy, New PR, New Public Relations, New Technology, News Aggregation Strategy, Old Media, Old PR, Online Brand Promotion, Online Branding, Online Collaboration, Online Communications, Online Communities, Online Community Managers, Online Community Outreach, Online Conversation, Online Engagement, Online Evangelism, Online Facilitation, Online Field Marketing, Online Influence, Online Intelligence, Online Marketing, Online Media, Online Messaging, Online Monitoring, Online Outreach, Online PR, Online Participation, Online Pitch, Online Public Relations, Online Strategy, PR Hubris, PR Industry, PR Tactics, Public Relations, Public Relations Industry, Relationship Marketing, Social Graphs, Social Meda, Social Media Index, Social Media Marketing, Social Media PR, Social Network Services, Social Networking, Social Networks, Social Utilities, Tagging, Tags, Traditional Marketing, Traditional Media, Traditional PR, Transparency, Twitter, Twittergram, Viral Marketing, Viral Media, Viral PR, Viral Propagation, Web 2.0, Web 3.0, Web Applications, YouTube, YouTube Marketing, Youth Market, del.icio.us, marketing tactics

With all the discussion on what social media is, what it’s future will be like, who will control it, I often feel we fail to see the forest for the trees.

I see it as too diverse of a phenomenon to pin down with one easy definition. Its applications go far beyond the neat capsules that can be used to pick a particular department or function that should “own” it. Social media is creating, empowering, and accompanying a paradigm shift in the way we use all media.

Are we fully there yet? Of course not. These are only the early stages, part of an evolutionary process that often comes step by step. But those steps are happening and happening and soon we’ll look back and be amazed how far we’ve traveled. Then before we know it again, we’ll be stepping again and look back again and we’ll be amazed how much we’ve come from that first time we looked back.

Yes, organizations are going to have to harness social media in ways that they can benefit from, to reach ROI. This means trying to create some sort of structure for it without “siloizing” it. Very difficult indeed.

I’ve tried to lay out what I see social media as. Not from a specific definitional standpoint, but from a several miles up point of view.

Interested in your feedback… Read more…

No Comments » Posted on July 30th, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Filed under: Citizen Generated Media, Citizen Journalism, Citizen Media

There’s a neat experiment debuting tomorrow (July 28) at 12:00 from the pressroom of the Star Ledger in New Jersey. It’s called Ledger Live and its billing itself as a “new kind of news show”.

It will be a short midday segment of local news, hosted by veteran reporter Brian Donohue. The stories will be daily briefs and features. It says that they’re going to tap into the local citizen media types - bloggers, vloggers, etc. That will mean some quality control, but it’s my guess that they can pull it off if they’re diligent.

I am, however, a little skeptical of these efforts because they rely on an audience that’s not there yet. And there’s no proof that they will be. Will people care about relatively light stores? I don’t know. It will depend on how expensive it is to maintain this format.

I do think that, done right, it could easily develop that sense of community that I’ve been talking about. That’s important. I’ve seen a lot of these efforts start out all hype - mostly from idealistic citizen media evangelists - who overestimated the potential.

And I can almost see it happening here. The one comment they have is “I am so proud of you guys. You have done a GREAT job. Congrats to all. you are about to change the newspaper business forever. ”

Change the newspaper business forever? Same rhetoric I heard two years ago.

Here’s a clip:

No Comments » Posted on July 28th, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Filed under: Blowback, Brand Protection, Brand Reputation, Case Studies, Citizen Media, Content Filtering, Content Management System, Controversial Marketing, Copywriting, Corporate Partnering, Corporate Responsibility, Google, Google YouTube, Honesty, Industry Reputation, Influence, Information Technology, Intellectual Property, Invasion of Privacy, Legal Issues, News Organization, Online Applications, Online Brand Protection, Online Copywriting, Online Reputation, Online Reputation Management, Online Video, Personal Privacy, Personal Responsibility, Privacy

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.

No Comments » Posted on July 6th, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Filed under: Ad Buys, Ad Sales, Blog Policies, Blog Strategy, Blogger Activation, Blogger Code of Conduct, Brand Promotion, Citizen Generated Media, Citizen Journalism, Citizen Media, Community News, Community Service, Disruption, Industry Reputation, Influence, Influencial Bloggers, Influentials, Networks, New Media Blogs, News Aggregation Strategy, News Organization, TV Advertising, Television, Television Over IP, Television on Demand

On Monday, CBS Television Stations announced the launch of what I think will be a great step in the direction of web based mainstream and citizen generated news. They are launching the CBS Local Ad Network in which local stations will syndicate new content to local bloggers and social media sites. This news will be delivered via news widgets that will link to video and text news of the local stations.

IN exchange for hosting the widgets, the bloggers will receive a share of the local ad dollars that are sold by the station.

How is it a win-win-win-win situation?

The will extend the CBS news media brand both on a national and local level by integrating news content with local blogger with a following. While it takes some of the focus off the broadcast model, it could potentially easily be made up via web usage. The network will seem innovative while the local affiliate could develop deeper ties to the local community. Bloggers and social networkds could increase their visibility and bring in more traffic. Advertisers will get greater exposure.

I like the idea.

4 Comments » Posted on March 20th, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Filed under: Blog Counter-Messaging, Blog Messaging, Blog Policies, Blog Strategy, Blogger Engagement, Blogger Relations, Blogger Response, Blowback, Brand Promotion, Brand Protection, Brand Reputation, Branding, Branding Online, Buzz Marketing, Citizen Generated Media, Citizen Journalism, Citizen Media, Code of Conduct, Cult of Personality, Customer Ratings, Customer Reviews, Influence, Influencer Identification, Influencers, Influencial Bloggers, Influential Brand Advocates, Influentials, Intellectual Property, Legal Blogs, Legal Issues, Memetics, New Marketing, New Media, New Media Blogs, New Media Marketing, New Media Strategy, New PR, Online Advocacy, Online Avertising, Online Brand Intelligence, Online Brand Promotion, Online Brand Protection, Online Brand Reputation, Online Branding, Online Communities, Online Community Outreach, Online Engagement, Online Evangelism, Online Facilitation, Online Marketing, Online Participation, Online Reputation, Online Reputation Management, Online Reviewers, Online Reviews, Online Strategy, PR Hubris, Peer-to-Peer, Pop Culture, Public Relations, Reputation Rehabilitation, Social Meda, Social Networking, Viral Marketing, Web 2.0, Web 3.0, Word-of-Mouth, Word-of-Mouth Marketing

I just asked a question via Twitter. And I’ll repeat it here.

Question for social media types…many complain about interference from legal dept. when it comes to social media, especially with UGC…so, are there any conferences, events, seminars, etc. that bring the two groups together to understand one another more?

Not to toot my own horn, but that’s a good question. And it’s one that needs to be answered.

Marketers are essentially in charge of defining, promoting, enhancing, and protecting the brand. Lawyers are essentially in charge of protecting the entity, the business, and, yes, the brand.

I got to thinking about this because social media strategists often, as part of their strategy, enlist, encourage, or allow a brands users to play a role in the branding. I got to thinking of a recent story involving a group of car enthusiasts putting together a picture calendar showing off their cars. They calendars were to be sold on CafePress. But there was some sort of communication screw up and it was halted I believe. Some social media strategists mistakenly blamed the car company.

But then I thought…wait…if the legal department did have reservations in this situation, is that necessarily a bad thing? Think about it….

What if one of the participants of an unsolicited consumer generated media effort has let’s say a problem. Like a police record. I mean, let’s say he’s the type of guy who could get nailed by Chris Hansen of Nightline. You know, a pedophile.

Ridiculous? If you think so, you’re missing the point. The point is that legal department and marketing departments are going to have to understand one another and work together to both reasonably promote and protect the brand through social media. Cutting edge vs. overly cautious won’t do. Lawyer potentially nixing or at least getting in the way of potentially effective programs or frustrated marketing types angrily rolling their eyes at the stupidity and interference of the legal department will only serve to stifle the brand, or, potentially worse, leave it unprotected.

No Comments » Posted on March 2nd, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Next Page »

  • blog advertising is good for you