LB's Rambles

"We Interrupt These Commercials for a Commercial..."

Welcome to Firebrand, a new "online and mobile platform featuring the 'coolest' commercials." Yes, we are now being given the opportunity to watch all ads all the time (or mostly so). Microsoft and NBC Universal are said to be among the backers, so somebody grown-up must be making these decisions, right?

I'm torn. I'll admit that there are a lot of commercials out there that are much better and more entertaining than the rest of the garbage on television, but then I'll generally take reading the back pages of my local phone directory over watching most TV.

On the other hand, I think I have to side with MediaPost's George Simpson, who observes the fast-forwarding, muting and general ignoring of ads that take place in living rooms across the country every day, and wonders exactly what is going to cause people who go so far out of their way to avoid commercials to suddenly tune in to a channel devoted exclusively to presenting them with wall-to-wall ads.

Great idea, if it flies. But I'm not sure this beast has wings.

Dimming the "Beacon"

Facebook has seen the light - not necessarily from its Beacon. That's the program which allowed Facebook to pass on information about your online destinations and interests to advertisers unless you opted out of the program. It received a lot of complaints - and some went so far as to threaten legislative action.

Now, it appears, Facebook has changed the system to what it should have been in the first place: an opt-in, not opt-out opportunity.

Look, I have no problem with anyone who wants to invite targeted ads. I think I've made that position clear here in the past. But it has to be a decision made by the user/consumer - not the advertiser or the website - whether to allow that kind of advertising. It's as simple as opt-in vs. opt-out. Don't take me for granted - ask me.

Gastroanomalies...

...is the name of the latest book by James Lileks. I got my copy about a week ago, but I've only read a chapter or so. The problem is: it's funny. So funny that you wind up laughing uncontrollably until it hurts. And when you're riding on a commuter train, that tends to make people sort of move away from you. While that may be useful for getting and keeping a seat, it can be a problem when the conductor starts talking quietly into his radio while staring at you. That's even more true on planes these days. So I'm kind of limited as to where I can read it.

But maybe you can contain yourself better. See, it's a sequel to his earlier book, "The Gallery of Regrettable Food." Like that one, it contains real recipes from period cookbooks (mostly the 1930s through, say the 1960s, I believe) which pretty much leave you wondering, "What were they thinking?" One chapter is "The Wonderful World of Aspics." And then there's "How to Drive Off Your Husband with Lousy Cooking." As the book's blurb notes, "Recipes involving ingredients like ground meat, bananas and cottage cheese sound innocent enough - unless you mix them all together in a strage attempt to cover every food group at once."

You get the idea, I hope. Now get the book. Just don't read it too much in public or be prepared for the reactions...

Politics, the Campaign and the Media

Normally, I avoid politics on this blog - it is, after all, supposed to be primarily about communications. But, with less than a year to go now until the 2008 election, I can't help but wonder occasionally if there is any substance to any of the candidates from either party, or if the "spin doctors" and PR practitioners are in complete control. Certainly, if I rely on newspaper headlines and TV "debates," I don't really feel I'm learning much about the candidates and their positions.

Apparently, I'm not alone - and I don't know if that relieves me or depresses me. According to Editor & Publisher, a majority of the American public doesn't trust campaign coverage. An astounding 88% believe that campaign coverage focuses on trivial issues. As a citizen (not to mention a former journalist and PR practitioner myself), that disturbs the hell out of me. Take a look at the poll - there's remarkably little there to provide any comfort.

(Hat tip: ShopTalk)

Investor Spam

I am particularly ill-disposed towards incoming fax spam that wastes my supplies and ties up my fax phone line. But I am most annoyed by the type which purports to tout some over-the-counter (under the back door is more like it) stock. A read of the fine print at the bottom of this poorly written, stupidly conceived drek - which requires a magnifying glass - usually reveals that the pusher is "not a registered investment advisor or a broker-dealer" and has been paid a six-figure sum to force this crap down our throats.

I have to wonder: is there anybody dumb enough to get one of these faxes about a never-before-heard-of company and run right out to invest in it? I guess there must be, or these fly-by-night promoters wouldn't be doing it. Caveat emptor, and all that. But if there IS anyone that dumb, and they happen to be reading this, please get in touch with me and I'll give you my address to send me all your cash. Don't delay; tomorrow may be too late. And I promise you'll get my secret for making money. (HINT: it involves getting idiots to run out and send me their money.)

Bah.

Help [Not] Wanted

In what sounds like a really bad PR move, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Circuit City wants to rehire some of the workers it fired for being too expensive.

According to the Bulldog Reporter's version of the story, Circuit City laid off 3,400 workers earlier this year and replaced them with people willing to work for less money. Nothing wrong with their work, you understand - Circuit City made a point of saying so - they were just too expensive. Just a basic business decision. Too bad. Bye.

Now, Circuit City has discovered it needs some of those workers after all, and it has sent them letters inviting them to re-apply for new jobs with the company.

Circuit City, of course, has a perfect right to seek cheaper labor. If it chooses to give experienced workers the back of its corporate hand, that's fine. But they then expect those workers to come back?

If I were one of the workers involved, I'd tell Circuit City exactly where they could put their job offer to the best advantage. Sideways.

As I say, the company has the right to behave that way. However, as a customer, I have the right to show them exactly the same amount of loyalty and respect they show their workers. Best Buy, here I come.

Why Be Anti-Social?

Over at the Bulldog Reporter, Paul Gillin has a commentary on "Five Stupid Reasons to Avoid Social Media." His list of dumb ideas, while not exhaustive, manages to cover a lot of the same points I've been making here and endorsing elsewhere. I agree with him completely: social media has changed, and will continue to change, the nature of all kinds of marketing, and marketers ignore it or refuse to acknowledge it at their peril.

To the reluctant PR person - for whatever reason - Gillin has a simple question: "If you agree with the many thought leaders who say that conversations are the future of marketing, then why would you not want to lead that charge? The most important people in any business are those who own the relationship with customers." Fair question. Given the estimate that consumers are estimated to have 3.5 billion brand conversations a day, it becomes pretty critical for a company to be a part of those conversations.

Check out Gillin's article. The arguments he hears, unfortunately, are the same ones many of us hear every day from reluctant PR and advertising and corporate communications people. His answers deserve to have a wider audience.

The Mystery of Harry Potter

I was looking through a newsletter from the Mystery Bookstore in Los Angeles when I noticed an entry that seemed a bit odd. Members of the staff were listing their favorite mysteries for 2007 - and one listed Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the seventh and last volume in the wildly popular series. Harry Potter as a mystery?

As a communicator, I have to say that it's not as far-fetched an idea as it might seem at first glance. When taken as a whole, the series is indeed centered around a mystery: why did the baby Harry survive a killing curse from Lord Voldemort (with repercussions powerful enough to nearly destroy Voldemort)? What really happened that night at the Potter house? Beyond that mystery, of course, there are a huge number of sub-plots and plot twists - enough to make us re-evaluate some of the central characters many times over before we discover their true roles in the drama.

So, yes, in that sense, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows could be considered as a long, suspenseful and ultimately satisfying mystery novel. I thought it was a particularly well-written finale to the series, with  central intrigues and overall plot resolution that were dazzling. Good thinking, Mystery Bookstore - it's on my list as well, for certain! I'd be interested in any other reader reactions.

The Thin Man

Dashiell Hammett's classic, "The Thin Man," is our book this week on our "Classic Mysteries" podcast. I suspect I'm not alone in remembering those great "Thin Man" movies of the 1930s and 1940s, starring William Powell and Myrna Loy as Nick and Nora Charles. (All right, all right, I'm not that old either, but they were certainly featured on late-night TV while I was growing up.) While there were several movies, Hammett really only wrote one mystery featuring Nick and Nora - and, in fact, it was the last mystery novel he wrote. There are murders, an elusive suspect disappears, enormous quantities of prohibition booze are consumed, and the dialogue is as witty as we all remember it. A full review, as always, may be found on the podcast, linked from the list on your right.

SnappedUp LinkedIn?

As I've mentioned before, I remain a fan of, and active user of, LinkedIn. While I've joined friends who are now on Facebook, I find that LinkedIn seems more focussed for my needs/desires. I maintain my position, despite the occasional scorn of my Facebook friends.

Well, maybe I'm not alone. There's a report from Britain's TechCrunch that predicts a possible Rupert Murdoch/NewsCorp takeover of LinkedIn early next year. It's only a rumor at this point, although the author, Mike Butcher, says it's a well-sourced rumor. But, as Butcher points out, it seems to make sense:

LinkedIn is firmly in the mainstream. Most of its users are mature professionals and it has a healthy number of early adopters. These people are gradually abandoning recruitment advertising in newspapers. Instead they use LinkedIn and sites like it - even, increasingly, Facebook - to build their professional network and advance their careers. In particular, LinkedIn appeals to the top of the professional market because older business people have a tougher time seeing the value of Facebook’s wackiness. News Corporation, headed by the shrewd Rupert Murdoch, owns some of the premier advertising properties aimed at top-tier professionals including The Wall Street Journal and (in the UK) The Times and The Sunday Times. (Murdoch was smart enough to buy MySpace when it was ‘just’ $580m in 2005, long before the billions associated with Facebook).

We're seeing this happen time and again, as the wiser heads in old-school media look to ways to expand their influence and success. That's why a Murdoch deal for LinkedIn wouldn't surprise me.

Hat tip: MediaPost