DigitalSpritz

The Depths of Linsanity

2012-02-09T08:28:05-08:00

This is a bit of a follow-on to my post about the Susan G. Komen social media firestorm. Andrew Leonard writes in Salon about how a Harvard-educated, Asian-American point guard named Jeremy Lin has become an online phenomenon in just a single weekend, by playing two great games for the New York Knicks. (Lin is #4 on Google's list of today's hot searches, BTW.) Leonard observes that "the mainstream media now seems to be adapting its coverage of events on the basis of whether something blows up in social media as much as it does from the perceived newsworthiness of the event itself."

The comments on the Salon article are interesting, too. One writer asserts that the movements attributed to social media (the Komen flap, OWS, Arab Spring) have actually achieved nothing; another suggests that, with the Internet, we are quickly arriving at a hive-mind state.

For me, there is a single, resounding point in all this: know thy audience. If you don't understand the digital media consumption habits of your constituency - whether you're addressing consumers, businesses, or the media itself - you're SOL.

With Lin, the NBA now has an opportunity to bring two audiences into the fold: 1) Asian-American kids who'd like their very own role model in the sport, and 2) the Chinese market, which shed some of its enthusiasm when Yao Ming retired. We'll see if the league fans the flames of "Linsanity" into something sustainable.

As for Komen, so far the organization shows few signs of having arrived at an effective, transparent social media strategy, so that tale is still being told. Stay tuned.

Jeremy Lin photo from Wikipedia.

Time Shifting the Super Bowl

2012-02-03T14:33:35-08:00

Now, I will freely cop to the fact that when it comes to sports fandom, my heart belongs to basketball and tennis. This is partially a reflection of time spent at my glorious alma mater, where football is kind of an afterthought. And there's also my status as parent to a thoroughly-Angeleno daughter, who shares my affection for shirtless Rafa's, and who'd rather spend Sunday at the flea market than watch a footballl game.

Don't get me wrong: I like football. But when it comes to the Big Dance, I will 'fess up -- I'm in it for the commercials.

The Super Bowl is still two days away, and I've already seen 1) The Honda "Ferris Bueller" commercial (extended edition), 2) the Elton John Pepsi commercial, 3) the Budweiser hockey commercial, 4) the Pepsi Max commercial with Regis Philbin, 5) practically everything else set to air.

With all these commercials available online, I'm going to ask the obvious question: Why pay $3.5M for a 30-second Super Bowl spot? Is it worth it?

Well, yes. But that may not remain true, unless more brands follow the footsteps of a curent crop of innovators, who are using the confluence of online video and TV broadcasting to their advantage. The goal: To extend the reach of those $116,6667 per-second broadcast investments with the free carriage provided by online media, and to provide a reason to actually watch a commercial during the game itself.

Doritos, of course, jumped on the online video bandwagon a while ago with its annual "Crash the Super Bowl" contest that invites consumer-generated ad submissions. The contest has proved so popular that this year Doritos upped the ante, adding Andy Samberg's Lonely Island crew to the mix. The winner of the contest will not only receive $1M, but he/she will have the opportunity work with Lonely Island on a commercial project. Excellent reason to look forward to the debut of the winning spot during the game.

Coke has brought back their popular winter icons, the Coke polar bears, and has created a couple of commercials for possible airing. The circumstances of the game will determine which commercial is actually shown. The ads will also be paired with an online stream at CokePolarBearBowl.com, which will show the bears in team colors reacting to the game.

Volkswagen released online video teaser ad "The Bark Side" - featuring dogs barking out the Darth Vader theme from Star Wars - which has racked up more than 11M views on YouTube, and which provides a link to Volkswagen's actual game-day ad ("The Dog Strikes Back").

Mobile app Shazam has also jumped into the fray, enabling nearly half the commercials to be aired during the broadcast to be "Shazam'd" for interactive features and special offers. [You actually don't have to wait until the game - I tested the app on the Teleflora commercial today, and handily received a coupon code for a "Secret Shazam Special." Who needs some flowers?]

Has it really been only a year since Audi became the first brand to use a hashtag in a Super Bowl ad?

For those who want to vote on ads, there are two other spots to participate in addition to USA Today's annual Ad Meter -- Mullen and Radian6's Brand Bowl 2012, and YouTube's AdBlitz.

Image from the San Francisco Chronicle

Pink, Inc: Komen's Social Media Bomb (And How It's Gonna Get Worse for Them)

2012-02-02T10:03:23-08:00

2012 is barely four weeks old, and we've already seen social media kill SOPA/PIPA, inspire the launch of an investigation into U.S. military behavior in Afghanistan, create - and then destroy - a Presidential candidacy, and predict tonight's Grammy winners (guess we'll see how that one worked out in the morning). This follows Occupy Wall Street, the Penn State scandal, the near-demise of Netflix, the creation - then destruction - of Herman Cain's Presidential candidacy, and, of course, the grandaddy of all social media-driven movements, 2011's "Arab Spring."

You'd think people would know better.

Nonetheless, the Susan G. Komen Foundation displayed a breathtaking lack of understanding of the power of social media this week, when they announced that they had pulled funding from Planned Parenthood, as part of a newly-enacted policy of not funding organizations that are "under investigation."

The keyboard sleuths immediately went to work. The facts they uncovered: 1) The inciting "investigation" against Planned Parenthood was launched by a Republican congressman (Cliff Stearns, R-FL) under pressure from anti-abortion lobbies; 2) Komen recently hired Karen Handel as SVP of public policy, and Handel's resume is stuffed with conservative activity, including clearly stated opposition to abortion; 3) Komen's leadership has long-standing ties to the Bush Administration; and 4) Komen's top-ranking health official, Mollie Williams, resigned in protest of the decision.

None of this, of course, is a clear indicator that the decision was related to Planned Parenthood's support for abortion.

But then, the aforementioned Handel retweeted this on Twitter:

The tweet was deleted shortly thereafter, but the game was afoot - and Komen has totally lost control.

What Komen failed to note is that the group most likely to be afflicted with breast cancer -- affluent women -- is also the group most likely to support Planned Parenthood. The same group is also among the heaviest users of social media in the country. Komen not only antagonized their biggest base, but added fuel to the fire by failing to include social media in their communications strategy right from the beginning. My own Facebook feed is going wild, and absolutely none of it is positive for Komen. (My favorite story: Daily Kos asks "Why doesn't Komen sever ties with Bank of America?")

Here's how it's about the get worse: Tomorrow, in Canada, marks the in-theater release of Pink Ribbons, Inc, a documentary that has been hailed as an eye-opening examination of breast cancer fundraising. Komen is squarely in its sights.

First Run Features has the US distribution rights for the movie. Who'd like to bet that everyone in First Run's offices is on the phone today, reworking the release schedule and hurrying the pic into theaters ASAP? (Actually, Netflix or Amazon - you should jump right on this one ... are you awake?). First Run is also an indie distributor and - you got it - indie film lovers are huge movers and shakers in social media.

Komen has already come under fire as an organization more focused on fundraising than an actual cure, despite their significant body of work. They need a rescue, and fast.

Some suggestions:

1) Redefine - and publicize - their mission. Separate breast cancer from other issues. Don't conflate women's health with political footballs. Women don't like it, and they control the purse strings, as well as elect public officials.

2) Sorry, but Ms. Handel should probably go. She's now a liability, despite the fact that she may be a very effective lobbyist. She can be just as effective as a contractor, rather than a staff member.

3) Publicly state that Komen is undertaking a comprehensive, transparent review of ALL their partnerships, both non-profit and commercial. Then actually do it.

4) Create forums for discussion on this issue, and participate like crazy. (Note: I just checked, and Komen's last comment in their Twitter feed was 14 hours ago.) A Google+ Hangout, a Facebook chat, a telephone hotline for leaving messages, even Nancy Brinker appearances on call-in shows ... anything to allow supporters to express their feelings before they become former supporters.

5) Be prepared for a groundswell around Pink Ribbons, Inc. and have a publicly-stated point of view about the movie, preferably one that supports transparency and the constant re-examination of how an organization can best support its stated mission.

Komen carries a lot of weight among women. Otherwise, there would be no furor. Openness, a bit of a mea culpa, and clear presence in social media could go far to help defuse this issue. Otherwise, we could be listing Komen along with Newt and SOPA on the list of things taken down by the power of Interwebs at the end of 2012. I, for one, would prefer to see Komen survive.

Renaming the Kodak Theater

2012-02-01T12:42:05-08:00

To me, no greater development has highlighted the new world order in the entertainment business than Kodak's blockbuster news today: The company has asked to be released from the agreement that placed its name on the iconic theater where the Academy Awards are presented.

If you've ever been in the theater, you also know that there's a small room - the George Eastman Room - dedicated to the technical advances in filmmaking that were driven by Kodak, which as a company, has received nine Academy Awards.

Those days are over. But what's not clear is who's up next. In a universe where the creator of a computer company became the largest shareholder in the world's most iconic movie studio, it's apparent that the next power player in Hollywood may just be based in the Valley - and by that, I mean Silicon Valley.

So ... with that in mind, let's vote on some new names for the Theater-Formerly-Known-As-Kodak. If you don't see one you like here, put your nomination in the comments.

Online poll from GoPollGo

Apple's iBook Textbooks - Finally.

2012-01-19T08:27:24-08:00

My daughter is a junior in high school. She takes seven classes, the maximum her school will allow. I believe she weighs 115 lbs. Some days I think her backpack weighs 112 lbs. Not to mention the fact that, on many days, she also lugs her laptop to school in a separate bag.

Why has this taken so long?

The obvious answer is that there is a lot of friction when it comes to change in our education systems. My first gig in consumer technology was to market Brøderbund's vaunted software products to educational users. While individual teachers were often enthusiastic adopters, their hands were just as often tied by bureaucracy and institutionalized SOP's. The effect is magnified when it comes to something as basic as textbooks. (I am proud to say that my fabulous alma mater, Duke University, has been using iTunes U - which is also getting an update today - for some time.)

Apple's step today is a rather small one on the surface -- high school texts only, and only eight books in total at present -- but as we all know, small steps at Apple tend to have giant reverberations in the marketplace. Steve Jobs regarded this as "The Next Big Thing," and there is little doubt that he was right on the money.

Of course, the revolution will not be confined to iPads. And eventually, it will not be confined to affluent kids whose parents can afford tablets. If you need convincing, take a look at One Laptop Per Child's tablet initiative, which is producing a Marvell-backed tablet capable of running Android, Windows Mobile and Ubuntu, which also operates as a WiFi hotspot, and which is expected to cost $75 per unit.

Personally, I'm looking forward to living in a portably literate world. I hope JanSport is taking a look at some new markets, as those ever-present college-campus backpacks may soon become a thing of the past.

(Image from Gizmodo.)

SOPA Killed My Website ... Four Years Ago.

2012-01-18T10:13:04-08:00

A Case Study for Innovation Aided by Less-Stringent Legislation

I was one of the early management team members for one of the first online video websites, called Revver. The name tends to bring up pleasant memories for many early video creators, as Revver was the first site to actually pay artists, by attaching ads to videos as they were distributed through across the Interwebs, and then sharing the revenue with the video creators.

For a time, Revver was flying high. We had some notable success stories: The Diet Coke and Mentos Guys, LonelyGirl15, ZeFrank, Ask a Ninja, French Maid TV. But YouTube quickly overtook us, and then with their Google war chest, dominated us.

Why? Because Revver didn’t allow copyright infringement and YouTube, the company that broke through with a pirated “Lazy Sunday” clip, did.

We scanned every single video that was uploaded to Revver, using a combination of technology and human eyes. We built software tools to simplify the review process, and employed a team of people called “Video Patrol,” who worked 24/7. There were some benefits in this process: We were able to quickly tag and curate videos around content categories, and to straighten up the more egregious issues associated with fraudulent, opportunistic user tagging (“Britney Spears” attached to generic shots of wiggly women was a favorite). This, BTW, is generally considered to be the recommended SOP if SOPA is enacted. The obvious problem is that it’s not scaleable.

Revver was also very vocal about our defense of copyright, becoming a standard-bearer in an exploding market that had the feeling of the wild west, with the potential for a gusher of oil if you staked out the right territory. We were applauded by the studios. But we found it difficult to make deals with anyone of any size.

Why? Because Revver’s audience wasn’t big enough. We posted more than 5 million unique visitors per month, but YouTube, with its softer standards, was posting four times that many. Guess who got the deals?

But here’s the thing: YouTube recognized that they needed to clean up their act a bit to keep their potential partners happy. Revver realized that we were outgunned. So, we helped YouTube build out and test the advertising technology that eventually became the standard for their site. And they developed their “Partners Program” to revenue-share with legitimate artists, creating an ecosystem that is now poised to compete with more traditional entertainment development and distribution channels. (Don’t believe me? What’s Hulu up to these days?)

Granted, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act with its safe harbors helped goad YouTube into action, but it also provided a mechanism for dealing with copyright violations that didn’t require a wholesale blackout of the host site. DMCA wasn’t generally regarded as good legislation at the time, but after some clarification through legal action, it was effective enough to provide enough stability to allow the market to evolve on terms that have been reasonably acceptable for both Hollywood and Silicon Valley.

My point? Legislation may have been part of the motivation, but innovation generated the solution.

No one running a major online business today would argue that content creators shouldn’t be paid for their work. After all, Silicon Valley and Hollywood are now melded in ways no one thought possible (well, maybe Steve Jobs did) even five years ago. SOPA is clearly targeted to take down less-than-legitimate operations. But it also, unfortunately, doesn’t appear to leave much room for legitimate partners to rectify problems.

The current situation is not perfect. But it’s somewhat workable. And with the creativity inherent in the California valleys, both foggy and smoggy, it might be more effective to legislate softly and carry a big technology stick.

Or, to torture another metaphor: we’re now in a marriage in a community property state. Even if one side wins, at most they’ll only get half the spoils, so it might be better just to work things out without getting all the lawyers and judges involved.

The Real "Plus" of Google+

2012-01-11T14:11:05-08:00

Facebook? Twitter? No, with G+, Google is targeting … wait for it ... wait for it ...

Microsoft. By making social sharing via the cloud the defacto path for everything, including business.

Google’s introduction of Google+ into search results set Twitter all, well, a-twitter yesterday. And while Facebook has yet to show its, er, face on the issue, the pundits populating the blogiverse seem to think that this is merely the next step in Google’s plan to master the social networking environment.

Except this pundit begs to differ.

A competitive footprint in social networking would seem a worthy goal. Analyses conducted by some very smart folks have put the near-term value of the social networking market anywhere between $5B and $27B, depending on how you measure things. Deloitte goes a step further to predict that fully one-half of the world’s wired community – a cool 1B people – will be members of social networks in the very near future. And while social network advertising revenues currently suffer from some weaknesses relative to traditional media, the opportunity presented by cracking the code on social search is sizeable – an opportunity that Google is very well-positioned to take advantage of. This, of course, is the source of Twitter’s very public angst, economically expressed in 140 characters (or less).

But let’s take a look at the market for cloud-based productivity applications. It’s already a very nice $13B, with huge room for expansion given that current market penetration is low – unlike pure social networking, cloud-based productivity tools users number in the tens of millions, not billions. Google has established a robust presence in this area with Google Apps, as well as its online productivity tools. And guess what? Both are already integrated with G+, and activity is reported and available for action via Gmail. As well as accessible from your Android mobile device.

Google’s second – and ultimately perhaps more important – announcement in the past two days attracted relatively little attention: G+ updated Hangouts, adding screen-sharing to its list of features. Microsoft-owned Skype also offers screen-sharing, but only on 1-to-1 calls, unless you have a Premium Skype account, which costs money. Hangouts is free. And with past participants like the Dalai Lama, it’s also very sexy.

In short, with G+, Google has laid the groundwork for group communications and information-sharing in a well-integrated, low-cost-to-the-user framework that doesn’t require a bunch of expensive IT guys and an Exchange server. It also just happens to be a framework that you can also use to share pictures with Grandma or debate 4K vs 3DTV's with Robert Scoble.

In June, USA Today reported that the launch of G+ had added $45B to Google’s market cap – nearly twice the value of the highest estimate for the entire social networking market quoted above. Does anyone really think that taking on Facebook is the reason for this huge leap? IMHO, the game’s afoot. And the winner will do more than help you share lewd jokes with your college friends – it will also help you design a breakthrough drug protocol with your coworkers in Duluth and New Delhi, or hold your annual earnings call with analysts via Hangouts. Dalai Lama optional.

The Day Twitter Broke the News: Update

2011-05-02T05:14:59-07:00

NPR reports that an Abbottabad resident live-blogged the whole event via Twitter, not knowing what was happening: http://n.pr/iMy4qd A new form of public record.

The Day Twitter Broke the News: Bin Laden's Death

2011-05-01T21:42:29-07:00

This month's issue of Fortune carries a cover story on shenanigans at Twitter -- claiming rotating executives, Board power struggles, and a flattening growth in users. Those things may be true, but they're irrelevant, as tonight's events have proved. Because, once again, the big news was not broken by traditional media outlets in traditional broadcast mediums -- it was broken by Twitter.

The New York Times has published the details: A tweet from the White House communications director set off a firestorm of speculation online, which was eventually confirmed by Keith Urbahn, Donald Rumsfeld's former chief of staff, also on Twitter. The news kicked off what, for me, became the latest iteration of the multi-screen media experience: Cable news (in my case, CNN), augmented by Seesmic desktop loaded up with Twitter and Facebook feeds, and text messages on my iPhone. The resulting stream of details, analysis and humor more than made up for the fact that CNN's commentators were forced to blather on to fill up airtime until the President finally appeared to make his masterful formal statement. (AAMOF, I put the TV on mute while I was waiting; Twitter was infinitely more interesting.)

After the President appeared and gave his statement (which no doubt will be the leading video on both broadcast and online outlets for the next 24 hours), I got word that there was already a Facebook page called "Bin Laden is Dead" with 120,000 "likes."

My point: In just a few short years, we are no longer able to imagine a world without Twitter, smartphones and Facebook. They've become our collective unconscious, and our conscience, capable of alerting the world almost instantaneously to events both big and small, and in their power, also forcing corrective behavior. Particularly with Twitter, it's becoming harder for the bad guys to get away with stuff. It's become so ingrained that, even if Twitter in particular fails, some other service will rise in its place, uniting us in a world-wide network of instant information.

By the way, kudos to the White House communications team for continuing to beautifully manage news in the age of fluid information. I may have to tweet about that.

Content Curation: The Big Boulder in the Digital River

2011-04-26T16:36:23-07:00

Big news in the entertainment world last night: YouTube (Google) is finally entering the world of video-on-demand (VOD) in a competitive way. “Competitive” means by offering contemporary movies near their DVD release dates, rather than only catalog titles, which have actually been available on YouTube via an innovative variable pricing model for some time. Now YouTube has apparently inked a deal with several major and independent studios to offer movies for download about the same time the DVD’s hit retail.

However, none of this news is official, and the deal is apparently incomplete, as rumor has it that Paramount, Disney and Fox are currently holdouts. The reason? Well, there are two: 1) Google continues to point traffic towards and provide advertising services for sites that practice piracy, and 2) Viacom (Paramount’s parent company) has been locked in a lawsuit with YouTube over copyright infringement for several years.

All of this is the result of fundamental mistrust centered on one principle: content curation. For those who may have forgotten recent history, YouTube sprang to prominence on the back of a single piece of content – Lazy Sunday – that was recorded from a broadcast of NBC’s Saturday Night Live, setting the stage for the explosive growth that followed, much of it driven by what traditional media considers illegally-uploaded entertainment. However, non-traditional media doesn’t see it that way: digital presents an unparalleled opportunity that should be mined. If the situation doesn’t fit old paradigms, bend the paradigms. Hence, YouTube applies advertising against content that belongs to studios and shares the revenue, and Google supplies services to sites that promote piracy.

However, the world has evolved, and traditional media practitioners are now skilled at serving their content over the internet and via mobile devices – often leaving Google and YouTube out of the equation. The problem has evolved from one of content deficit to what Seth Godin calls attention deficit -- someone needs to aggregate all this content and point people to the good stuff. YouTube, with its audience and bandwidth, bolstered by Google’s traffic skills and deep pockets, is well-positioned to perform this role, and is ready to a bend a few of its own paradigms to do so. However, the friction remains: Can studios come to believe that the online network famous for cat videos and bootlegged TV show clips will evolve into a premiere VOD destination? And can YouTube honor the concerns of its studio partners without blowing apart its own ecosystem, which is built on the philosophy of wholly independent media?