Filed under: Abraham Harrison LLC, Conversation, Conversation Marketing, Corporate Blog, Corporate Blogging, Corporate Partnering, Corporate Responsibility, Hearts and Minds, Online Brand Promotion, Online Brand Protection, Online Brand Reputation, Online Branding, Online Collaboration, Online Communications, Online Communities, Online Community Outreach, Online Conversation, Online Engagement, Online Evangelism, Online Facilitation, Online Messaging, Online Monitoring, Online Participation, Online Portal, Online Public Relations, Online Reputation, Online Reputation Management, Online Strategy, Online Virtual Communities

Deloitte, along with Beeline Labs and the Society of New Communications Research, has come out with a study showing the current challenges and rewards of today’s online corporate created “communities”. It’s created a decent amount of chatter, which is not surprising considering that this industry is in its nascent stages and everyone is trying to figure it out.

The survey, entitled “2008 Tribalization Survey” gathered information from more than 140 responding organizations in the business to business, business to consumer, and non-profit sectors. Some of the corporate communities have more than 10,000 members; others have less than 100. Those numbers weren’t put into context from what I can see.

I’ve looked around at the commentary on this and have been able to glean a decent amount of info. Much of what I’ve found confirms conventional thought (or at least my thoughts) with the smattering of a few surprises. Read more…

No Comments » Posted on July 22nd, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Filed under: Blog Messaging, Blogger Effect, Blogger Influence, Corporate Responsibility, Counter Messaging, Crisis Management, Customer Reviews, Customer Service, Customer Supprt, Online Brand Protection, Online Brand Reputation, Online Reputation, Online Reviews

I’ve been following this attempt by Joseph Jaffe to get Delta Airlines to make amends to him after they royally screwed up his trip from Newark International to Atlanta to Sao Paulo, Brazil. They really made a mess of his journey and he’s got every right to be angry. And they haven’t met his demands for some sort of restitution, so he’s now even more ticked.

So, as a result, he’s blogged about it three times (a one, an a two, an a three), podcasted, tweeted, made not one but two videos on YouTube, and even created a Facebook group in his cause. Oddly, he hasn’t put together a 30-second spot.
He’s one pissed off social media maven. In fact, I think he’s pretty much used up all Web 2.0 tools to get the word out. To garner that grassroots support via social media. To have others join the conversation to back his cause.

And I’m willing to be that it will be all for naught. Here’s why. Read more…

2 Comments » Posted on July 21st, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Filed under: Aggregation, Blowback, Brand Promotion, Brand Protection, Case Studies, Citizen Generated Media, Content Filtering, Content Management Solution, Content Management System, Controversial Marketing, Copyright Issue, Copywriting, Corporate Responsibility, Crisis Management, Google, Google YouTube, Honesty, Information Technology, Integrity, Intellectual Property, Internet Culture, Internet Strategy, Legal Issues, New Media Strategy, New Technology, Online Brand Protection, Peer-to-Peer, Technology, Television, Video Over IP, Viral Advertising, Viral Marketing, Viral Media, Viral Propagation, Viral Videos, Web Strategy, YouTube, YouTube Marketing

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…

2 Comments » Posted on July 11th, 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: Blog Counter-Messaging, Blog Messaging, Blog Policies, Blog Strategy, Blogger Ethics, Blogger Influence, Blogger Outreach, Blogger Relations, Blogging, Blogging Policies, Blowback, Brand Protection, Brand Reputation, Controversial Marketing, Corporate Blog, Corporate Blogging, Corporate Responsibility, Defensive SEO, Honesty, Internet Strategy, Legal Issues, Online Attack, Online Brand Intelligence, Online Brand Protection, Online Brand Reputation, Online Communications, Online Outreach, Online Reputation, Online Reputation Management, Online Strategy, PR Blogging, PR Industry, PR Pitching, Public Relations, Public Relations Blogs, Public Relations Industry

I’ll be taking a look at Southwest’s overall response to the report that they had been flying “unairworthy” planes. This controversy relates to missed or overlooked inspections, small or tiny cracks, a thumbs up by a FAA inspector, and a short period of continued flying violations after the problem was identified.

As usual, in cases like this, the story is hard to follow. That always seems to create initial hysteria and then allows to potential offending party to spin the story to their benefit, often leaving out key concepts.

It seems that in 2004, the FAA issued a ruling that all 737 airplanes must be inspected every 4,500 flights. These inspections were primarily concerned about cracking, a condition which that can lead to very dangerous situations.

On March 15, 2007, Southwest let the FAA that it may have allowed 46 planes to exceed that number of flights as decided by the FAA. Southwest then did and internal investigation and found that, yes, those 46 planes did indeed exceed that limit by a total of 59.791 flights. They reported back this information to the FAA on March 19. However, after disclosing this information to the FAA, they continued to fly those planes for four more days to March 23 for an additional 1,451 flights.

At some point within that March 15-23 time period, an FAA official gave Southwest the thumbs up to continue to fly the planes as long as they were quickly inspected. That official, now being disciplined, is supposedly based out of Dallas, which coincidentally, is where Southwest Airlines is headquartered.

For this transgression, the FAA is proposing a $10.2 million fine.

That’s the story as I see it so far. I’ll be examinging their response as time goes on.

Next, I’ll be taking a look at the way they’re corresponding through their blog.

That’s the story as I see it so far.

No Comments » Posted on March 8th, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Next Page »

  • blog advertising is good for you