Latest Entries »

Still Not Sure

I completely understand the fascination that blogs hold with some people. I know people who could not express any of their though via any other means than writing. They are inept, which is perfectly fine, I could not express my thoughts via painting or dance. That does not make me any less of a person nither does the former. What I do not get, or more wish I had, was the confidence to put your thoughts out there for the whole Internet world to see and possibly go viral. I have never had that conviction. Now I can debate and stand by my beliefes but the last thing I want going into a conversation is knowing that the other person could already know all my views and may have formed an opinion about me before I even open my mouth to speak. Maybe that is why I have such an adversity to it. I like to form opinions, and have them formed of me, in person. But other people just can not do that or do not care. If you like blogging or are interested check out this tutorial about blogging from wordpress.com. (just a little buzz building for a blog that I have used!)

Adapting Media 101

You think it would be simple… Adapting marketing techniques to new media… Advertisers have been doing it since the begining of advertising. But for some reason we always have this debate amoungst ad professionals about how to best adapt advertising to new media.

Since the dawn of advertising, ad agents have had to learn to adapt, just like every other field. Man has had to adapt from word of mouth to wall paintings, then from wall paintings to print ads, from print ads to radio, from radio to TV, from TV to Internet, from Internet to social media, from social media to mobile. Now some steps were missed, but what has to be remembered by all advertisiers is two things:

1.) Every time you try to adapt but fail remember… “I have not failed. I’ve just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.” –Thomas Eddison.  
2.) There will always be a new media to adapt to, so if you do not like this one you might like the next.

The downfall of Twitter

Twitter can be a great thing, if people say good things. However, when people have something to complain about Twitter becomes a quick sounding board that can cause a viral Twitter fire. A great example of this is late night’s Oscars. What happened, was my question and from the looks of it the questions of other movie fans. The Oscars are supposed to be the highest honor in acting and yet last night was treated as a joke and the fans let Hollywood know. Unfortunately this will go down as one of the worst Oscars in history and now we have an indellable record of the night thanks to Twitter. From now into eternity when people GOOGLE the 83rd Academy Awards (if they ever do) people will see Twitter comments like this:

Vincent Gallo:  “Getting high backstage with that douchebag James Franco.”

John Fugelsang:”90% of the audience would consider performing fellatio on Ricky Gervais if he’d get up onstage and do 5 minutes,”

Patton Oswalt:”Enya is watching Florence Welch right now, silently jabbing a fork into her hand under the table,”

I really do not think that this is the proudest moment for the Oscar’s and unfortunately, inpart because of the hype the Academy put on Twitter this year, it will sadly be remembered with this.

Blogs can be a great way for a company or organization to generate free publicity. Cost effective publicity is a top priority among executives today and blogs offer a perfect medium. That is the good!

The bad… when a company blog receives a negative comment from a disgruntled customer. A company has several ways to respond to this type of post… ignore it, delete it, or respond to it. The difficult things is to know which to do. For that you can turn to these two articles:

http://businessphereconsulting.com/things-you-can-do-to-remove-bad-business-publicity-from-search-engine-results/

http://www.businessweek.com/smallbiz/tips/archives/2010/08/responding_to_bad_publicity_online.html

 

The Ugly… when a customers starts a hate blog or posts a hate comment about a company on their private blog. This means that a company has few, if any, options for handling the content. They can’t delete it, the risk drawing more attention to it by responding, and ignoring it could cause the fire to grow as well.

When the story is all told, blogs are a great voice for companies and loyal customers (which is hands down great). However, blogs are also a great voice for haters and companies need to design a plan to walk a fine line in deal with them.

Your attention span is the amount of time you can concentrate on a single task. For some it may seem that this amount of time is seconds for others it seems they can only think of one this ALL the time. However, when it comes down to the science behind it all, people have the attention span of five minutes and seven seconds on average. However, in today’s society those five minutes and seven seconds are very rarely occupied by only one thing.

So this begs the question are longer advertising techniques effective? Short film advertising takes several forms. One can be a movie that happens to show a company’s products over and over. One can be a film that revolves around a character’s use of the product. Others can be a unrelated film where the product happens to appear in the background. But can an audience really be relied upon to watch the entire film in order to receive maximum brand exposure. It all depends on if the film can go viral enough to reach the masses and therefore also be entertaining enough to boost the brand.

Is it worth the time and risk? Maybe. It could be the future or just a fad.

 

Attention Span info: http://www.paperarticles.com/2008/11/our-attention-span-is-just-5-min-7-sec.html

Short Film Advertising: http://adage.com/madisonandvine/article?article_id=143603

How Strict to Be?

Today there seems a regulations for everything. How to use social media at work, what to wear to school, what you can broadcast over the air… what you can and cannot say when firing an employee and anything else you can think of. However, there is no regulation over internet advertising. The one place the majority of Americans, and all people who are connected to the Internet, visit everyday has no regulation about advertising. The place where advertising has seen an exponential growth in the last ten years, while other areas of advertising have seen decreases, but there is no regulation over them. What sense does any of it make?

In fact, the FCC and Congress are considering regulation and in response the internet ad industry created a paper to demonstrate their “self-regulation.” A paper that some view as more ammunition for why they need to be regulate. An example of their “self-regulation” is that in response to concerns that the industry will miss use information collected on self-diagnosis sites (webmd.com), the industry states that they will not collect “pharmaceutical prescriptions, or medical records about a specific individual.” But if the diagnosis comes up cancer, be expecting ads about cancer drugs to pop up when you visit the site. Ethical?

Here is the link to an article about the paper, which has the paper linked to it.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/07/internet-ad-industry-begs-for-regulation/

Error, Error, Error

What can be worse for a website than having blatant errors on it…a page not showing up at all! How many times have you entered a URL into your web browser and all that comes up is “page can not be found.” It is the worst. In today’s society when information is so free and available, if a site does not come up the first time how many times do you think you would try? One? Maybe two? But certainly not three. You go somewhere else for your information.

Unfortunately though in today’s society this happens all too much. There are several reasons for this…the visitor entered an incorrect URL (although people do not tent to blame themselves today), the URL expired, the URL changed but the old one was not redirected, or the owners own one URL but not ones similar. This last one happened at by current employer. The organization own (name omitted)  www.myorganization.edu but did not own myorganization.edu. For Internet browsers that do not automatically add the www. to all URLs this was an issue and caused us problems during a recent project bid.

Here is a link to a webpage with the common tips for web maintenance. http://www.webmomz.com/Home-Business-Articles/business-7EssentialWebSiteMaintenanceStrategies.shtml

Fear… it can be a very powerful motivator! It can motivate us to run, to change, to act, not to act, to scream, to change, to hide and more importantly to BUY. At least that is what marketers hope it will do. Take for instance this VW commercial:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtaXjzQQGE8, it plays on the fear of American drivers that accidents can happen anytime. Some people were outraged that the commercial would be allowed to air, others found it funny, others did not care at all. But when does it go to far? What would outrage everyone? Or will some people never care?

Is it ok to play on the fears of a woman at home, alone when a burglar breaks in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeBt2xouWbY

Is it ok to play on the fears of Americans who care about increased spending to win a campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVsesl6pCaw&feature=related

Is it ok to play on the fears of uninsured drivers selling a product that will not really protect them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TW4JDi4hht4

The FCC says yes and lets all these commercials and more air. But what about these scenarios

A English as a Second Language school runs a commercial that if you do not take this class your children will be deported?

A women will get raped if she does not buy a certain pepper spray?

A man will get caught drunk driving if he drink xyz beer?

Appropriate, of course not. But it does not mean some one will not try one day. Is it time to set standards that limit fear in commercials? Once marketers realize that Americans have become desensitized to the fear they are currently using, the sky is the limit as to what they will do next.

Hello, World…

So I got this all a little backwards, I jumped into the content of the blog with out explaining it, sorry.

I am writing this blog for a course. It is supposed to be about my opinions on emerging media. Normally this would not be a problem for me, because I am usually full of opinions, but I have never really gotten into the whole blogging thing. I usually prefer to share my opinions face to face or at least not in an anonymous setting. I tend to censor myself to much when blogging for fear of offending some, I guess I’ll have to let that go.

Basically, every week I will be giving my commentary about an emerging media (social networking, short films, blogs…). In gerneral I think that there a huge upside and downside to all media and that is what I am hoping to show.

A little about me. I work in Higher Ed Fundraising for a small private college. It is my first “real” job after graduation and ironically what I work on fits right in with the content of the course I am taking.

I hope to be able to provide insight and thought. I hope you enjoy

Most media today has some sort of government mandated rating. Movies are rated by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), which was originally set up to determine if motion pictures where moral or not. Today it rates motion pictures on a scale (G, PG, PG-13, R, NC-17) determined by a council of regular humans (http://www.mpaa.org/). However, the process has been called into question by several, including the movie This Film Is Not Yet Rated. TV shows are rated today voluntarily on a scale from Youth to Mature Adult. These ratings are not done by a single council like motion pictures but by “broadcast and cable television networks, or program producers” leaving the door wide open for subjectivity, however, the system is not as widely criticized as the MPAA is (http://www.tvguidelines.org/).

However, there is one glaring media that has no rating system, that can be more lude, grude and rude than any other media… the Internet. No site on the Internet has to tell the user what to expect its content to be like upon entering. There is no way for parents to unilaterally censor Internet content from their children. Parents currently have to look at each site their child uses in order to censor content, which I would much prefer happen if every parent did it but they do not. It is too easy today for children to wander onto sites with age inappropriate content. For instance, whitehouse.com caused quite a controversy because people wishing to visit the official website of the White House, which ends in .gov, but typed in .com were shown an adult porn site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehouse.com). A quick Facebook search for a friend’s name could bring up a profile of an over-sharing individual who does not keeper their profile private (http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347290144&ref=ts).

Parents should have the to option of unilaterally blocking website content they deem inappropriate for their children. It would not be difficult to do. A set of standard could be set indicating what a site could allow before obtaining a certain rating. For instance, sites with more than three F*** would be considered the equivalent for a motion picture PG-13. A parent can set their Internet browser to block pages that come up with certain ratings. Schools, libraries, and internet cafes can do the same. It would be the parent’s decision  as to what ratings they block.

The Internet is protected by the First Amendment and I am all for protecting people’s rights to post whatever they want on the Internet but I think it needs to be easier for parents to censor content from their kids. Protecting people from people who over-personalize emerging media.