Sunday, October 25, 2009
Taking control of your social media
Over a year ago I wrote a peeved post, Me and the bad pitches: Or why bloggers get peeved by marketers. In it I shares how a bad PR pitch from someone representing a product I actually loved turned me off.
The product, in this case, was a show, Spring Awakening. The PR person in question wanted free promotion from me, and when I asked about a couple of media passes to review the show, they went dead silent. As I explained in my post above, it was a good idea to approach a blogger who had already raved about your show, a true brand fan, but that wasn't one of them.
Here we are, over one year later, and I received an email not from a PR firm, but from the blogger for the touring company's blog, Totally Trucked. Pun, the gender-neutrally-named blogger in question had found my post and reached out.
First, I have to say: Impressive to find my post. It doesn't exactly come up on page one of the search for Spring Awakening blogs.
Second, Pun apologized for my prior bad experience with their brand (because, yes, that PR person's blunder reflected on their brand) and admirably addresses each of the complaints I made in my afore-linked post. Finally, Pun shares something that I think more and more companies are realizing and acting on, namely:"...we are coordinating outreach on the national level now--many local presenters do not have sufficient experience with bloggers."
OK, so maybe "local presenters" isn't a universal term and specific to this genre of company, but the point is that the show went beyond simply having their own blog...they realized that reaching out to the blogosphere should come from deep on the inside too.
Now, am I saying a marketing person, or even a PR person, can't be authentic, can't be "on the inside"? No. I'm a marketer; I believe we are typically pretty damn passionate about what we market.
But.
Don't abdicate the responsibility. If it's your brand, your company, you will be held responsible for what happens in its name. Social media as a marketing tool isn't something wildly revolutionary anymore. The slack people will cut you is getting shorter and shorter. We expect you to know better. We expect you to care about what kind of outreach is being done in your name.
Maybe that doesn't always mean taking that outreach "inside", but whoever is doing it better have access to the inside. And buy-in from the inside.
The hottest fan-passion can cool. Don't let it happen to you while you're not even looking.
The product, in this case, was a show, Spring Awakening. The PR person in question wanted free promotion from me, and when I asked about a couple of media passes to review the show, they went dead silent. As I explained in my post above, it was a good idea to approach a blogger who had already raved about your show, a true brand fan, but that wasn't one of them.
Here we are, over one year later, and I received an email not from a PR firm, but from the blogger for the touring company's blog, Totally Trucked. Pun, the gender-neutrally-named blogger in question had found my post and reached out.
First, I have to say: Impressive to find my post. It doesn't exactly come up on page one of the search for Spring Awakening blogs.
Second, Pun apologized for my prior bad experience with their brand (because, yes, that PR person's blunder reflected on their brand) and admirably addresses each of the complaints I made in my afore-linked post. Finally, Pun shares something that I think more and more companies are realizing and acting on, namely:"...we are coordinating outreach on the national level now--many local presenters do not have sufficient experience with bloggers."
OK, so maybe "local presenters" isn't a universal term and specific to this genre of company, but the point is that the show went beyond simply having their own blog...they realized that reaching out to the blogosphere should come from deep on the inside too.
Now, am I saying a marketing person, or even a PR person, can't be authentic, can't be "on the inside"? No. I'm a marketer; I believe we are typically pretty damn passionate about what we market.
But.
Don't abdicate the responsibility. If it's your brand, your company, you will be held responsible for what happens in its name. Social media as a marketing tool isn't something wildly revolutionary anymore. The slack people will cut you is getting shorter and shorter. We expect you to know better. We expect you to care about what kind of outreach is being done in your name.
Maybe that doesn't always mean taking that outreach "inside", but whoever is doing it better have access to the inside. And buy-in from the inside.
The hottest fan-passion can cool. Don't let it happen to you while you're not even looking.
Labels: bad pitch, blogger relations, good pitch, PR, Spring Awakening
Friday, October 16, 2009
Smart People Talking About Important Things: Bioneers
I'm speaking at the Bioneers Conference in Marin on Saturday, but the conference itself starts today.
And you can watch panels life, as they'll be streaming them (including mine) via Ustream. My panel about how Social Media and Sustainability mix, is at 4:30PM on Saturday, but check out more about the entire schedule here.
Now, if your thing is live and in-person interaction, tickets are still available at the door, but otherwise: Keep your eyes on the video below!
Live TV : Ustream
And you can watch panels life, as they'll be streaming them (including mine) via Ustream. My panel about how Social Media and Sustainability mix, is at 4:30PM on Saturday, but check out more about the entire schedule here.
Now, if your thing is live and in-person interaction, tickets are still available at the door, but otherwise: Keep your eyes on the video below!
Live TV : Ustream
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Link Round-up: The FTC and their new guidelines
OK, the other shoe dropped, and the FTC released their actual new guidelines covering advertisers, bloggers and celebrity endorsers.
I've actually read most of them, and scanned them multiple times looking for specific references (for example to fines, penalties, enforcement, etc.)
I suggest you either read them yourself, or stick to commentary from people who have read them or interviewed FTC folks about them because I'm frankly shocked at the misinformation that started floating around about these guidelines right from the moment they were released. First from (usually) reputable sources and then from bloggers and tweeters going to town with the misinformation.
Bottom line: If you think this affects you? Then read them yourself. Why rely on anyone else's assessment?
It was actually hard for me to find mainstream resources that didn't repeat misinformation, particularly the whole "$11,000 fine" meme, which turned out to be false. OK, with that said, here are some good resources.
On BlogHer
Who would I be if I didn't start with Melanie Nelson's great and thorough post on BlogHer: The New FTC Guidelines and What They Mean to You and if I didn't remind you to review how BlogHer has approached publishing editorial and sponsored content since 2006 in Lisa's founder post: The elephant in the room: How BlogHer is cracking the code on editorial content and paid advertising?
Elsewhere
While some mainstream media sources seem to want to fan the flames of the "wild, wild west" view of the blogosphere, a couple of others have done exactly what journalistic sources are supposed to do: Report. And fact check. So check out:
Fast Company was the first to talk to the FTC and debunk some of the rumors about fines and enforcement, having them answer questions coming from concerned bloggers themselves.
Media Bistro's PR Newser blog checked in with the FTC to get even more clarification around the existence (or not) of penalties, fines and enforcement paths. Including drawing a very important distinction between guidelines and laws.
MediaPost publishes a helpful look at why the FTC thinks reviewers at "traditional media outlets" don't need to follow these same guidelines. Agree or disagree, it's a clear explanation of the position.
If you want a great bloggy analysis from someone who isn't freaking out about the guidelines, then check out:
Susan Getgood is always a good place to start, as this is a blogger who knows how to write substantive opinion pieces based on clearly cited data resources. Always disciplined. Her analysis, part one, is a general overview of the guidelines. Keep your eyes open for part two, as I'm sure it will be equally as useful.
Of course it wouldn't be fair not to point you to:
Those who think this signals the End of Days
From sources both mainstream and bloggy, some folks are telling you how they really feel, and it starts with the headlines:
Slate publishes a piece entitled "The FTC's Mad Power Grab"
Less hysterical and more grounded in real problems, MediaPost published "Legal Expert Questions FTC's New Blogger Rules".
And I must point out that two stalwarts from traditional media, turned blogging superstars, are virulently opposed. Those two being Jeff Jarvis and Dan Gillmor. The word "dangerous" gets thrown around a lot.
Now, where all of the above (and I) are in total agreement is that the proof will be in the pudding of enforcement. If these guidelines are applied fairly, consistently and without scapegoating bloggers (as opposed to more mainstream publishers or celebrities who are receiving just as much, if not way more, value from relationships with brands) then who can argue that disclosure and transparency aren't good things? People would do well to avoid some of the crazier hypotheticals I've seen tossed around and focus on letting the government know that we will indeed be keeping a watchful eye on fair follow-through.
Any law can be abused. There is no doubt about it. Were these guidelines written too broadly and thus at greater risk for such abuse? Perhaps so, but then I wish the debates could focus on that without all the hyperbole and smelling salts and ridiculous restaurant eavesdropping metaphors. Otherwise it seems like a case of the blogger "doth protest too much".
Hope this is helpful.
I've actually read most of them, and scanned them multiple times looking for specific references (for example to fines, penalties, enforcement, etc.)
I suggest you either read them yourself, or stick to commentary from people who have read them or interviewed FTC folks about them because I'm frankly shocked at the misinformation that started floating around about these guidelines right from the moment they were released. First from (usually) reputable sources and then from bloggers and tweeters going to town with the misinformation.
Bottom line: If you think this affects you? Then read them yourself. Why rely on anyone else's assessment?
It was actually hard for me to find mainstream resources that didn't repeat misinformation, particularly the whole "$11,000 fine" meme, which turned out to be false. OK, with that said, here are some good resources.
On BlogHer
Elsewhere
While some mainstream media sources seem to want to fan the flames of the "wild, wild west" view of the blogosphere, a couple of others have done exactly what journalistic sources are supposed to do: Report. And fact check. So check out:
If you want a great bloggy analysis from someone who isn't freaking out about the guidelines, then check out:
Of course it wouldn't be fair not to point you to:
Those who think this signals the End of Days
From sources both mainstream and bloggy, some folks are telling you how they really feel, and it starts with the headlines:
And I must point out that two stalwarts from traditional media, turned blogging superstars, are virulently opposed. Those two being Jeff Jarvis and Dan Gillmor. The word "dangerous" gets thrown around a lot.
Now, where all of the above (and I) are in total agreement is that the proof will be in the pudding of enforcement. If these guidelines are applied fairly, consistently and without scapegoating bloggers (as opposed to more mainstream publishers or celebrities who are receiving just as much, if not way more, value from relationships with brands) then who can argue that disclosure and transparency aren't good things? People would do well to avoid some of the crazier hypotheticals I've seen tossed around and focus on letting the government know that we will indeed be keeping a watchful eye on fair follow-through.
Any law can be abused. There is no doubt about it. Were these guidelines written too broadly and thus at greater risk for such abuse? Perhaps so, but then I wish the debates could focus on that without all the hyperbole and smelling salts and ridiculous restaurant eavesdropping metaphors. Otherwise it seems like a case of the blogger "doth protest too much".
Hope this is helpful.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
A tale of two customer experiences: When "bugging" the customer works...and doesn't
We customers are a prickly and thorny bunch. I get that. We want companies to get it just right, and "just right" seems to change based on the circumstances. We also often seem to swing between complaining or saying nothing...and yet if you dare for one minute to assume that "no news is good news" when it comes to customers, you'll probably regret it.
But sometimes I think companies don't spend very much time putting themselves in the customer's shoes.
Case #1: Don't bug me with your customer surveys...until I've got something to say
Most of my life I've had GM cars, from my first car: a hand me down '72 Chevy Impala to the two Saturns I've owned in the last 12 years or so. The Saturn folks, in particular, are very customer-focused, and I had my moments over the eight years or so that I owned Saturns of being bugged. Bugged by that snail mail survey post-routine service. Followed up by the phone survey. And sometimes an email survey. I'm guessing I didn't take the vast majority of those surveys. Everything was fine. No need to spend my precious time responding.
Now, I have a Honda Civic Hybrid. I've had it a little over a year, and I noticed something when I took it in for its routine service. They didn't wash the car before giving it back. I don't mean a fancy detailing, but my experience with both Saturn and Audi (the two brands that I got and serviced through dealers) was that any service was topped off with a nice, basic exterior wash of the car. Not so with Honda. And it bugged me. "Well, when i get my post-service survey, I will certainly let them know that this is a little thing that goes a long way!", I thought to myself. (When the truth is, it is its omission that goes a long way.)
Only I never got that survey, They didn't bug me via snail mail, telephone or email. No bugging at all. Which, you guessed it, bugs me to no end.
And the moral of the story is: Yes, it's a bummer that people, including me, enjoy complaining more than they enjoy sharing praise. Yes, people will ignore your surveys, and you will struggle to get healthy response rates and actionable feedback.
But you have to ask. Because otherwise, you have a customer like me who may be perfectly satisfied with my vehicle, but may think much less of the brand...over a very tiny thing.
And really, would it hurt you to rinse my car down after you've worked on it?
Case #2: That's great you want to protect me, but you're protecting me from the wrong things
I'm about to cancel a credit card I've had for 17 years. As soon as my new card comes from a different company, I'm canceling the old one, even though it will be a pain in the butt, given the auto-charges I have set up on it.
Why?
Because in their eagerness to be consumer protection leaders, they are protecting me from purchases that set off no typical alarm bells and are, in fact, with companies I do business with regularly. Over the last few months I have had numerous transactions declined/held, or that triggered a check-in call to me that I had to return and deactivate.
This is all to protect me from fraud using my card. I should be grateful, right? So, why am I so bugged?
-Because in 17 years of having this card I've never missed a payment, never had a fraudulent charge and I'm never near my limit.
-Because their auto-bot phone system never accounts for voicemail messages and leaves half-messages on my machine.
-Because they actually sent an email with a link to click to approve a transaction...as if any bank should encourage their customers to trust such emails from banks! And yet when I went to the site to do it directly, it is impossible to find any place to do so. Hence, the wasted time making phone calls.
-Because they declined my annual donation to the Humane Society!
-Because they made me call to approve my annual domain name renewal charges...with the same company made at the same time every year for the last 6 years.
-Because they made me call to approve a purchase for $8.99 on my Kindle.
I mean, if you're going to protect me, at least protect me from the anomalous charges! Not the ones that are part of my regular spending pattern. Don't tell me you don't have the systems to say, oh yes, she has made 20 donations to the Humane Society in the last ten years, I think she means it.
And lastly, when I called, no one really had anything to offer me to improve my experience, not even the hallowed "supervisor". A shrug of the shoulders is what I got.
And losing a long-time customer is what they're going to get.
All because they bugged me. But really because they made me feel like an anonymous, random cog in their machine, not a long-time valued customer.
And that's the common thread here. It's not so hard to make customers feel like you know then, that you think about them and care about what they think.
The surveys no one responds to? Doesn't mean we don't get the message that you want to hear about what we think. Doesn't mean we won't notice if you decide to stop asking us.
Checking in on purchases when I traveled overseas? Didn't bug me at all...I knew that charging something from Africa was a bit out of the norm (to say the least). That's protection I appreciate. Calling me three times in one month about penny-ante and even regular charges? Declining a charitable donation in a non-outrageous amount? Senseless aggravation.
Customers are a prickly bunch. But we actually make sense most of the time.
But sometimes I think companies don't spend very much time putting themselves in the customer's shoes.
Case #1: Don't bug me with your customer surveys...until I've got something to say
Most of my life I've had GM cars, from my first car: a hand me down '72 Chevy Impala to the two Saturns I've owned in the last 12 years or so. The Saturn folks, in particular, are very customer-focused, and I had my moments over the eight years or so that I owned Saturns of being bugged. Bugged by that snail mail survey post-routine service. Followed up by the phone survey. And sometimes an email survey. I'm guessing I didn't take the vast majority of those surveys. Everything was fine. No need to spend my precious time responding.
Now, I have a Honda Civic Hybrid. I've had it a little over a year, and I noticed something when I took it in for its routine service. They didn't wash the car before giving it back. I don't mean a fancy detailing, but my experience with both Saturn and Audi (the two brands that I got and serviced through dealers) was that any service was topped off with a nice, basic exterior wash of the car. Not so with Honda. And it bugged me. "Well, when i get my post-service survey, I will certainly let them know that this is a little thing that goes a long way!", I thought to myself. (When the truth is, it is its omission that goes a long way.)
Only I never got that survey, They didn't bug me via snail mail, telephone or email. No bugging at all. Which, you guessed it, bugs me to no end.
And the moral of the story is: Yes, it's a bummer that people, including me, enjoy complaining more than they enjoy sharing praise. Yes, people will ignore your surveys, and you will struggle to get healthy response rates and actionable feedback.
But you have to ask. Because otherwise, you have a customer like me who may be perfectly satisfied with my vehicle, but may think much less of the brand...over a very tiny thing.
And really, would it hurt you to rinse my car down after you've worked on it?
Case #2: That's great you want to protect me, but you're protecting me from the wrong things
I'm about to cancel a credit card I've had for 17 years. As soon as my new card comes from a different company, I'm canceling the old one, even though it will be a pain in the butt, given the auto-charges I have set up on it.
Why?
Because in their eagerness to be consumer protection leaders, they are protecting me from purchases that set off no typical alarm bells and are, in fact, with companies I do business with regularly. Over the last few months I have had numerous transactions declined/held, or that triggered a check-in call to me that I had to return and deactivate.
This is all to protect me from fraud using my card. I should be grateful, right? So, why am I so bugged?
-Because in 17 years of having this card I've never missed a payment, never had a fraudulent charge and I'm never near my limit.
-Because their auto-bot phone system never accounts for voicemail messages and leaves half-messages on my machine.
-Because they actually sent an email with a link to click to approve a transaction...as if any bank should encourage their customers to trust such emails from banks! And yet when I went to the site to do it directly, it is impossible to find any place to do so. Hence, the wasted time making phone calls.
-Because they declined my annual donation to the Humane Society!
-Because they made me call to approve my annual domain name renewal charges...with the same company made at the same time every year for the last 6 years.
-Because they made me call to approve a purchase for $8.99 on my Kindle.
I mean, if you're going to protect me, at least protect me from the anomalous charges! Not the ones that are part of my regular spending pattern. Don't tell me you don't have the systems to say, oh yes, she has made 20 donations to the Humane Society in the last ten years, I think she means it.
And lastly, when I called, no one really had anything to offer me to improve my experience, not even the hallowed "supervisor". A shrug of the shoulders is what I got.
And losing a long-time customer is what they're going to get.
All because they bugged me. But really because they made me feel like an anonymous, random cog in their machine, not a long-time valued customer.
And that's the common thread here. It's not so hard to make customers feel like you know then, that you think about them and care about what they think.
The surveys no one responds to? Doesn't mean we don't get the message that you want to hear about what we think. Doesn't mean we won't notice if you decide to stop asking us.
Checking in on purchases when I traveled overseas? Didn't bug me at all...I knew that charging something from Africa was a bit out of the norm (to say the least). That's protection I appreciate. Calling me three times in one month about penny-ante and even regular charges? Declining a charitable donation in a non-outrageous amount? Senseless aggravation.
Customers are a prickly bunch. But we actually make sense most of the time.
Labels: banks, credit cards, customer support, GM, honda, saturn
Thursday, October 01, 2009
"I am a Technical Woman"
Here are my two seconds of fame! Can you spot me in this fun video from the Anita Borg Institute:
The Institute announced their largest ever, sold-out attendance at this week's Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing...over 1,600 people!
Last year I was struck by the diversity of thee (mostly) women...across many dimensions. I believe the ABI, like BlogHer, makes it very difficult for anyone...whether organizing a speaking roster or compiling a "top" list...to say that there aren't any qualified women, or they don't know where to find them.
I know the ABI, like we at BlogHer, are happy to help you diversify your offerings with amazing, competent, qualified, expert women across all sorts of fields and subject matter areas.
The video is just a fun, short little thing...but take its point
Full Disclosure: I am on the Board of Advisors for the Institute.
The Institute announced their largest ever, sold-out attendance at this week's Grace Hopper Celebration of Women in Computing...over 1,600 people!
Last year I was struck by the diversity of thee (mostly) women...across many dimensions. I believe the ABI, like BlogHer, makes it very difficult for anyone...whether organizing a speaking roster or compiling a "top" list...to say that there aren't any qualified women, or they don't know where to find them.
I know the ABI, like we at BlogHer, are happy to help you diversify your offerings with amazing, competent, qualified, expert women across all sorts of fields and subject matter areas.
The video is just a fun, short little thing...but take its point
Full Disclosure: I am on the Board of Advisors for the Institute.
Labels: Anita Borg Institute, women in tech, women speakers
Sunday, September 27, 2009
I'm in good company
Scoble has joined the ranks of those totally annoyed by the Twitter Suggested User List lately, and has been on a tear about it. First on Twitter itself, now in this post.
Thanks Robert, happy to be in that company!
Every time I'm tempted to say "Who cares about the Twitter Suggested User List? Who cares about rankings etc.?" (Because I don't really pay attention to them or even my traffic, truth be told) I"m reminded that back when we started BlogHer, people asked the same about the Technorati Top 100 and other rankings that included next to no women. And the argument then and now is that such rankings and lists are used as feeds into other avenues of power. The media uses them as sources. Companies use them to determine who to partner with. If they are arbitrary, exclusionary or unfairly homogenous, it has a ripple effect.
So, I might personally not care, but I'm glad Robert is caring for me!
Thanks Robert, happy to be in that company!
Every time I'm tempted to say "Who cares about the Twitter Suggested User List? Who cares about rankings etc.?" (Because I don't really pay attention to them or even my traffic, truth be told) I"m reminded that back when we started BlogHer, people asked the same about the Technorati Top 100 and other rankings that included next to no women. And the argument then and now is that such rankings and lists are used as feeds into other avenues of power. The media uses them as sources. Companies use them to determine who to partner with. If they are arbitrary, exclusionary or unfairly homogenous, it has a ripple effect.
So, I might personally not care, but I'm glad Robert is caring for me!
Labels: rankings, scoble, Twitter
Sunday, September 06, 2009
The thing about swag
Since BlogHer '09 happened, about six weeks ago, there's been a mini-debate about an age-old marketing tool: Swag, IOW: Stuff We All Get.
This is a somewhat lengthy post, but I urge you to read it all, if only to read about some shocking "swag" given out at ComicCon this year.
Back to BlogHer: There was a lot of swag at the conference. Some folks were bothered by the quantity. Some folks were bothered by how the availability of swag changed the quality of some attendees' behavior. Some folks maintained a "different strokes for different folks" attitude and urged people to Just Say No to swag if it bothered them. Some folks started making gross generalizations about the kind of people who might like swag. Some folks, having clearly never attended other trade shows in other industries, thought the swag availability and ensuing pursuit of said swag was unique to bloggers. Or women. Or mommies. Some folks who didn't witness any swag pandemonium or weren't even at the conference had a lot of fun talking about it and, even better, waxing judgmental about it. Some folks expressed genuine concern about waste and our consumerist society. There are lots of ideas about how to better manage swag for next year's conference, including some great ideas about how to make sure it's all as opt-in as possible. You can see a lot of debate about the issue on our post-conference post soliciting feedback on the swag issue and other issues. You can add your own thoughts there too. We take the issue seriously, and we added several question about swag to the post-conference attendee survey too. We think we can make improvements, and we intend to.
But here's the thing about swag and why most companies are always going to want to give some and, let's be totally honest, most attendees are always want to get some: It works. I could go into a long dissertation about it, but Amy from Pretty Babies pretty much already did in this post. You should read it. She brings up everything from business practices to classism. She's smart.
I'm going to tell one personal story about how swag best does its job.
When I as growing up, my siblings and I each started doing our own laundry at a fairly young age. I used laundry detergent. And I used dryer sheets. I honestly don't know if my mom didn't believe in bleach, fabric softener, stain remover and the like, or if she had that stuff, but I was too young (and probably lazy) to mess with it when I started doing my own laundry. Either way...I have done my own laundry for almost 40 years and have stuck to buying only laundry detergent and dryer sheets.
I confess I even had a cynical attitude towards other products. With no scientific back-up I had the attitude that stain remover, as an example, was simply re-packaged detergent. I don't know why I thought this. I never tried it.
Until, after BlogHer, when I used a sample of a stain remover given by one of our laundry sponsors. The product was biodegradable and cruelty-free, so it met my basic requirements for such a product. I decided to give it a shot on a grease stain that had been on one of my black tops for ages. I kept wearing that top, thinking the black on black stain was probably not very visible to other people, but I was always a little self-conscious about it.
I tried the stain remover, and it removed the stain.
Maybe, to some of you, this is not a revelatory statement.
But I can tell you this one item of swag will change an over-20-year pattern of purchasing habits, which is exactly what that company is hoping for. Sounds extreme, and maybe it is, but in the post-conference survey we found plenty of similar experiences expressed.
Is there such a thing as crappy, useless swag? Oh absolutely. But uselessness is also in the eye of the beholder. Long ago I stopped picking up t-shirts at trade shows. I have a stack of industry t-shirts (from three different industries) about three feet high. I don't need another t-shirt in my life. I don't even wear them that often. But TW from Retro Food has often blogged that her day-to-day wardrobe is made up of such t-shirts, so she's always on the hunt for more. I love picking up notebooks. I actually use a notebook in my day to day work. I have tons of them. I know lots of people who think they're a waste of paper and a waste of time. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
So, while we continue to mull the meaning of swag, I continue to believe that, as with most things, it's about how you do something more than whether you do something.
Bonus Conclusion: The promised "shocking swag" story. And i think I can promise this will not be how BlogHer does things:
According to Joystiq, EA was there promoting a new game. They had the usual set-up in their booth where you could take a picture with a hot booth babe. According to their promotion it looks like the girls were going to be in bikinis, but who knows, that could have been false advertising. (Where's the FTC when you need them, eh?) Tweeting your picture with the hot booth babe (and "committing acts of lust" by finding other hot babes to take pictures with and tweeting those) would enter you in a contest to win:
"Dinner and a SINful night with TWO hot girls..." plus a limo ride and other "booty". Pun intended I'm sure.
This promotion takes the unpleasant "swag whore" moniker a little too literally for my taste, how about you?
This happened at Comic-Con, which was the same weekend as BlogHer this year. While you can find some blog posts abut this controversy in gamer blogs, I only found one mainstream outlet's blog that picked it up. And certainly no hand-wringing mainstream media reports about the moral state of gamers today because of this promotion.
Susan Getgood may be right that the mainstream media has "mommy issues".
This is a somewhat lengthy post, but I urge you to read it all, if only to read about some shocking "swag" given out at ComicCon this year.
Back to BlogHer: There was a lot of swag at the conference. Some folks were bothered by the quantity. Some folks were bothered by how the availability of swag changed the quality of some attendees' behavior. Some folks maintained a "different strokes for different folks" attitude and urged people to Just Say No to swag if it bothered them. Some folks started making gross generalizations about the kind of people who might like swag. Some folks, having clearly never attended other trade shows in other industries, thought the swag availability and ensuing pursuit of said swag was unique to bloggers. Or women. Or mommies. Some folks who didn't witness any swag pandemonium or weren't even at the conference had a lot of fun talking about it and, even better, waxing judgmental about it. Some folks expressed genuine concern about waste and our consumerist society. There are lots of ideas about how to better manage swag for next year's conference, including some great ideas about how to make sure it's all as opt-in as possible. You can see a lot of debate about the issue on our post-conference post soliciting feedback on the swag issue and other issues. You can add your own thoughts there too. We take the issue seriously, and we added several question about swag to the post-conference attendee survey too. We think we can make improvements, and we intend to.
But here's the thing about swag and why most companies are always going to want to give some and, let's be totally honest, most attendees are always want to get some: It works. I could go into a long dissertation about it, but Amy from Pretty Babies pretty much already did in this post. You should read it. She brings up everything from business practices to classism. She's smart.
I'm going to tell one personal story about how swag best does its job.
When I as growing up, my siblings and I each started doing our own laundry at a fairly young age. I used laundry detergent. And I used dryer sheets. I honestly don't know if my mom didn't believe in bleach, fabric softener, stain remover and the like, or if she had that stuff, but I was too young (and probably lazy) to mess with it when I started doing my own laundry. Either way...I have done my own laundry for almost 40 years and have stuck to buying only laundry detergent and dryer sheets.
I confess I even had a cynical attitude towards other products. With no scientific back-up I had the attitude that stain remover, as an example, was simply re-packaged detergent. I don't know why I thought this. I never tried it.
Until, after BlogHer, when I used a sample of a stain remover given by one of our laundry sponsors. The product was biodegradable and cruelty-free, so it met my basic requirements for such a product. I decided to give it a shot on a grease stain that had been on one of my black tops for ages. I kept wearing that top, thinking the black on black stain was probably not very visible to other people, but I was always a little self-conscious about it.
I tried the stain remover, and it removed the stain.
Maybe, to some of you, this is not a revelatory statement.
But I can tell you this one item of swag will change an over-20-year pattern of purchasing habits, which is exactly what that company is hoping for. Sounds extreme, and maybe it is, but in the post-conference survey we found plenty of similar experiences expressed.
Is there such a thing as crappy, useless swag? Oh absolutely. But uselessness is also in the eye of the beholder. Long ago I stopped picking up t-shirts at trade shows. I have a stack of industry t-shirts (from three different industries) about three feet high. I don't need another t-shirt in my life. I don't even wear them that often. But TW from Retro Food has often blogged that her day-to-day wardrobe is made up of such t-shirts, so she's always on the hunt for more. I love picking up notebooks. I actually use a notebook in my day to day work. I have tons of them. I know lots of people who think they're a waste of paper and a waste of time. I could go on and on, but you get the point.
So, while we continue to mull the meaning of swag, I continue to believe that, as with most things, it's about how you do something more than whether you do something.
Bonus Conclusion: The promised "shocking swag" story. And i think I can promise this will not be how BlogHer does things:
According to Joystiq, EA was there promoting a new game. They had the usual set-up in their booth where you could take a picture with a hot booth babe. According to their promotion it looks like the girls were going to be in bikinis, but who knows, that could have been false advertising. (Where's the FTC when you need them, eh?) Tweeting your picture with the hot booth babe (and "committing acts of lust" by finding other hot babes to take pictures with and tweeting those) would enter you in a contest to win:
"Dinner and a SINful night with TWO hot girls..." plus a limo ride and other "booty". Pun intended I'm sure.
This promotion takes the unpleasant "swag whore" moniker a little too literally for my taste, how about you?
This happened at Comic-Con, which was the same weekend as BlogHer this year. While you can find some blog posts abut this controversy in gamer blogs, I only found one mainstream outlet's blog that picked it up. And certainly no hand-wringing mainstream media reports about the moral state of gamers today because of this promotion.
Susan Getgood may be right that the mainstream media has "mommy issues".
Labels: BlogHer 09, bloghercon, Comic-con, EA, swag
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
BlogHer '09 interview links...BlogHers in their own words
Wanted to point out some of the great coverage we got at BlogHer that let people basically speak for themselves.
I thought a lot of the more traditional media coverage was very, well, traditional. Some folks came knowing the story they wanted to tell, and they interviewed folks until the found the soundbites that supported the story, and then they crafted that story for public consumption.
But those kind of stories are never the whole story. Not when you have 1, 500 (mostly) women from all walks of life and all segments of the blogosphere there, and raising their voices.
So I enjoyed the outlets that actually shared their interviews with different attendees and let us hear their stories in their own words.
Webmaster Radio's audio interviews tend to focus on organizational attendees. But even there, there is diversity. Hear Gina McCauley talk about founding Blogging While Brown, or Michelle Whitlock talk about the non-profit Pearls of Wisdom or Anne Collier talk about Internet safety. Plus many more.
Then hop on over to PBS's YouTube channel and check out their BlogHer '09 Playlist. Yes, you can hear my story about trying to unplug when in Africa, but you can also hear from self-proclaimed "worst mother in the world", Lenore Skenazy, conservative blogger Fausta Wertz, and community keynote original mastermind, Eden Kennedy. And they tell me more videos are coming.
Enjoy!
I thought a lot of the more traditional media coverage was very, well, traditional. Some folks came knowing the story they wanted to tell, and they interviewed folks until the found the soundbites that supported the story, and then they crafted that story for public consumption.
But those kind of stories are never the whole story. Not when you have 1, 500 (mostly) women from all walks of life and all segments of the blogosphere there, and raising their voices.
So I enjoyed the outlets that actually shared their interviews with different attendees and let us hear their stories in their own words.
Webmaster Radio's audio interviews tend to focus on organizational attendees. But even there, there is diversity. Hear Gina McCauley talk about founding Blogging While Brown, or Michelle Whitlock talk about the non-profit Pearls of Wisdom or Anne Collier talk about Internet safety. Plus many more.
Then hop on over to PBS's YouTube channel and check out their BlogHer '09 Playlist. Yes, you can hear my story about trying to unplug when in Africa, but you can also hear from self-proclaimed "worst mother in the world", Lenore Skenazy, conservative blogger Fausta Wertz, and community keynote original mastermind, Eden Kennedy. And they tell me more videos are coming.
Enjoy!
Labels: BlogHer 09, bloghercon, Digital Nation, Frontline, interviews, PBS, webmaster radio
Monday, August 31, 2009
Me, acting all expert-y about information overload
Let's keep it between us that I actually struggle with information overload on a daily basis. Instead focus on the fact that the tips I give in this video on BlogHer are actually good tips. I should follow my own advice a lot more consistently than I do.
The most important thing I share in this video is this: You control the noise. I get really frustrated by people, be they elitist journalists or clueless family members, who can't imagine why people use Twitter or who complain about how many blogs there are now Or who ask the classic: "Who cares what anyone had for lunch?" question.
So, without further ado, here is the video*:
* The Juice is an initiative BlogHer has done in tandem with Tropicana Trop 50. I wasn't originally scheduled to be a guest, but then they realized that of course they should have someone with eight blogs and an account on every social network speak about information overload :)
The most important thing I share in this video is this: You control the noise. I get really frustrated by people, be they elitist journalists or clueless family members, who can't imagine why people use Twitter or who complain about how many blogs there are now Or who ask the classic: "Who cares what anyone had for lunch?" question.
So, without further ado, here is the video*:
* The Juice is an initiative BlogHer has done in tandem with Tropicana Trop 50. I wasn't originally scheduled to be a guest, but then they realized that of course they should have someone with eight blogs and an account on every social network speak about information overload :)
Labels: blogher, bloghercon, information overload, The Juice, Tropicana Trop 50
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Is Time magazine serious?
I'd actually like to think Time Magazine is joking when they name the web sites in this list as the Best of 2009.
Don't get me wrong: It's not like I don't use (and generally love) sites like Google, Flickr, Yelp, Delicious, Twitter, Skype, Open Table, Amazon, Netflix, Wikipedia and more.
But, come on.
1. Am I the only one who see a headline like Best Web Sites of 2009 and hopes to learn about new sites?
2. Am I the only one who see a headline like Best Web Sites of 2009 and hopes to discover amazing new content?
3. Am I the only one who doesn't actually consider some of these to be web sites, but rather web applications or services?
4. Am I the only one who wonders what could be newsworthy about listing sites that are already in the Top 20, 50, even 100 visited sites on the entire Internet?
5. Am I the only one who thinks this would have been better entitled: "Top 50 Sites for People Who Have Been Living in Caves"?
Bah. Humbug.
Don't get me wrong: It's not like I don't use (and generally love) sites like Google, Flickr, Yelp, Delicious, Twitter, Skype, Open Table, Amazon, Netflix, Wikipedia and more.
But, come on.
1. Am I the only one who see a headline like Best Web Sites of 2009 and hopes to learn about new sites?
2. Am I the only one who see a headline like Best Web Sites of 2009 and hopes to discover amazing new content?
3. Am I the only one who doesn't actually consider some of these to be web sites, but rather web applications or services?
4. Am I the only one who wonders what could be newsworthy about listing sites that are already in the Top 20, 50, even 100 visited sites on the entire Internet?
5. Am I the only one who thinks this would have been better entitled: "Top 50 Sites for People Who Have Been Living in Caves"?
Bah. Humbug.
Labels: Time Magazine
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Deadline September 7th: Submit your amazing communications initiative for a SNCR Award
I'm sorry I'm only posting this now, but there are still two weeks left in which to submit a a nomination for the Society for New Communications Research Announces Call for Entries for 2009 Excellence in New Communications Awards.
I'm a Founding Fellow of SNCR, which has been around since 2005. It's a global nonprofit research and education foundation and think tank focused on the latest developments in new media and communications.
Their awards program "honors the work of corporations, governmental and nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, media outlets and individuals who are innovating the use of social media, ICT, mobile media, online communities and virtual worlds and collaborative technologies in the areas of business, media, and professional communications, including advertising, marketing, public relations and corporate communications, as well as entertainment, education, politics, and social initiatives."
You can check this link for all the categories and details, but suffice to say: Just about any kind of program executed by and/or for any kind of organization should be able to find a category in which to fit.
The submission must include a case study detailing initiatives and technologies. The winning case studies are published by SNCR and New Communications Review and the winners will be honored at the 2009 Society for New Communications Research Symposium & Awards Gala, which will be held November 5-6 at the Harvard Faculty Club in Cambridge, Mass. and hosted by SNCR Fellow Paul Gillin.
Entry guidelines and the online entry form can be found at http://www.sncr.org/awards. The deadline for submissions is September 7th, 2009.
As a member of SNCR's Best Practices Committee I'll likely judge a category or two, so perhaps I'll see your case studies in a couple of weeks?
I'm a Founding Fellow of SNCR, which has been around since 2005. It's a global nonprofit research and education foundation and think tank focused on the latest developments in new media and communications.
Their awards program "honors the work of corporations, governmental and nonprofit organizations, educational institutions, media outlets and individuals who are innovating the use of social media, ICT, mobile media, online communities and virtual worlds and collaborative technologies in the areas of business, media, and professional communications, including advertising, marketing, public relations and corporate communications, as well as entertainment, education, politics, and social initiatives."
You can check this link for all the categories and details, but suffice to say: Just about any kind of program executed by and/or for any kind of organization should be able to find a category in which to fit.
The submission must include a case study detailing initiatives and technologies. The winning case studies are published by SNCR and New Communications Review and the winners will be honored at the 2009 Society for New Communications Research Symposium & Awards Gala, which will be held November 5-6 at the Harvard Faculty Club in Cambridge, Mass. and hosted by SNCR Fellow Paul Gillin.
Entry guidelines and the online entry form can be found at http://www.sncr.org/awards. The deadline for submissions is September 7th, 2009.
As a member of SNCR's Best Practices Committee I'll likely judge a category or two, so perhaps I'll see your case studies in a couple of weeks?
Labels: communications, Game Changers Awards, SNCR
Monday, August 24, 2009
My attempt to unplug
PBS Frontline's Digital Nation project was at BlogHer '09 and interviewed lots of amazing women who blog.
And then there's me. Telling a quick story about trying to unplug while in Africa for a week. And considering myself quite successful at it. Even though I didn't actually unplug the whole, entire time.
It's two-minutes long, enjoy!
And then there's me. Telling a quick story about trying to unplug while in Africa for a week. And considering myself quite successful at it. Even though I didn't actually unplug the whole, entire time.
It's two-minutes long, enjoy!
Labels: blogher '09, bloghercon, Digital Nation, PBS, Unplugging
Saturday, August 22, 2009
Spam me to defend yourself against spam. Good plan.
I got an email almost a week ago that was so glaringly ironic that I saved it. A day later David Weinberger, who is obviously more on the blogging ball than I, blogged the same email: meta-meta-spam.
Some company I've never heard of, and who I can guarantee I've never opted in to receive emails from, sent me an email:
Indeed, that is the definition, thanks for reminding me...dude who is spamming me to tell me how he's not a spammer on Twitter!
The #blogher09 hashtag stream has been completely overtaken by spammers...some of them no doubt enabled by this company in question.
Let's just say: I am not your target audience spammer-dude.
Some company I've never heard of, and who I can guarantee I've never opted in to receive emails from, sent me an email:
Twitter has recently moved to shut down web promotions company uSocial.net, by claiming the advertising agency is “spamming”.
According to uSocial CEO Leon Hill, Twitter recently sent accusations via a brand-management organisation that uSocial are using Twitter for spam purposes. Despite this, uSocial say the claims are false.
“The definition of spam is using electronic messaging to send unsolicited communication and as we don’t use Twitter for this, the claims are false.” Said Hill.
Indeed, that is the definition, thanks for reminding me...dude who is spamming me to tell me how he's not a spammer on Twitter!
The #blogher09 hashtag stream has been completely overtaken by spammers...some of them no doubt enabled by this company in question.
Let's just say: I am not your target audience spammer-dude.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Aw, I'm a high school lesson!
Got the nicest email yesterday. From someone leading a class on leadership for high school students, who came upon an old post of mine and wanted to use it as a lesson in communications.
The post: A Little Story About Communication
I'll be honest, I was surprised. It's an old post, and not one that pop into my head when thinking of past posts that might be lesson-worthy.
But I'm tickled nonetheless.
The post: A Little Story About Communication
I'll be honest, I was surprised. It's an old post, and not one that pop into my head when thinking of past posts that might be lesson-worthy.
But I'm tickled nonetheless.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Cross-post: BlogHer post on Twitter, Marketing and Tools
We launched a new Twitter account at BlogHer, @BlogHerDeals.
This prompted a little soul-searching about whether the use of Twitter as a marketing tool is a natural fit. Or whether some tools of the human variety are ruining Twitter with their marketing.
Weigh in and you be the judge.
This prompted a little soul-searching about whether the use of Twitter as a marketing tool is a natural fit. Or whether some tools of the human variety are ruining Twitter with their marketing.
Weigh in and you be the judge.
Labels: bloghercon, marketing, Twitter
Sunday, July 05, 2009
QoTD: "Angry, little "SEO Experts"
I was reading a standard post about Twitter, and how he uses it, from Guy Kawasaki.
Wasn't really learning anything new or being too surprised when I read this somewhat hilarious Q from his FAQs about Twitter, about his use of ghost-twitterers:
Oh so sad for those very reputable SEO folks I know, including the folks at Beyond Ink that BlogHer actually hired when we were transitioning from our old .org domain to .com.
But oh so reminds of some of the stuff that happens, say every July when "BlogHer" is a trending topic :)
Wasn't really learning anything new or being too surprised when I read this somewhat hilarious Q from his FAQs about Twitter, about his use of ghost-twitterers:
Question: Why do some people attack you so much for this?
Answer: Most are angry, little “SEO experts” who cannot generate content, so they try to generate controversy in order to drive traffic to their blogs or get other angry, little people to follow them.
Oh so sad for those very reputable SEO folks I know, including the folks at Beyond Ink that BlogHer actually hired when we were transitioning from our old .org domain to .com.
But oh so reminds of some of the stuff that happens, say every July when "BlogHer" is a trending topic :)
Labels: bloghercon, guy kawasaki, Twitter
Thursday, July 02, 2009
How many ads prompt LOLs *and* serious commentary?
Lisa, Jory and I often say that we created the "best jobs we've ever had" when we co-founded BlogHer.
So, here's a little insight into one reason I say that:
Lately I've been having a lot of fun with BlogHer's own house ads that we run on BlogHer.com and the network. We like to feature hot editorial and our contributing editors, among other community-related stuff.
One of the earliest editorial ads we did was set to feature some posts that were written on the site about marketing to women, and how companies fall back on stereotypes. When talking abut the visuals to go with the copy featuring the editors' work, one of my colleagues proposed putting the copy against a sparkly pink background, but wondered if that would be too negative.
I thought: Hey why not just go all the way with that? So I literally said:
And I did think that would be hilarious :)
And it came out looking like this:
Which I thought was actually hilarious. I laughed every time I saw it. I exchanged tweets with folks who loved it too. Fun for all!
And then this blogger was actually motivated to write some serous commentary based on seeing the ad:
And he goes on to outline traditional feminine programming a la the Lifetime Network or Hallmark Channel...good stuff.
I had to agree I had never thought of it that way. And it was excellent food for thought...no pun intended simply because that incisive commentary was on a food blog :)
But you know what: That's why I love my job.
I'm just sayin'
So, here's a little insight into one reason I say that:
Lately I've been having a lot of fun with BlogHer's own house ads that we run on BlogHer.com and the network. We like to feature hot editorial and our contributing editors, among other community-related stuff.
One of the earliest editorial ads we did was set to feature some posts that were written on the site about marketing to women, and how companies fall back on stereotypes. When talking abut the visuals to go with the copy featuring the editors' work, one of my colleagues proposed putting the copy against a sparkly pink background, but wondered if that would be too negative.
I thought: Hey why not just go all the way with that? So I literally said:
"As for a visual: We can use their [the editors] headshots, but superimpose them onto cartoon figures as follows:
Suzane riding a unicorn
Virginia in a Disney-like princess outfit
All against a pink background with butterflies and rainbows?
I think that would be hilarious."
And I did think that would be hilarious :)
And it came out looking like this:
Which I thought was actually hilarious. I laughed every time I saw it. I exchanged tweets with folks who loved it too. Fun for all!
And then this blogger was actually motivated to write some serous commentary based on seeing the ad:
"While doing my usual rounds of the food blogs, I came across a banner that intrigued me: it was from BlogHer, asking us (you?) if marketing to women is all about stereotypes. I couldn't quite remember the content of the articles I read from that link, but one writer was lamenting about a sparkly pink candy "just for the ladies" (I can't remember if this is the article I read about the controversial candy bar called "The Finger") while another one, about a "misguided laptops-for-women site." I found myself agreeing with the content of the articles, and of course I am for gender-neutral advertising, for the most part. But don't think men have been dealt a better hand.
Just watching a local cable network here, "Maxx" (probably your equivalent would be SpikeTV, Americans), where I get my daily dose of The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, all the ads are geared towards men. The tagline is "get away with it." Away with what? Oh, watching extreme sports, bikini-clad computer-generated anime females that I hope are meant to be older than 21, references to wanking, beer, infidelity, pugilism, poker, and yes, we prefer women to be dumb (and biting their nails for some reason). Why is The Daily Show and The Colbert Report (among other comedy shows) here? Because laughter apparently requires testicles."
And he goes on to outline traditional feminine programming a la the Lifetime Network or Hallmark Channel...good stuff.
I had to agree I had never thought of it that way. And it was excellent food for thought...no pun intended simply because that incisive commentary was on a food blog :)
But you know what: That's why I love my job.
I'm just sayin'
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Interview with Paula G...on being comfortable in one's own skin
Had a great time this past Wednesday being interviewed by life coach and BlogHer CE on personal finance, business and career, Paula Gregorowicz.
The link to her post publishing the interview is here.
I'm not sure I completely lived up to Paula's vision of being comfortable in one's own skin and how that leads to fulfillment and success. I think I made a different point...that one can be comfortable in one's own skin in parts. And that can be enough. I am highly comfortable about some things, and that serves me well...and it can serve you well too, even if you're a mass of discomfort about other things! Leverage your strengths, baby, that's what it's all about.
When I think of some of the great achievers, I'm not thinking of people who breeze through life without insecurity, or even people who seem that comfortable in their own skin. But they are driven, and who knows? Maybe our discomforts and insecurities are part of what drive us?
What does being comfortable in your own skin...or not being that comfortable...mean to you and achieving your goals?
The link to her post publishing the interview is here.
I'm not sure I completely lived up to Paula's vision of being comfortable in one's own skin and how that leads to fulfillment and success. I think I made a different point...that one can be comfortable in one's own skin in parts. And that can be enough. I am highly comfortable about some things, and that serves me well...and it can serve you well too, even if you're a mass of discomfort about other things! Leverage your strengths, baby, that's what it's all about.
When I think of some of the great achievers, I'm not thinking of people who breeze through life without insecurity, or even people who seem that comfortable in their own skin. But they are driven, and who knows? Maybe our discomforts and insecurities are part of what drive us?
What does being comfortable in your own skin...or not being that comfortable...mean to you and achieving your goals?
Labels: interview, Paula Gregorowicz, podcast
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Pay-per-tweet? Responses to it? Sigh. I never realized I was such a capitalist!
Catching up on my blog reading after a week in NYC, I came across this piece on Mashable: Will Pay Per Tweet Ruin Twitter?.
As per usual, the post itself only generated a part of my response below, with the lengthy comment thread providing most of the fodder. I started to leave a comment, but you may already know my personal rule: If I start to leave a comment, and it exceeds three paragraphs? It deserves to be a blog post instead.
And here we go, first with some background:
Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was a company called Pay Per Post that paid bloggers a nominal fee to write posts for PPP customers, including specified links etc. PPP came under fire for a variety of policy issues, including the fact that they didn't require disclosure that the posts in question were paid for, and for the fact that sometimes bloggers didn't get samples of products they were paid to write about...so these truly seemed to be regurgitation of company talking points, not authentic reviews or opinions.
Now, it was bad enough when some bloggers and blog readers got their knickers in a twist about it...that created repeated brouhahas and blog swarms. But then Google got wind of it, and decided to strip page rank from blogs who in engaged in PPP. So what? I mean Google ain't the law, right? They're not even the only search engine. They aren't the boss of you, me or any other blogger. All true, but, you know, bloggers can rationalize losing readers who don't like what they blog about, but having Google impact their blog's rank (and therefore search presence and, let's face it, credibility, was another matter altogether.
So, the market having spoken, Pay Per Post changed their name (to Izea) and changed some of their policies. Hey, its a nascent market, a nascent industry, so I guess kudos to them for adapting. Now, to my knowledge, whatever else they may do and whatever you may think, they require disclosure, and they use the no-follow tag to appease Google.
End of story? Not on your life. Apparently now, Izea has introduced a pay-per-tweet service, and it's deja vu all over again. PS: Here on in I will call it PPT. Because I'm lazy like that.
So, telling that the fable above and offering my kudos to Izea's adaptability is not to say that:
a. I agree with such programs or policies
b. That I would participate in them
c. That that's the way BlogHer would ever do things. (Full disclosure: We do things differently. If you want to see how we do things and why, read this post. We like our way of doing things just fine, think we've cracked the code, and it happens to not be like Izea's particular approach.)
But some things just make me go hmmm. Once again, as my partner Jory pointed out in one of her columns for Jack Myers, people are abandoning analysis and nuance in favor of sweeping condemnation and a weird need to control others instead of controlling themselves.
And I found a surprising impulse with me. Me, the bleeding heart who thinks a lot about right and wrong and what should be done about it. I found my inner capitalist, and she was saying: "Let the reader decide. Let the market decide."
Another thing I'm not saying: I'm not saying that people aren't completely entitled to express their outrage or disappointment over this new program. Totally your right, free country, blah-di-blah-di-blah. And i completely support your right to vote with your feet, your wallet, your eyeballs. In fact, once you've publicly denounced something, aren't you kind of obligated to do so? :)
But, barring fraud or some other criminality, my inner capitalist is saying: "Let people and companies try as many new things in this space as they like."
Because the real, true beauty of my online experience? I control it. I'm tired of complaints about "the noise". Turn down the noise, people, the controls are in your hands!! it's called "unfollow" or "unsubscribe" or filtering, and I recommend using it liberally.
Mashable's Adam Ostrow actually makes the same argument, so I agree with 90% of his post. But my jaw dropped a bit at this sweeping generalization:
And this whole post started because I wanted to respond to the following comment thread about that statement:
See, I agree with Lisawriter that it is a pretty sweeping statement to say:
"Personally, I think any review – on a blog or on Twitter – is immediately de-valued if the author is being paid to write it, because the objectivity is lost."
Any review? Really?
Well, no, later both Adam and commenter Kage make it clear that some paid reviews are OK, like Roger Ebert's, for what seem to me to be totally specious reasons. Getting paid is OK if "people want the reviews"? Or if someone "loves" what they review?
Couldn't that apply to bloggers and Twitterers too?
Well, clearly it could, so does Adam simply have a problem with the medium of blogs and Twitter? It is not the skill, desire or market for the reviewer's output that matters, but where he or she publishes that matters? Or are we to think that no one of professional caliber writes online?
And I don't think he means that either.
Nope, what we're all saying is that quality content is desirable and inauthentic shilling is not. In any form, on any channel.
And if you're among the population who agree with that definition of what matters?
Then use the controls at your command to fix it. Make 'em pay!
When I see a comment like this:
I want to ask her: Have you heard of unfollowing??
Because Jillian is not complaining about fraud or hate speech. This isn't a debate like the one about whether Facebook should really allow hate groups, but not breastfeeders.
No, she's complaining about, shudder, memes and the unwashed masses, the horror, the horror.
Hey, I tend to agree more with this commenter:
If it's not memes, it's meta-Twittering that'll get ya!
Now, I don't want to get frivolous or disingenuous about it. Take this comment:
As you can guess, I'm with Dave on the first paragraph...all the way. Unfollow anyone who you feel is spamming you via Twitter.
And the lovely and talented Gwen Bell, with whom I shared a rare vegan meal in Vegas, seems to be with Dave on the second paragraph too, at least according to her post: Newsflash: We're all shilling.
But while I actually agree that people who constantly tweet their latest blog posts are annoying, and while I may personally think the phrase "Please Retweet" should be stricken from the lexicon, I don't actually equate exchanging linky love with exchanging contracts and cash. I just don't. I don't think we're all shilling all the time, either.
There are some services/companies out there that require a tweet or retweet in order to enter a contest. I see the dozens of tweets go by, and it bugs me. I don't think it's a best practice to ask your customers to spam their followers for you in order to win something.
On the other hand, I often tweet something BlogHer is up to from the @BlogHer account and see bunches of people retweet it, unprompted.
Part of me thinks "I hope no one thinks we told people they should tweet that!"
Part of me thinks, "Wow, so cool that they think that's tweet-worthy".
All of me thinks that it was those twitterers choice to retweet it, and their readers can choose to like it or lump it...to keep following or hit Unfollow in frustration.
Here's an example: I have twice tweeted from my personal Twitter account, unprompted, about a BlogHer sponsor/advertiser. Once about Kozy Shack introducing soy pudding, once about discovering that Clorox Green Works considers "not testing on animals" to be one of the core principles a "natural" product should follow.
Well, most people who follow me know I am one of BlogHer's few, proud, token vegans. I don't blog/tweet much about politics anymore, but I still try to represent the vegan view when I can. I also subscribe strongly to the "vote with your wallet" theory...rewarding and punishing company policies by buying or not buying whenever I can. I was genuinely excited when I saw both of those things from a sponsor. In each case I disclosed they were a BlogHer sponsor. In each case I wasn't paid to do so, nor was it part of some deal with them that I would do so.
Some might argue I shouldn't have tweeted anyway, because BlogHer collects money from these sponsors, and I am paid by BlogHer. But then I suppose a newspaper shouldn't review a movie who's production company advertises in their paper either, right?
The big issues, IMHO, are:
1. Disclosure. Meaning: You better haz it.
2. Context. Meaning: Is it at all authentic that the person would tweet about something? Is it at all relevant? To the writer? To their readers? I'm about to unfollow a tweeter who mostly tweets self-promotional stuff about her online business, not because her tweets aren't relevant to her and what she does, not because I don't think she sincerely is passionate about her business. But because it turns out not to be that relevant to me.
3. The church/state issue: You have to make a call on where you stand on the separation of church (editorial) and state (advertising/sponsorship). Do you think it's important to have actual physical demarcation between those two kinds of content you write/publish/support? If you do, better do it consistently, because you're setting expectations. (And might I add, it's those reader expectations that the FTC seems most concerned about.)
Here in the social media space, we all get to decide.
We get to decide what kind of publisher we want to be.
We get to decide which partners are the right partners, whose policies you can live with.
We get to decide who is worth keeping in our blog reader, in our twitter feed.
Will PPT Ruin Twitter?
Not my Twitter.
As per usual, the post itself only generated a part of my response below, with the lengthy comment thread providing most of the fodder. I started to leave a comment, but you may already know my personal rule: If I start to leave a comment, and it exceeds three paragraphs? It deserves to be a blog post instead.
And here we go, first with some background:
Once upon a time, a long time ago, there was a company called Pay Per Post that paid bloggers a nominal fee to write posts for PPP customers, including specified links etc. PPP came under fire for a variety of policy issues, including the fact that they didn't require disclosure that the posts in question were paid for, and for the fact that sometimes bloggers didn't get samples of products they were paid to write about...so these truly seemed to be regurgitation of company talking points, not authentic reviews or opinions.
Now, it was bad enough when some bloggers and blog readers got their knickers in a twist about it...that created repeated brouhahas and blog swarms. But then Google got wind of it, and decided to strip page rank from blogs who in engaged in PPP. So what? I mean Google ain't the law, right? They're not even the only search engine. They aren't the boss of you, me or any other blogger. All true, but, you know, bloggers can rationalize losing readers who don't like what they blog about, but having Google impact their blog's rank (and therefore search presence and, let's face it, credibility, was another matter altogether.
So, the market having spoken, Pay Per Post changed their name (to Izea) and changed some of their policies. Hey, its a nascent market, a nascent industry, so I guess kudos to them for adapting. Now, to my knowledge, whatever else they may do and whatever you may think, they require disclosure, and they use the no-follow tag to appease Google.
End of story? Not on your life. Apparently now, Izea has introduced a pay-per-tweet service, and it's deja vu all over again. PS: Here on in I will call it PPT. Because I'm lazy like that.
So, telling that the fable above and offering my kudos to Izea's adaptability is not to say that:
a. I agree with such programs or policies
b. That I would participate in them
c. That that's the way BlogHer would ever do things. (Full disclosure: We do things differently. If you want to see how we do things and why, read this post. We like our way of doing things just fine, think we've cracked the code, and it happens to not be like Izea's particular approach.)
But some things just make me go hmmm. Once again, as my partner Jory pointed out in one of her columns for Jack Myers, people are abandoning analysis and nuance in favor of sweeping condemnation and a weird need to control others instead of controlling themselves.
And I found a surprising impulse with me. Me, the bleeding heart who thinks a lot about right and wrong and what should be done about it. I found my inner capitalist, and she was saying: "Let the reader decide. Let the market decide."
Another thing I'm not saying: I'm not saying that people aren't completely entitled to express their outrage or disappointment over this new program. Totally your right, free country, blah-di-blah-di-blah. And i completely support your right to vote with your feet, your wallet, your eyeballs. In fact, once you've publicly denounced something, aren't you kind of obligated to do so? :)
But, barring fraud or some other criminality, my inner capitalist is saying: "Let people and companies try as many new things in this space as they like."
Because the real, true beauty of my online experience? I control it. I'm tired of complaints about "the noise". Turn down the noise, people, the controls are in your hands!! it's called "unfollow" or "unsubscribe" or filtering, and I recommend using it liberally.
Mashable's Adam Ostrow actually makes the same argument, so I agree with 90% of his post. But my jaw dropped a bit at this sweeping generalization:
"Personally, I think any review – on a blog or on Twitter – is immediately de-valued if the author is being paid to write it, because the objectivity is lost."
And this whole post started because I wanted to respond to the following comment thread about that statement:
Lisawriter:
Hmm, if you argue that all critics who are paid can't be objective, you could say the same thing about Roger Ebert, book reviewers and other pros. It depends on the critic's experience.
Adam Ostrow:
eh, but Roger Ebert *needs* the content in order to review it, and people want his reviews of this weekend's new movies. Reviews of random products by random people for pay is quite a bit different imo.
Kage:
I agree. It's Roger Eberts job, he loves movies and people want his reviews. He's not just a guy reviewing anything just to make some money.
See, I agree with Lisawriter that it is a pretty sweeping statement to say:
"Personally, I think any review – on a blog or on Twitter – is immediately de-valued if the author is being paid to write it, because the objectivity is lost."
Any review? Really?
Well, no, later both Adam and commenter Kage make it clear that some paid reviews are OK, like Roger Ebert's, for what seem to me to be totally specious reasons. Getting paid is OK if "people want the reviews"? Or if someone "loves" what they review?
Couldn't that apply to bloggers and Twitterers too?
Well, clearly it could, so does Adam simply have a problem with the medium of blogs and Twitter? It is not the skill, desire or market for the reviewer's output that matters, but where he or she publishes that matters? Or are we to think that no one of professional caliber writes online?
And I don't think he means that either.
Nope, what we're all saying is that quality content is desirable and inauthentic shilling is not. In any form, on any channel.
And if you're among the population who agree with that definition of what matters?
Then use the controls at your command to fix it. Make 'em pay!
When I see a comment like this:
Jillian C. York:
"Twitter lost its "purity" when Oprah showed up and the unwashed masses followed suit, with absurd daily memes and obnoxious bios."
I want to ask her: Have you heard of unfollowing??
Because Jillian is not complaining about fraud or hate speech. This isn't a debate like the one about whether Facebook should really allow hate groups, but not breastfeeders.
No, she's complaining about, shudder, memes and the unwashed masses, the horror, the horror.
Hey, I tend to agree more with this commenter:
Emily:
"I think you're right that as long as it is disclosed via the #spon hastag, there's really no harm to me as a Twitter user. I wouldn't tweet about a product I didn't like just to get paid, but if a company was offering to pay me to tweet about something I actually use, I'd probably do it. It's like we're all celebrities who can get endorsement deals. Some will be shady, but some will be genuinely interesting and fun. What is killing Twitter for me is all the Social Media "Coaches" and SEO "Experts." Too much meta-Twitter for me."
If it's not memes, it's meta-Twittering that'll get ya!
Now, I don't want to get frivolous or disingenuous about it. Take this comment:
Dave Taylor Yesterday 10:07 PM
"This is really easy, gang: if you don't want to follow someone who sends out sponsored messages, then unfollow them when you see a #spon tweet.
On the other hand, when I post a "Check out my new blog post: http://www.tiny.url/" isn't that an advert? When I get tweets from people saying "Listening to XX speak about YY. Boring #conf" isn't that advertising with a direct, user feedback spin?"
As you can guess, I'm with Dave on the first paragraph...all the way. Unfollow anyone who you feel is spamming you via Twitter.
And the lovely and talented Gwen Bell, with whom I shared a rare vegan meal in Vegas, seems to be with Dave on the second paragraph too, at least according to her post: Newsflash: We're all shilling.
But while I actually agree that people who constantly tweet their latest blog posts are annoying, and while I may personally think the phrase "Please Retweet" should be stricken from the lexicon, I don't actually equate exchanging linky love with exchanging contracts and cash. I just don't. I don't think we're all shilling all the time, either.
There are some services/companies out there that require a tweet or retweet in order to enter a contest. I see the dozens of tweets go by, and it bugs me. I don't think it's a best practice to ask your customers to spam their followers for you in order to win something.
On the other hand, I often tweet something BlogHer is up to from the @BlogHer account and see bunches of people retweet it, unprompted.
Part of me thinks "I hope no one thinks we told people they should tweet that!"
Part of me thinks, "Wow, so cool that they think that's tweet-worthy".
All of me thinks that it was those twitterers choice to retweet it, and their readers can choose to like it or lump it...to keep following or hit Unfollow in frustration.
Here's an example: I have twice tweeted from my personal Twitter account, unprompted, about a BlogHer sponsor/advertiser. Once about Kozy Shack introducing soy pudding, once about discovering that Clorox Green Works considers "not testing on animals" to be one of the core principles a "natural" product should follow.
Well, most people who follow me know I am one of BlogHer's few, proud, token vegans. I don't blog/tweet much about politics anymore, but I still try to represent the vegan view when I can. I also subscribe strongly to the "vote with your wallet" theory...rewarding and punishing company policies by buying or not buying whenever I can. I was genuinely excited when I saw both of those things from a sponsor. In each case I disclosed they were a BlogHer sponsor. In each case I wasn't paid to do so, nor was it part of some deal with them that I would do so.
Some might argue I shouldn't have tweeted anyway, because BlogHer collects money from these sponsors, and I am paid by BlogHer. But then I suppose a newspaper shouldn't review a movie who's production company advertises in their paper either, right?
The big issues, IMHO, are:
1. Disclosure. Meaning: You better haz it.
2. Context. Meaning: Is it at all authentic that the person would tweet about something? Is it at all relevant? To the writer? To their readers? I'm about to unfollow a tweeter who mostly tweets self-promotional stuff about her online business, not because her tweets aren't relevant to her and what she does, not because I don't think she sincerely is passionate about her business. But because it turns out not to be that relevant to me.
3. The church/state issue: You have to make a call on where you stand on the separation of church (editorial) and state (advertising/sponsorship). Do you think it's important to have actual physical demarcation between those two kinds of content you write/publish/support? If you do, better do it consistently, because you're setting expectations. (And might I add, it's those reader expectations that the FTC seems most concerned about.)
Here in the social media space, we all get to decide.
We get to decide what kind of publisher we want to be.
We get to decide which partners are the right partners, whose policies you can live with.
We get to decide who is worth keeping in our blog reader, in our twitter feed.
Will PPT Ruin Twitter?
Not my Twitter.
Friday, June 05, 2009
I'm speaking in my own home region this coming week
This Tuesday I'm speaking for the eWomen Network's San Mateo County chapter.
The topic?
Oh, come on now!
Here's the description:
I think it only costs $35 and includes dinner, so if you're interested, I hope you'll come.
They are VERY into networking at these things. Perfect if you're a closet introvert like me who might otherwise stand in the corner.
Come on, you know you want to. (And if you're one of the many Silicon Valley-ites impacted by this recession? You might need to too!)
Will I see you there?
The topic?
Oh, come on now!
Here's the description:
Raise your Voice while Raising your Ability to Connect, Share & Promote yourself through Blogging
Blogging has moved beyond a niche techie tool to a mainstream form of communications for American women. In fact, over half of American women online participate in the blogosphere weekly. What are they doing? They're transforming their own lives, and some of them are changing the world. Blogging can help women raise their voice, raise their profile and raise their expectations. This presentation will explore why and how women are using blogs today and provide specific steps to getting started in the blogging world!
At this powerful event you'll learn:Why you should care about what's going on in the blogosphere and how to capture your audience The basic components of a blog, and exactly how much or how little technical know-how you need to succeed Learn some of the most effective uses of blogging as a professional tool
I think it only costs $35 and includes dinner, so if you're interested, I hope you'll come.
They are VERY into networking at these things. Perfect if you're a closet introvert like me who might otherwise stand in the corner.
Come on, you know you want to. (And if you're one of the many Silicon Valley-ites impacted by this recession? You might need to too!)
Will I see you there?
Labels: eWomen Network, speaking
Sunday, May 31, 2009
NYC, here I come
It's Internet Week in NYC, and I'm there. Completely coincidentally, and without much chance to participate!
OK, the one thing I'll be doing is speaking again at MediaBistro Circus. Really looking forward to talking about new media business models. Couldn't be a more urgent topic for the media industry right now, could there?
I'm not so much looking forward to following the Cirque du Soleil!! Yup, MediaBistro has lined up an act from the Cirque to perform for attendees. And due to their performance schedule, they've got to be slotted in right before the closing panel.
Normally, it would be awesome to close out a conference. But somehow, I'm not thinking coming between the Cirque and the cosing reception is the plum spot...can you say hard act to follow and being a barrier between attendees and their cocktails! Good luck to us, that's all I have to say :)
The rest of the week BlogHer's sales team has my time almost completely booked. I'll be out and about presenting our 2009 Women and Social Media Study in some detail.
I'll also try to fit in meeting up with a few folks to catch up, both industry and friends from my former life living in NY.
Thinking catching a Broadway show might not be in my future this week, which is a real shame, considering the Tony Awards are a week from today.
Boy, how my trips to NYC have changed...from the theatre to the Internet. What a long,strange trip it's been!
OK, the one thing I'll be doing is speaking again at MediaBistro Circus. Really looking forward to talking about new media business models. Couldn't be a more urgent topic for the media industry right now, could there?
I'm not so much looking forward to following the Cirque du Soleil!! Yup, MediaBistro has lined up an act from the Cirque to perform for attendees. And due to their performance schedule, they've got to be slotted in right before the closing panel.
Normally, it would be awesome to close out a conference. But somehow, I'm not thinking coming between the Cirque and the cosing reception is the plum spot...can you say hard act to follow and being a barrier between attendees and their cocktails! Good luck to us, that's all I have to say :)
The rest of the week BlogHer's sales team has my time almost completely booked. I'll be out and about presenting our 2009 Women and Social Media Study in some detail.
I'll also try to fit in meeting up with a few folks to catch up, both industry and friends from my former life living in NY.
Thinking catching a Broadway show might not be in my future this week, which is a real shame, considering the Tony Awards are a week from today.
Boy, how my trips to NYC have changed...from the theatre to the Internet. What a long,strange trip it's been!
Labels: blogher, bloghercon, Internet Week, MediaBistro Circus
