Jaffe Juice

Nikon D80 Blogger Outreach Rocks

I'll write a longer post soon but for now, I thought I'd officially post about my new Nikon D80 which I received from Nikon (via MWW Group)

I have to tell you that in my humble opinion, this has been the best example of blogger outreach I have either experienced (first hand) or read about.

It shares the same characteristics as the Sprint Ambassador program (of which I am a member as well), namely follow-through. Whereas the Sprint program has sent me 3 rounds of phones and service, the Nikon approach was a lot more subtle. It began with a more conventional blogger outreach following their sublime CGC meets partnership Flickr campaign. I happened to blog about this - favorably. Perhaps this was the trigger that in essence self-selected me as a prime candidate for the "surprise" follow-up.

I love this campaign for many reasons. Yes, of course I now have an approximately $1,000 camera, but that's not it by a long shot. I am not crowing because I got something for nothing (it's actually on loan and I have the choice to extend the loan for 6 months, give it back or purchase it at a substantially reduced editorial discount - the monies going to charity), but rather because the camera helps me be a better blogger/contributor. Nikon has become a conduit or catalyst and in providing me the camera, I'm now giddy with enthusiasm...I've finally activated my Flickr account and am taking pictures like a kid in a candy store.

You may think Nikon has bought me. They haven't. And I'd argue damn hard against anyone who wants to challenge me on this. I have nothing to gain or lose by talking about the camera or the program...and talk I will. And a lot.

This helps continue to legitimize the blogosphere and the new influencers (and I'm not talking about myself, but rather the entire community)

It's smart as hell. This post alone should offset whatever the camera cost Nikon and if you multiply the total cost of the program (I have no idea how many bloggers signed up) by the cost of the camera, shipping etc., it probably will come out under a single half page print advertisement that had to kill a tree for it to live for one day - and one day only.

Anyway, gotta catch a plane. Expect plenty of pics from beautiful Sydney (sorry, Mitch) and remember: with full disclosure, I got this from Nikon and their agency, MWW.

The best $20,000 I ever spent

My daughter just started softball and I decided to surprise her and support her team by sponsoring "The Ducklings".

Hopefully my fellow crayonistas will share my enthusiasm for this worthy investment. Who knows...perhaps Jack Welch's granddaughter is a duckling :)

Surreal Tweeting

My latest twitter: "I'm a South African watching Australia v Sri Lanka in West Indies from British Airways Lounge at JFK en route Quantas Flight to Sydney, Australia via Los Angeles - surreal"

200.5: Fatblogging all the way to Sydney, Australia

200.5 this morning. Normally I weigh in on Friday, but this week I was on the road in St. Louis, Dallas and Birmingham.

When I began this journey at 224, I originally said that I wouldn't shave until I hit 200 and I guess that would have been right about now. Thankfully, I decided to abandon my Forest Gump attempt, but it's pretty cool to be approaching this reverse-double-centenial milestone so to speak.

On another front, the visa arrived (Kudos to the efficient Ozzies) and so I'm looking forward to a Geek dinner Down-Under on Wednesday evening. We'll be meeting at the Water Bar on Cowper Wharf, Woolloomooloo from 9.30pm on Wednesday night. Everyone is invited!

How the ozzies will forgive me drinking lite beer :)

My CUES Presentation

Just finished delivering the closing Keynote at the CUES Nexus Conference at the Fairmont Hotel in Dallas speaking to various marketing execs representing the almost 9,000 credit unions in the US.

If you're interested in learning more about Credit Unions, here's the Wikipedia link.

I took a bunch of photos with my new Nikon D80 and they're on my Flickr page.

Dallas Geek Dinner

Last night, courtesy of ringleader Paul Mcenany, I attended a Geek Dinner, Dallas style. What really amazed me was how many people that attended had never met each other before.

It's always amazing to be a conduit to bring people together and that's what happened last night.

I'll provide more links later, but to Paul, Jake, Jeannine, Trey, Brent, Sean, John and the rest, thanks for making the effort. Cam, get well soon.

More pics here (photos courtesy of my new Nikon D80 - more to come about this camera, which has been loaned to me courtesy of Nikon)

Super Duper Friends

What do you get when you mix one part Jib Jib, with one part TV Funhouse and one part New Marketing?

You get the Challenge of the Super (insert De-for Barney) Duper Friends

The Super Duper team sent me this today. It's yet another example of how new marketing will continue to erode traditional advertising's hold on political advertising.

Let's face it, political TV advertising is a joke.

Step 1: Candidate A calls candidate B a liar on issue X

Step 2: Candidate B calls candidate A a liar on issue X

Step 3: Repeat A LOT OF TIMES

Worse still, younger consumers are disengaged, disinterested and disgusted.

Now suddenly, we have Barack Obama podcasting, John Edwards twittering, Hillary 1984 spoofs and a very buff Al Gore starring as The Green Solution (get it?) versus Muscular Dick as the infamous "$"

Check out the teaser:

The $14 Apple

Wise Jas-one Kenobi writes this post about what he calls "abusive pricing" (I normally talk about abusive frequency with respect to media, but that's another story for another day)

He cites being charged $2.80 for a cup of drip coffee at a New York hotel and says the following:

My belief is that the reason people get away with this kind of pricing is because people are not willing to say something. I think that people do predatory pricing because they can get away with it--when confronted they will stop, or at least be forced to explain themselves.

I found it interesting that Jason lets Starbucks off the hook and as I wrote in my comment:

Abusive pricing I guess is a function of what the market will bear. One one hand, it is based on the forces of supply and demand, coupled with the premium afforded to brands.I'm not saying this is right, I'm just saying it is what it is.

On the other hand, you bring up something that has nothing to do with pricing whatsoever, but more about common sense. The best example being the $14 apple.

You're paying $400 for a room, but complaining about a cup of coffee...I guess it all comes down to expectations and the management thereof. There is also the notion of perceived value.

The $14 apple (you've all been there) refers to the single apple you order from room service that comes bundled with state tax, city tax, hotel tax, tax tax, monopoly tax, airport tax, tray charges (sheesh, at least let me keep the tray) and of course the 23% gratuity for the exemplary and flawless transfer of one (1) tray from them to you without stepping on a land mine, landing in a hazard or spilling a drop of the sealed water in the process.

This is one of those cases where companies need to use a bit of subjectivity and good judgement. How hard is it to deliver an apple with a smile and "no charge" for example? But if we do that for one person, we'd have to do that for everyone! SO DAMN WHAT!

Jason's post really gets you to thinking about the P of Pricing. Not only has it become a commodity in many cases, but I believe it can also be somewhat of a liability in an era of "perfect information".

• Is it ok to overcharge based on a notion that brands should command a premium?
• Do brands deserve to charge the kinds of premiums they used to or should premiums be placed equally on "product" and "experience" (I'm alluding to the artificial aura of fuzziness created by advertising)
• At what point do brands cross a line and take advantage of their customers (Apple and iPods perhaps)?

Makes you think...

Desperation hits a new low

It's articles like these that make life worthwhile.

USA Today reports that the networks TOP shows are showing rating losses, which no doubt will compound the ever-fragmenting erosion of their viewer base. This, on top of the Upfront process, where marketers will continue (albeit decreasingly so) to pay more money for less audience.

In the past few weeks, a raft of top shows on all major networks have hit record lows: Lost, Desperate Housewives, ER, My Name Is Earl, The Simpsons, Two and a Half Men, CSI: Miami and, just Monday, Heroes. Still others, such as 24, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit and American Idol, had their worst ratings in two years or more.

The reasons (or excuses as the article calls it) for the losses are sublime and priceless:

1. Daylight
2. Long Breaks
3. DVR's

Daylight? Jeez, when execs like CBS' Dave Poltrack are attempting to justify the inevitable and permanent migration of audience away from terrestrial and clutter-filled television by blaming Daylight Savings Time, you know the end is nigh.

The only surprising part of the article is that Global Warming, Alien Invasions and Terrorism weren't cited as well.

The New Producers

As I'll cover in my upcoming book, "Join the Conversation", consumers are proactive, professional and producers, however not all consumers are as active in terms of their participation.

Jakob Nielsen talks about the 90:9:1 rule, often referred to as the 1% rule which, put simply states that 1% of visitors or consumers will be responsible for the vast majority of content created. A good example is Wikipedia, where 1.8% of its users are responsible for over 72% of articles generated.

It's not that dissimilar to the 80:20 rule of loyalty and patronage, where typically a minority percentage of customers are responsible for a majority of revenue generated. B2B is a great example (versus the B2C CPG category by means of illustration)

Segue to a Reuters article titled, "Participation on Web 2.0 sites remains weak" with data points including:

• A tiny 0.16 percent of visits to Google's top video-sharing site, YouTube, are by users seeking to upload video for others to watch
• ...only two-tenths of one percent of visits to Flickr, a popular photo-editing site owned by Yahoo Inc., are to upload new photos
• 4.6 percent of all visits to Wikipedia pages are to edit entries on the site.

I kind of wish the reporter had been aware of the 90:9:1 rule before penning the article, or perhaps the editor just chose to use an intentionally misleading headline to draw people into it.

The article then continues to reveal the real statistics that matter:

• ...visits to Web 2.0-style sites have spiked 668% in 2 years
• Visits by Web users to the category of participatory Web 2.0 sites account for 12% of U.S. Web activity, up from only 2% two years ago
• Web 2.0 photo-sharing sites now account for 56% of visits to all online photo sites

The important takeaway is not about "low user-involvement" but rather about a new wave of content "producers" that are anything on the continuum of replacing to complementing the existing media industry.

In addition, I would argue strongly that everyone visiting sites like Wikipedia, Flickr and YouTube are participants and by no means passive like the traditional acts of watching television, listening to the radio or reading a magazine or newspaper article.