LB's Rambles

The Agencies Don't Get It

There's a report in AdWeek that confirms what I hear over and over again from all sides: agencies - particularly, but not exclusively, ad agencies - simply don't understand social media, don't see the differences between new and traditional media, and are clueless how to use social media properly.

The report cites a new study of marketers done by TNS Media Intelligence/Cymphony, which reaches the conclusion that agencies, by and large, don't get it.

Clients complained that their agencies -- creative, media, public relations, design and others -- typically treat social channels like blogs as traditional media. In other cases, their ideas are not backed up by practical skills in the area. What's more, one client pointed out that his agencies have little of their own experience using social networks or video-sharing sites for themselves.

That's the same sentiment I heard expressed yesterday by the panelists at the NY:MIEG discussion of broadband video. Asked whether producers/distributors were trying to reach ad agencies, the panelists said, in essence, yes but - the "but" being that most agencies still don't get it. They have a different set of priorities, a different media model, and they're having a lot of trouble working out how social media and broadband fit into their revenue models.

I know there are some agencies that are making a strong effort to learn more. Some of the PR agencies I've dealt with, such as Edelman, are really trying to educate their clients. The trouble is, according to this report and the anecdotal evidence I hear daily, the clients are complaining that they are having a problem educating their agencies. I'm not sure there's an easy solution.

No Life for 'Quarterlife'?

Tim Bourquin, creator (among other things) of the influential annual New Media Expo, has some useful thoughts about the dismal showing of the program Quarterlife, which started out as an Internet video series and has tried to move over to NBC television, including:

(a) 4 million viewers (on TV) is a dismal failure, while it would be great on the web?

(b) maybe there's a difference between what folks watch on TV and what they watch on the Internet?

And his key point (italics in the original):

Bottom line: the Internet doesn't HAVE to be a farm league for television.

He's right. Convergence doesn't necessarily mean the same programming on TV and on the web. Some programs are better suited to the formats - and the audiences - on one or the other.

Broadband Video: What Is the Future?

Monetization.

That was the key word at this morning’s meeting of the New York Media Information Exchange Group. When it comes to broadband video, the words “future” and “monetization” appear to be synonymous, at least in the minds of the audience and the panel gathered to discuss the future of video. The real question, though – to which there were no really complete answers – is how to really make that happen.

The moderator was Fred Seibert, co-founder of NextNewNetworks. Also on the panel were Kevin Shively, the EVP of TV Worldwide and Mike Hudack, CEO of blip.tv. The three companies have different approaches towards the overall problem of making money out of broadband video. NextNewNetworks is primarily a content producer, TV Worldwide is concerned with building and reaching specific audiences with shared interests and blip.tv concentrates on providing infrastructure, including ad sales, to content producers.

The loosely-structured discussion answered several questions from the audience, including suggestions for ways that an independent producer can be trying to raise money for a production. Fortunately, as Hudack pointed out, online production costs are significantly lower than they would be for television or cable.

Advertising continues to play a major role, of course. And the question becomes, what kind of video will attract the kind of audiences that advertisers want and need. As Kevin Shively pointed out, it’s not just a question of the quality of the video, but also of the quality of the audience.

No real conclusions were reached, but the lively debate over the future of broadband video continues. The panelists pretty well agreed that there are limits to being able to monetize User Generated Content – how many cat-flushing-the-toilet videos can you watch? – and that the key, as Seibert said, is, “There’s room for cats looking cute and David Letterman in the same video world.”

Shilling for Comcast

The moral of this story, I think, is that it is getting more and more difficult for PR agents to stage stunts designed to put their clients' interests in a better-than-deserved light.

It seems that the FCC held a hearing at Harvard Law School this week on the thorny question of net neutrality. Much to the surprise of the organizer, the room was packed to overflowing - in fact, according to the MediaPost report, an estimated 100 people were turned away from the hearing room.

Turns out that, according to the pro-net-neutrality group Free Press, all those spectators were hired hands - being paid by anti-neutrality Comcast to get into the hearing and hold seats for Comcast employees and supporters, so that they could cheer the testimony of a Comcast executive. Comcast admits the stunt.

OK. Hardly a major criminal undertaking, by any standards. But I suspect it's the kind of thing that we see at, say, large public demonstrations which have been organized by various advocacy groups, which gather members or non-members, some free, some paid, to show up at the demonstrations to cheer on one side or another in a dispute.

The problem, in the minds of Free Press (and, I presume, the groups reporting the event) is the "paid" part - sort of an outrage-for-hire situation, if you will. And, now that it's revealed, something of a black eye for Comcast, which apparently got caught with its hand in the cookie jar.

And that brings us back to the PR geniuses behind this kind of thing. In today's media world, you can stage this kind of event - but you will find it virtually impossible to hide the fact that the event has been staged. The rules have changed. If there's anything to be "caught" at - you will get caught. Welcome to the new, more transparent world of public relations.

Hat tip: MediaPost

Times Are Changing

To follow up on my last post about the woes of the New York Times, I want to take a closer look at what I think is happening there, particularly in terms of the huge negative reaction to their article implying an illicit affair on the part of John McCain.

I really do not want to get drawn into the political argument over what the Times did - although I do think they were wrong to go with such a thinly sourced story. Two excellent media critics and media educators, Jay Rosen (twice) and Jeff Jarvis, have written some very cogent thoughts on that topic. I'd rather focus on at least part of the why involved - and why it should have come as such a surprise to Times editor Bill Keller and other senior Times management that there would be such an enormous negative public reaction.

Leaving the politics out of it, you are left with the overwhelming impression that Bill Keller and the rest of the senior staff at the Times simply do not understand that the nature of the news and information flow has changed forever. (continued below)

Death Watch for the Times?

Marc Andreesen is predicting the death of the New York Times, at least in its print editions. I'm not so sure.

Andreesen is the man who founded Netscape 14 years ago - a company that is about to die officially, having been replaced and outgrown years ago by faster and now bigger competitors. In an interview, and on his blog, he looks at the disastrous financial woes of the Times and its family of publications and institutes a Times Deathwatch "until the last Sulzberger has left the building," a reference to Pinch Sulzberger, the latest (and, some would argue, the least) of the family that has published the Times.

Andreesen argues that the Times should immediately stop the physical production of its newspapers and exist only online, preferably in a social media context. I'm no particular fan of the Times, and I agree with Andreesen and the others who think the company's business model stinks. But, unlike Andreesen, I don't think print newspapers are dead.

I may be on the same shaky ground as someone who predicted a century ago that while automobiles were undoubtedly going to become a major form of transportation, they'd never replace the reliable horse and buggy. But I do think there are - and, more importantly, will continue to be - people who prefer the physical feel of the newspaper, the ability to read it easily on a train or bus (properly folded, of course) or over a breakfast table when they don't want to risk dripping coffee into the keyboard. The Times has to change, of course; there's a good reason why the online version of the paper outdraws the readership of the print edition. But I think it's premature to be setting up a death watch.

It's more than just the newspaper-vs.-online struggle here. The Times still doesn't realize that the whole nature of journalism, the whole flow of information, has changed irrevocably. People no longer regard any one source as THE source of news. That's the struggle that has caught the Times, and only by understanding it and engaging the problem can the Times company survive - whether in print or online.

Death Lights a Candle

I enjoy the classic mysteries of Phoebe Atwood Taylor, featuring Cape Cod detective Asey Mayo. One of the early Taylor novels, "Death Lights a Candle," is the subject of this week's podcast on "Classic Mysteries." It has all the hallmarks of a fine Golden Age mystery - a party cut off from the world by a heavy snowstorm, a seemingly impossible murder, lots of suspects and a good deal of local Cape Cod coloring. You can listen to the episode here - or, of course, you are welcome to paste this link into iTunes or another podcatching program to subscribe.

John Witmer (1935-2008)

You probably never heard his name. Like most of us who have worked behind the scenes in broadcast news, John Witmer's name would rarely reach the public. But for 44 years, Woody (as we knew him) kept people honest at ABC Radio News.

Woody was an editor - all those years, for the same organization - and a damned good editor,too. And he was proud of being an editor - "EDITORS DON'T WRITE," he would bellow, when some newbie might ask him to contribute a paragraph or a page. Whether talking with a newscaster or producer about a lead for the next broadcast, fixing grammatical or, worse, factual errors in the copy, he had a fine eye and a good ear.

He had to be one of the least politically correct people I've ever met - "I'm an equal opportunity bigot; I try to offend everyone," he would say, after come out with a really funny and truly awful joke. And he was a great friend, fiercely loyal to his co-workers, neighbors and co-worshippers at the Plymouth Church of the Pilgrims in Brooklyn.

For me, he was one of the first people I met when I came to ABC, back in the mid-60s. He was a friend and a mentor. I learned a hell of a lot about journalism by working with him - still, I think, the best way for anyone to learn the trade.

He passed away quite suddenly in January. At a memorial service at his church yesterday, he was remembered by a great many people with fondness, affection and good humor. He will be sorely missed by all of us.

It's More Than Service

I have argued repeatedly on this blog that customer service is far more important to your business than advertising. Jeff Jarvis, at BuzzMachine, takes it even further, in a post called "Love the customer that hates you."

Now don’t get mad at these people. Instead, help them get even with you. For these angry customers are doing you a great favor. They care enough about your product or service to tell you exactly what went wrong. Other customers may just desert you and head to the competition. But these customers are telling you what to fix. Listen to them. Help them. Respond to them. Ask their advice – and they’ll give it to you...

Read the whole thing.

Counting the Eyeballs

December turns out to have been a landmark month for online video. According to MediaPost's Research Brief, comScore reports U. S. Internet viewers watched ten billion online videos in December. About a third of those were on "Google sites." That translates into YouTube.

You'd think somebody could figure out a way to make a buck or two from all those views...