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 Budgets, Ad Buys, Ad Sales, Advertisements, Advertising, Brand, Brand Advocacy, Brand Intelligence, Brand Promotion, Brand Reputation, Branding, Branding Online, Commercials, Internet, Internet Culture, Internet Strategy, Market Research, Marketing, New Marketing, New Media, New Media Strategy, Old Marketing, Online Ads, Online Advertising, Online Brand Promotion, Online Branding, Online Collaboration, Online Copywriting, Targeted Advertising, Technology, Technology Strategy, Web 2.0, Web 3.0, Web Ads, Web Advertisers, Web Advertising, Web Applications, Web Apps, Web Metrics, Web Services, Web Strategy, Website Design, What About Clients?, ads

In my last post, I talked of the coming disruption of the three way relationship between marketer, agency, and media property. Essentially it centers on the idea that marketers (who are often behind themselves) are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with the lack of digital savvy of their agencies and are now turning to media properties for strategic ideas and creative capabiliites. And these media properties are making themselves all the more ready, willing, and able to carry out the needs and wishes of the marketers.

I believe that that’s happening. But there’s still a big problem with that model. Consistent brand messaging

On a micro-level, this new way of doing things makes perfect sense. Crafting an marketing campaign tailored to the offerings of an online property could maximize the effectiveness of the campaign itself. For that media property.

But last I looked, most advertisers don’t use all their spend on one property. They’ll pick many properties in many channels. They’ll test here and there. They’ll sometimes concentrate on branding, sometimes concentrate on direct , sometimes (and the web makes this more possible, concentrate on both.

If the marketer - the company that is the end client - has to tailor each of its marketing messages to that of the publisher, chaos could result.

Publishers will need to realize this and further expand their services, sort of becoming almost full service for their advertisers. But still, this still could run into brand confusion as each publisher will owe it to their paying client to create the most effective campaign for their specific property or properties, leaving potentially different and confusing brand messages across several media properties.

Wise agencies should see this as the window of opportunity and work with publishers before they even get clients to formulate the framework for effective marketing campaigns that can perform very effectively over a cross section of properties and platforms.

2 Comments » Posted on March 6th, 2008 by Jonathan Trenn

Filed under: Abraham Harrison LLC, Application Development, Blog Strategy, Blogosphere, Citizen Generated Media, Citizen Journalism, Consumer Generated Media, Content Management Solution, Content Management System, Defensive SEO, Folksonomy, Google Juice, Google PageRank, Google Search, Googleverse, Graphic Design, Internet Strategy, Interweb, Keyword Density, Link Love, Link Popularity, New Marketing, New Media Strategy, New Technology, Old Media, Old PR, Online Access, Online Copywriting, Online PR, Online Public Relations, Online Reputation, Online Reputation Management, Online Strategy, PR Industry, PageRank, Permalinks, Promotional SEO, Protective SEO, Search Engine Marketing, Search Engine Optimization, Search Engine Reputation Management, Search Engine Strategy, Search Engines, Search Reputation Management, Website Design, search

Google hates high-design websites. Google needs plaintext. People hate high-design websites after they get past the wow-factor because high-design websites tend to lead with form over function, confusing people with innovations in design rather than innovations in usability. Graphic designers might be the bane of my existence as a technology strategist and an expert in SEO. PR folks aren’t the only people who don’t get Web2.0.

Read more…

10 Comments » Posted on October 2nd, 2007 by Abraham Harrison

Filed under: Copywriting, New Marketing, New Media, New PR, Online Copywriting

Shel Holtz wrote on Strumpette, “Amanda also attacks PR practitioners who can’t write. On this point, we’re in complete agreement” (and I take out of context). I responded, I think it is important to speak like the locals. I was told, during my short stint at Big Agency, to keep it 7th grade reading ease. I think that is a good point-of-reference. Read more…

No Comments » Posted on May 27th, 2007 by Chris Abraham


  • blog advertising is good for you