Wolf Tracking

This week the news you can’t avoid is the Democratic National Convention in Denver, where Barack Obama and Joe Biden will formally accept their party’s nomination for president.  The arenas they’re speaking in are filled with screaming delegates, but the real momentum behind their campaign is hidden from view: their online supporters.

Howard Dean’s 2004 primary campaign is widely credited with being the first to realize the full potential of the Internet as a political tool, using sites like Meetup.com to gather supporters and raising money through a large number of small donations.  A lot has changed on the Web since that time, but the strategy Dean employed is as relevant as ever.  Barack Obama has used the Internet to raise more money than any candidate in history, and launched his own social network to gather supporters rather than rely on third party sites.

Not that the other social networks have hurt his cause, though.  On Facebook, which first appeared three weeks after Dean screamed, Barack Obama now has over 1.4 million supporters and has used that platform to inform them of local events and stunts like his “be the first to know” VP selection stunt.

In striking contrast to Obama’s online success, John McCain and the Republicans have looked like a band of Luddites.  It doesn’t help that McCain admitted in July that he’s just now “learning to get online” by himself and “never felt the particular need to email.”  A quick look at the numbers is striking:

• Facebook supporters: Obama 1.4 million, McCain 225,000 (and for what it’s worth, I couldn’t even find an official page for George W. Bush)
• Proportion of Obama’s funds raised by online donors: 88 percent
• Proportion of Obama donations that are $200 or less (more likely to be made online): 93 percent (McCain campaign declined to release their figure)
• Unintentional comedy rating of McCain’s video introduction on his official social network McCainspace.com, where he looks uncomfortable even saying “social network”: 97.5 out of 100

This is where you say” “OK, I get it, but the Democrats will always attract the younger voters, and they’re the only ones who use the Internet and social networks.”  Firstly, that’s not completely accurate.  According to Pew, 73 percent of ALL adults use the Internet, including 70 percent of 50-64 year olds which make up a significant voting block.  comScore also found that more than half of all MySpace users are over 35.

Secondly, as we in the PR business well know, the Internet represents the future of media.  With each passing year a larger percentage of the American public is logging on and relying on the Internet for their information, and if the Republicans don’t start evening the playing field quickly (like leapfrogging the Dems on mobile strategy), 2012 will be a tough election for them no matter who’s in the Oval Office.

A few weeks ago my good friend Greg wrote about NBC’s plans to broadcast virtually the entire 2008 Summer Olympics.  His gripe – no one wants to watch each and every event, most of which are sports that seem to only exist during Olympics season.  Instead, consumers just want to see the crème de la crop – those truly special moments in sports history (think 400m relay).

I couldn’t agree with Greg more, but apparently we’re alone.

An estimated 107 million people tuned in to experience at least a few minutes of the Olympics on Sunday (whoa!), 95 percent of whom watched the games on TV.

Impressive as that number may be, the real story here is how the other 5 percent accessed NBC’s video content.

Greg recommended that NBC leverage interactivity and new media to bring this year’s games into the modern day.

While I wouldn’t go as far as to say NBC has pulled out all the tricks (still don’t see much Web 2.0 gadgetry available on NBC’s dedicated Olympics site), they’ve accomplished something amazing: driven millions of people to give new consumption methods, like mobile video, a shot.

Although the number of people accessing Olympic content over mobile devices is relatively small compared to via TV — 494,506 on Sunday – roughly half of these folks have never before accessed video on their phones.

NBC is using the Olympics as a research lab of sorts to track the adoption of new media technology, making the content available online, through video on demand and via cell phones, in addition to traditional TV.

My hope is that NBC’s research reveals what Greg suggested: consumers are ready for interactive experiences that unleash the true potential of broadband.  And just halfway through this year’s games it’s looking good.

Internet privacy is a topic that makes most of us sit up tall and listen. Most people could never imagine having their identity stolen and the repercussions that it can burden you with both financially and socially. But what if targeted advertising is all about making the ads we see online, on the TV and on your mobile phone more bearable and possibly even enjoyable?

eMarketer recently released a report entitled “Behavioral Targeting Attitudes: The Privacy Issue,” which explores the digital ad strategy to collect consumer information and use it to serve up ads that they may find interesting or relevant. This has been the basis for high-profile programs like Facebook’s Social Ads and MySpace’s HyperTargeting, as well as Google’s successful AdSense.

Caroline McCarthy from CNET’s Webware reported that the study suggested that advertisers should ensure that consumers are educated on the fine print of behavioral targeting, and that they’re offered an opt-in choice. But perhaps a more serious issue for the ad industry is accuracy. The TrustE numbers in the survey cited by eMarketer said that only 12.6% of respondents said that more than a quarter of the targeted ads they were delivered were relevant.

It is within these complicated cross-sections that issues ensue. With my liberal attitude toward behavioral targeting and perhaps the frame of mind of “take a little to gain a little” sways my perspective. Please target my behavior – but do it correctly. If I’m searching for a potential vacation in Cancun and Expedia or Priceline want to serve up banner ads, pre-roll mobile video, or even a pop-up page that will perhaps point me in the right direction or save me money than FANtastic. Even if, for instance, I’m one of many people who have not learned their lesson in Google-ing health symptoms and a local doctor’s office, health Web site or pharmaceutical company want to dangle a carrot-like ad in front of me. I say bring it on.

There is nothing more irritating than waiting for an irrelevant-to-my-life advertisement to finish. New York Times, Forbes, Wall Street Journal all make me wait – I could click the box that will allow me to opt out, but then who knows what reporters job I may be costing if I do that (the more reporters, the better for us PR people etc.)

This Wednesday the Senate Commerce Committee will explore the need for stronger online privacy protections in general. Among the issues on the table: whether Internet companies should be expected to make their programs “opt-in” (you’re automatically excluded from a service unless you sign up) or whether “opt-out” (you’re automatically in unless you speak up to say no) is acceptable.

While the committee has no online advertising legislation pending, the hearing could lead to new bills on the matter. The committee will also examine the potential role of agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Federal Communications Commission. Last year, for example, the FTC released a set of proposed self-regulation guidelines for online advertising companies.

Personal preference will be the deciding factor at the end of the day. Most internet and technology company’s business models are based on advertising. As the only industry that continues to grow in this less than impressive economy, advertising will continue to saturate our lives. Some of us say “target away”, while others are ready to watch the movie “Hacker’s” for tips on how to make it stop.

Maybe the FCC and all parties involved in behavioral targeting will discover that the best option is to give us, is any option at all.

Dear NBC,

The Summer Olympics is one of the most interesting events I’ve ever witnessed. I actually attended the 1976 Summer Games in Montreal (Bruce Jenner, Nadia Comenici, Sugar Ray Leonard), and was filled with pride and calories during the 1984 Games in Los Angeles, consuming all of that free McDonald’s after the Eastern Bloc countries and Soviet Union boycotted.

Over the past few Olympiads I feel the games on TV have lost their luster. Or maybe it’s something else.

I loved ABC Sports’ continuity. Jim McKay hosted 12 Olympics. I loved how ABC would sift through the 33 different sports and treat me to the best of the best competition every day, mainly because they only had several hours per day to program the Olympics.

CBS actually paid $50,000 for the first televised Olympics in 1960. Several years later, ABC paid nearly $600,000 for the rights to broadcast the 1964 Innsbruck winter games. Fast forward 24 years to 1988 and you saw ABC pay $309 million for the 1988 Calgary games.

More recently, NBC paid $3.5 billion for three games from 2000 to 2008.

But ABC helped me enjoy the Olympics, and here’s why.

It’s true, there was an 800% jump in coverage hours between 1960 and 1992 (link below) and that rise continues, but who has time to even TiVO an average of 27 hours of Olympic coverage each day during the magical two weeks?

The Solution

Here’s what you should do, very simply: Go back to the old ABC model, focusing on only a few hours of the best coverage each day to “broad”cast. Make the rest of the content available via Pay-per-View over the Web, and make whatever you program — both broadcasts and Web-based narrowcasts — INTERACTIVE.

I’ll watch a 10 second clip of the gold-medal winning syncronized swimming team, but there’s no reason to burn the ever-widening digital broadband pipe with live coverage that only 12 people (on a good day) would watch in its entirety, even if you have the pipe to do it.

Use the extra bandwidth to provide me with the crazy interactive services you’ve been promising since the mid-1990s. Show me the best competitions again, like you did during my youth, but modernize my experience. Add in interactive stats that I can pull down in a separate window on my TV screen. Let me order a pizza automatically while watching the Pizza Hut ad. And PLEASE let me connect with other freaks that enjoy the Steeplechase as much as I do.

Please use the technology that the brilliant engineers have worked so hard to provide you by maximizing your bandwidth (less broadcast is more), using interactivity and putting the Internet to good use (narrowcast to the archery freaks)!

There’s no need to broadcast the preliminary Hungary/Lithuania Badminton match, even if it’s on a cable channel. Nobody’s watching.

Thanks!

Greg

Good source: http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/O/htmlO/olympicsand/olympicsand.htm

Technology gurus, SEO masters and connected consumers united last week in New York for Internet Week: http://www.internetweekny.com/.

Did your heart skip a beat and mouse hurry to the hyperlink? If so, then you don’t need to be introduced or coaxed into understanding why this event, for most, Web 2.0 movers and shakers, is a great thing.

Last year, the Industrial and Technology Assistance Corp., a Manhattan-based nonprofit economic development organization, commissioned a report that found the city employed 165,000 high-tech workers – not to mention the countless PR and marketing folks that support and promote the companies where these high-tech workers are employed.

In response to this report and the common knowledge about the growing Silicon Alley, Internet Week New York was created.

Internet week kicked off on June 3rd at Gracie Mansion, the “home” of Mayor Bloomberg and has been running throughout the week and will end with the Webby Awards on June 10th.

The Internet Week concept was initially organized by the Mayor’s Office of Film, Theater and Broadcasting and the International Academy of Digital Arts & Sciences. It’s taken on a Wikipedia-like concept where anyone can create their own event or meet-up as well as attend any of the parties, roundtables or even yoga classes listed on the Internet Week roster.

One interesting event was hosted by IWantMedia at NYU tackling “The Future of Media” where reporters David Carr-New York Times, Keith Kelly-New York Post, Kenneth Li-Reuters, Johnnie Roberts-Newsweek, Erick Schonfeld-TechCrunch and Michael Wolff-Vanity Fair/New York Magazine discussed how the internet continues to change the way we all consume media.

Jonnie Roberts put it simply when he stated that “blogs are a megaphone for what he does for Newsweek.”

The discussion which can be watched here, covers a range of topics including how new media is impacting almost all businesses, something that marketing and public relations executives have been conveying to CEO’s for the past few years.

So will Web 3.0 be declared when the week-long event is over? Probably not, but this is if nothing else, an excellent effort to keep the internet social, with out having to create a new social network.

Whether you can read HTML or just use the internet to browse celebrity gossip on PerezHilton, check out Internet Week and socialize off-line!

In the ever-changing digital entertainment world, television has turned from a very anti-social activity to being a social community. Television is no longer confined to water cooler conversation, but has evolved to an extended and even worldwide discussion and involvement, through Web tools, such as blogs, forums and fan sites. Viewers can find out what happens on their favorite shows through sites, but can also be influencers for show writers in the storyline process.

It is hard to recall a news story that so obviously revealed the changing face of media as much as the most recent scandal involving Eliot Spitzer. On Monday, within two hours of posting an article connecting New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to a prostitution ring, traffic on the NYTimes.com web site spiked 60 percent higher than at the same time the previous Monday, with mobile traffic nearly doubling during the same time period. As the story began to unfold in the coming days, resulting in Spitzer’s eventual resignation on Wednesday, the Times’ website continued to show signs of strain and slowdowns, as it sluggishly heaved through the traffic of the hungry public who wanted the most up to date information available. And it was perhaps Spitzer himself who recognized how quickly news is spread, proof being that he stood on a podium making apologies for his misjudgment and poor character less than two hours after the news of his involvement in a prostitution ring broke, denial wasn’t even an option.

Besides revealing the well known fact that no one loves a sex scandal quite like a New Yorker, the speed-of-light pace at which the details of Spitzer’s scandal were exposed, prove that in this increasing world of digital connectedness, there really is no hiding from a scandal or the Internet news machine. This may just look like another political and personal failing (Clinton 2.0?) however this news story also revealed some interesting patterns about the way in which the Internet and social networking are changing how a news story plays out in the public, on TV and in the papers, and further proves that now more than ever, the media must aggressively attempt to stay ahead of their tech-savvy public who knows how to retrieve details and information faster and sometimes even better than they do.

It wasn’t only that people were hungry to learn the details of Spitzers’ story, but rather they sought to stake a personal claim in the scandal as well, and there is no easier way to do that than buying domain names. Minutes after an article was posted on New York Times referring to Spitzer as the particular “Client 9” that was named in a criminal complaint filed by prosecutors last week, the client9.com domain name was registered for $10.13, and in addition to this purchase other savvy business minds bought client-9.net, and client-9.com. And it doesn’t stop there. As we found out in the days that followed, it appears that the very break-through in this case itself has been intricately affected by the amount of data exchanged on the Internet through a variety of digital platforms. What led the FBI and the IRS to Spitzer in the first place was a complex electronic virtual paper trail that revealed a large unaccountable movement of cash, corroborated by telephone wiretaps, computer records and other electronic evidence. With this information stored permanently on a variety of servers and databases it really does call into question what other persona digital traces are out there being tracked, and what if any, are the rules of privacy are associated to them—in this case the possible criminality of the act proved privacy wasn’t a concern when retrieving Spitzers’ records.

In an article for Businessweek.com, Hillary Rhodes points out another interesting aspect of this news story, highlighting the changing face of one of the oldest professions in the midst of the wired world. Rhodes writes “the prostitution scandal involving New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer lays bare some of the inner workings of modern day sex work: text messaging to clock in the client, electronic fund transfers, a Web site featuring color photos, prices and rankings” and I would add, an easier more convenient method of payment. As Rhodes goes on to discuss, workers also use high-tech measures to avoid getting caught by the police (wire taps, cameras etc.), and in the case of Spitzer, also use technology to do the catching. And just when you thought the web of technology couldn’t be weaved any more tightly around this case, the infamous “Kristen” whom Spitzer was said to have been with on the night of February 13^th, was revealed to the public via her Myspace page to be a woman named Ashley Alexandra Dupre. The ease of access to this information may cause Myspace devotees to rethink their security settings.

In addition to the New York Times article which splashed the shots of Ashley across any empty space they had available, CNN showed screenshots of the Myspace screenshots, and awkwardly scrolled through Ashley’s page reading her “about me” stating them as a testimonial of her theories on life, and as insight into her psyche. At just about the same time this media bonfire was ablaze, local news crews camped outside her apartment tracking her every digital move saying, “We can tell from her Myspace page that she has signed on this evening.” It is hard to think of another story in recent history whose details unwound so immediately and one that also relied so heavily on a social networking site for a solid evidentiary source. In addition to Ashley’s face gracing the cover of every major newspaper and news program; it appears that her goal to be an R&B artist is now more fully realized than ever. She sells her music on Amie Street, which sets the price of songs based upon how quickly and how much it sells. With her new found fame it appears Ashley’s song is now selling more quickly than Radiohead at 98 cents per download, so even she is cashing in. And if selling songs faster than Thom Yorke is not exciting enough, there are now 13 Facebook groups dedicated solely to Ashley.

Every angle of this news story points to the rapid rate at which information is consumed and exchanged throughout a number of growing digital outlets—from the reveal of initial scandal to the way in which the perpetrator was caught in the first place. Whether it is a story breaking on a popular newspaper website, buying domain names to stake a claim to Internet intellectual property, or cruising Myspace to better understand the psyche behind a scandal, one thing remains clear, new media has made the public life of politicians and breaking news stories even more public and consumable.

Increasingly, the question on most minds is not if a recession is coming but when. Everyday we are confronted with shrill headlines predicting the worst for the economy. So why, as a marketer and public relations professional, am I not quaking in my shoes?

The answer is surprisingly simple: unlike other marketing categories, this downturn should be a boom for public relations. Even in recessionary times, consumers still spend dollars albeit in a more conservative manner. As the dollar becomes more precious, consumers grow increasingly skeptical of traditional advertising messages and are relying on recommendations from fellow consumers.

Companies and their brands must adapt to this shift away from traditional media to succeed. Word of mouth is king. The mass-market economy has been replaced by a “customer economy,” which calls for customer-to-customer communications built on trust. Users are embracing this form of engagement as evidenced by their activities online. According to the Pew Internet & American Life Project Surveys, 27% of Americans share files from their own computers with others online, 30% rate a product, service or person using an online rating system, 34% use the Internet to display photos and 11% use online social or professional networking sites like Facebook or LinkedIn. Traditional media services have revealed their flaws as they struggle to not only connect but remain relevant to consumers.

Public relations firms are best positioned to strategically drive branding. Leadership needs to be taken by firms that understand the universe of communications – across segments and various means of communication – and not solely a buyer-seller directive. Traditional advertising agencies will still be needed but on a smaller-scale basis. In fact, marketers have less confidence in advertising agencies and will turn to other for effective branding. More than three out of four corporate advertisers – 78% to be exact – said they have less confidence today in the effectiveness of TV advertising than they did two years ago, according to a survey released at the Association of National Advertisers TV Ad Forum (March 2006).

In 2006, Nike spent just 33 percent of its $678 million US advertising budget on ads with television networks and other traditional media companies — down from 55 percent 10 years ago, according to Advertising Age. “We’re not in the business of keeping the media companies alive. We’re in the business of connecting with consumers,” said Trevor Edwards, Nike’s corporate vice president for global and category management in an interview with The New York Times.

Today’s consumer is far more sophisticated and even more skeptical of traditional advertising messages. Public relations agencies are well positioned to lead brand strategy in today’s fragmented media environment because they can break through this wall of skepticism. PR has been delivering third credibility since its inception and has taken the lead in applying that knowledge to help brands navigate today’s hyper-syndicated Web environment in order to build lasting and meaningful connections with their core audiences. PR is adept in understanding how to communicate with all types of constituents utilizing alternative channels for building brand image, connecting with audiences effectively, delivering a demonstrable return on investment and driving sales.

Earlier this week, Electronic Arts made a big splash with public announcement of their $2 billion unsolicited offer to buy Take 2 Interactive, publisher of the Grand Theft Auto series, 2K sports franchises, and last year’s critical darling, Bioshock. Take 2 said “no thanks,” EA CEO John Riccitiello invited everyone to read his creepy love letter, and now we’re all just left waiting to see if these two crazy kids can make it work in time for the prom. If you actually have been living under a rock for the last week, Steve Totilo at MTV’s Multiplayer blog has a good digest, and The Wall Street Journal put together a very thorough run-down as soon as the news broke.

I can understand why mainstream media latched onto EA’s offer so readily - it’s a genuinely big story, even though no deal is complete… yet. EA’s a superpower in the industry, and Grand Theft Auto is definitely a super-franchise. Besides, it’s an M&A story with quite a bit of money involved, and every reader can make sense of that, even if they couldn’t pick Super Mario out of a lineup.

There is a downside to all this coverage of the not-quite-deal. It sucked all the air out of the room for the more important news, in my opinion: EA’s Blueprint division announcement. Blueprint shows a commitment to lo-fi, indie-developed games from one of the world’s biggest publishers. Combined with announcements from Nintendo and Microsoft at last week’s Game Developers’ Conference regarding snack-size game delivery channels (WiiWare and Xbox Live Community Games, respectively), low cost games from garage band developers are a bona fide industry trend. Just like every other entertainment medium, user generated video games will be awesome, and the big boys (except Sony) have acknowledged that.

At the end of the day, Grand Theft Auto will deliver mostly the same experience, regardless of what publisher owns Rockstar Studios. And if the House that Madden Built buys 2K, it just means the industry’s best baseball game will get better marketing and those signature EA white cases. Unlike the EA/Take 2 business, Blueprint is really big news that WILL impact gamers immediately.

I’m excited to see what this new batch of developers brings to the table. After all, these guys (and girls) have no reputation to uphold or shareholders to keep satisfied. They can take the risks that big studios can’t, and if genre-busters like Katamari Damacy, Fl0w, and Desktop Tower Defense are any indication, quirky and risky is just what this industry needs.

Last week, I found myself prodding along with a myriad of other proud parents in an attempt to get good shots of my son singing in his school Valentine’s Day play. Slightly frustrated, I paced back and forth, circling the stage to catch the right frame. And guess what? I never got a good shot.

At that moment, I realized that my bright idea to buy a relatively inexpensive digital camera was a pretty dumb one. In fact, I began envisioning all of the other school functions to come – plays, recitals, soccer games, karate tournaments. Becoming even more frustrated by the thought of it, I then turned to my husband and said, “This camera is a piece of crap, it doesn’t work for me, the zoom function is limited and the picture isn’t clear, I need a better camera.”

Needless to say, I’m now on the prowl for a quality camera – one that will enable me to bypass other cute kids and get good shots of mine, whether it’s video or photos. So I’m doing what any other chief memory officer (MOM) would do. I’m spending time perusing product reviews sites to determine which camera will best suit our family’s needs.

According to a stat I found from the Consumer Electronics Association, sales of digital cameras, especially the higher-end SLRs, have skyrocketed and high-resolution cameras with more than six mega-pixels are the fastest-growing segment of the camera industry.

But in all honesty, I’m just looking forward to finding a camera that works for me.