The Digital Socialite

Socialite Thoughts for 02-13-07

"We all die. The goal isn't to live forever, the goal is to create something that will."
- Chuck Palahniuk

Socialite Thought for 2007-02-09

I know of no more encouraging fact than the unquestionable ability of man to elevate his life by conscious endeavor. -- Thoreau

 

Socialite Thought for 2007-02-07

"Maybe all we can hope to do is to end up with the right regrets."
- Arthur Miller

Quote 'borrowed' from WouldaCouldaShoulda, a great blog on all things 'Mommy' and far, far beyond.

Long Tail or Vert Ramp?

Spend three minutes and read this great Wall Street Journal article on blogging.  Succinct and categorized: just the way we like articles. 

What's interesting to note is the way major publications feel about blogging and social media: love 'em one moment, hate 'em the next.  Can't live with you, can't live without you.  Don't want to...well, you get the idea. 

Let's take stock of some stories of the past half-year (using the Wall Street Journal in this example):

July 24, 2006 - The Wall Street Journal partners with Technorati to use Technorati's data to scoop the most blogged stories. 

December 20, 2006 - Joseph Rago, an assistant editorial features editor at the WSJ, published an opinion piece that calls bloggers insignificant.  Joseph charges that, "blogs are not as significant as their self-endeared curators would like to think...they ride along with the MSM like remora fish on the bellies of sharks, picking at the scraps."  He continues, "Nobody wants to be an imbecile...People also like validation of what they believe; the Internet, like all free markets, has a way of gratifying the mediocrity of the masses."  Read it for yourself.  Undoubtedly, a thought-provoking opinion.   

February 6, 2007 - The Wall Street Journal Online runs the aforelinked article on blogging for websites.  It features celebrity blogger Perez Hilton (warning: material is caustic, borderline NSFW, and addicting), real name Mario Lavandeira, who consistently outscoops major publications such as People and US.  Perhaps Mr. Rago would like to read this piece from his own publication because Mr. Lavandeira is definitely not "picking up the scraps." 

As piecemeal as this is, the takeaway point is this: as an integral part of media, blogging can't be ignored.  Is it time to assume that some long-tail residents are moving on up the vert ramp? 

I think so.

-Johnny

Note: Personally, I love what CNET is doing.  CNET requires that its blogging journalists respond to all reader comments and questions.  Although there are many critical unknowns in this mandate, it nonetheless sets the correct precedent for how publications should talk with its readers.  The Washington Post also deserves kudos for serving as a model for publications as they cautiously enter the digital age. 

Socialite Thought for 2007-02-05

"One's destination is never a place
but rather a new way
of looking at things."
- Henry Miller

A modern marriage, I suppose...

Two stories broke this week that represent the microcosm of the marriage between online video sites and traditional media companies (i.e. interdependence on one hand, tension on the other):

1. Viacom is demanding that YouTube remove more than 100,000 clips from the video-sharing site.  (Source: the Los Angeles Times.  Registration required to view article)

2. LisaNova, of YouTube fame, scored a TV contract with the sketch show MADtv.  (Source: Pete Cashmore and his always awesome blog, Mashable)

Two burning questions:

1. YouTube vs. Viacom.  Which brand would be strong enough to do without the other? 
2. When will YouTube stop being for the fringe and start becoming part of the mainstream? 

My take on both issues:

1. If I had to choose a winner (in other words, amicable negotiations be damned), I posit that YouTube's brand has more leverage than Viacom may think.  Although the YouTube audience is a fraction of the total TV audience, it still represents a highly influential bunch.  Heck, the cost of high-speed internet connection alone qualifies its users above low-income households.  And aside from the purchase power this audience yields, its influence power over products trends and purchase behavior is more telling. 

The LA Times piece poses the question, "substitution or promotion?"  Within the next year, I say the question for companies like Viacom will be "simply promotion or an absolute necessity?"  As much as YouTube's draw rests on its immense cadre of content, it might now wield enough power (via partnerships and oh yeah, a little thing called Google) to overcome the deficit of Viacom's content (even though Viacom's "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report" represent huge draws on YouTube).  And although the aforementioned programs have a loyal fan base and online channels are undoubtedly maturing, Viacom limiting a major channel of its online distribution will hinder its growth path. 

On another note, this situation is a classic case of "biting the hand that feeds you."  When it's promoting your product, you're okay with it?  But when the property matures, you all of the sudden want to take control of the traffic and think you own the consumer?  Um, no.  *steps off soap box*

2. Fred Wilson at A VC ran a quick calculation for Lisa Donovan (aka Lisa Nova) that suggests that Lisa could make pretty good money staying on YouTube.  Assuming a $15 CPM and assuming that YouTube takes only 33% of total ad revenue, Lisa would have made approximately $84,000 a year.  And this was last September.  Pre-Google, pre-spike in traffic, pre-new audience acquisition.  Which I safely assume would jack that $84K/yr to upwards of $90K/yr (conservatively).

The most intriguing point that Fred makes is when will the web stop being the minor leagues?  And this is where I disagree with Fred. 

I think the time is upon us already.

With all of the assets we can now create online - blogs, vlogs, rss, even full-on podcasts about our lives - the appeal of sharing our personality will continue to represent a compelling force that drives more people towards the internet.  If behavior from the couch is passive then behavior online is active, and that alone makes the studio audience of the internet more fervent than the audience at home.  It's the difference between 60,000 fans at Fenway Park and 100,000 fans at Tiger Stadium.  The capacity might be more in the latter, but the passion cannot be duplicated from the former. 

What do you think?  Let's hear your thoughts. 

Socialite Thought for 2007-01-30

The price one pays for pursuing any profession or calling is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side. -- James Baldwin

Socialite Thought for 2007-01-29

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. -- George Orwell

Note to Presidential Candidates: "Half the Battle" isn't good enough

A lot of outstanding insights have surrounded the role of social media in politics, namely in the presidential candidacies, which has social media pundits everywhere pumping their fists a la Kirk Gibson circa 1988. 

As much as this does inspire a conceited reinforcement of my work in the digital arena, I remain level because I think everyone now recognizes that social media is merely an evolution of our time: socio-environmental trends + digital assets = necessity for peer-to-peer, two way communications.  So why wouldn't political figures leverage the digital age to have genuine conversations with voters?  However, I'm intrigued to contribute to the conversation when I read this post on Fred Wilson's blog earlier today where he made several interesting observations, including:

"I just checked the exploratory committee websites of Hillary, Obama, Edwards, McCain, and Romney. A few have blogs (or so they call them). Not one of them actually write any posts."

The old adage goes that showing up is half the battle.  Well, in an uncharacteristic 'glass-is-half-empty' moment, I'd like to voice that "showing up" on social media channels isn't even half the battle.  Simply having a prescence on social media properties such as MySpace and YouTube doesn't cut it.  Uh-uh!  Today, people are suspicious about marketing.  And heck, even as a marketer myself, I'm skeptical that John Edwards himself replies in his MySpace.  The voice isn't authentic to me. 

How is this approach any different from traditional marketing where key messages completely devoid of personality and dialogue are pushed one-way to the audience?  Yes, different channels attract different demographics and the more touchpoints, the better.  I get that but that isn't the point.  The bottom line is social media is about joining everyday conversation.  Merely posting pictures, canned responses, and videos of speeches isn't leveraging social media for value.  It's showing a complete ignorance of the medium. 

So a collective word to Hillary, Obama, Edwards, McCain and Romney: what you're doing is creating a bigger megaphone.  What you need to do is have better conversations with potential voters.  Even if you're short on time as Fred mentioned, you would not believe the power that 1-2 genuine sentences (read: actually from you) posted everyday holds.  MySpace and YouTube are social media tools.  The real power is unlocked by interaction, engagement, and at the highest level, empowerment.

I realize I'm somewhat presenting this as "damned if you do, damned if you don't" proposition.  And ending this post on that note would be bad form.  So here's one possible solution: why not provide a daily video blog about your travels across the country as you meet the military, police, and firefighters of the nation?   Forget the  high production costs of commercials that I'm never going to watch anyway.  Let's see some authentic content and hear some genuine messages that we won't get anywhere else.

I'm nothing if not helpful so here's a sample marketing plan I put together (I'll use Hillary per this example):

Goal
Primary: Generate awareness for Hillary Clinton.
Secondary: Launch an online political evangelism program around Hillary Clinton. 

Target Audience
Primary: Top influencers of online communities around the nation (insert appropriate party preferences here).
Secondary: (insert appropriate geographic clusters here)

Campaign Length
Short- and long-term, high-impact

Modes of Engagement
Vlog, posted 5 times a week (at minimum) available at:

• Official YouTube Brand Channel (BTW, here's a top influencer Hillary should seek the help of)
• MySpace 
• Blog via official website

Note: this is an example of just one mode of engagement. 

Hope this helps!

-Johnny

P.S.- To Fred: it took 35 minutes, 16 seconds to bang out this post.  

P.S.S.- This blog post endorsed by supporters for Johnny Chan 2008. 

Socialite Thought for 2007-01-26

Weekends are a bit like rainbows; they look good from a distance but disappear when you get up close to them. - John Shirley