Jaffe Juice

The Launch of the Living in High Definition Podcast

This is a little backwards, because I still want to spend some time over the next couple of weeks outlining the single most signficant project we've worked on at crayon, namely Panasonic's "Living in High Definition" community and commitment.

We've had the pleasure and privilege to work with Panasonic North America on a truly landmark effort - actively demonstrating that Living in High Definition changes everything.

And what better way to bring this to life than through a High Definition video show, presented by one of the real stars of the program, Laura Pollack, a mom and a community member.

The LiHD Podcast is a bi-monthly snapshot of the best of what the community has to offer. It's a showcase which operates on three levels:

• Internal i.e. within the community - motivation for members; a showcase of recognition
• External i.e. outside the community - a portal or window into the community; a source of promotion and membership acqusition
• Both - a source or resource filled with tips, tools, tricks, how-to's and inspiration

Making this podcast happen are the fine folks over at For Your Imagination (FYI)

So take a look, subscribe to the show and while you're at it, join the LiHD Community.

Living in HD Podcast, Episode 1 from Living In HD on Vimeo.

"...then you might be a parasite or tech tapeworm in the intestines of the Internets"

WSJ Editor, Robert Thomson to Jeff Foxworthy: "You're welcome" in response to all the new material he just got based on the dumb-ass comments about coming after all the denizens of the Internets for "stealing" their content.

Seriously dude, you're (on behalf of the AP) trying to be the RIAA to our Napster and you sir, are no RIAA. That's how bad it is.

Thomson was referencing an AP move to come after those who "misappropriate" their content under "misguided legal theories", but in doing so AP Chairman Dean Singleton comes over like a spoiled little baby squealing something to the effect of "my Dad will beat up your Dad" with your comments about "build(ing) search-engine-friendly subject pages filled with recent, "authoritative" links, hoping searchers will see those pages above blogs and aggregators."

Both Thomson and Singleton demonstrate an acute lack of understanding in terms of how social media, consumer generated content, citizen journalism, blogging and search works. I could go on.

By all means, the AP and their related sites should invest aggressively in smarter search and conversationally-enabled functional sites, but they equally need to invest in a crash course in terms of understanding how distributed content, social networking, linking and reach activators like Twitter works.

Whilst I agree with them that reprinting or syndicating entire articles verbatim and/or aggregating this on some scaled basis, esp. with a view towards monetizing this content, should be dealt with...it's also important to recognize that this isn't always done maliciously/intentionally and to that end, slapping Google Adsense on a page isn't exactly the work of an evil genius and megalomanic with delusions of grandeur.

On the flipside, people who extend, riff, offer commentary or build on top of ideas, points of view, news articles (like I'm doing right now) and offer a combination of both link-love and attribution, with a reasonable/measured/considered amount of italicized quotes to boot are not the enemy. They are you and they are me and they are NOT going away.

To end, a bit of advice for the AP and NAA: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em is a not a bad policy to follow, however you're not going to achieve your goals with blunt-force brawn and legal bullying. Stop crying over spilt milk in the form of the realization that bloggers like myself and favored by the likes of Google over your sites and instead focus on building better hubs that reward conversation, distribution, linking, commenting and social/peer-to-peer interaction.

One more thing, let's build up a repoitre for Jeff: "XXXXXXX, then you might be a parasite or tech tapeworm in the intestines of the Internets"

Digging the HD Scene

SXSW came and went. I wasn't there, but crayonistas Jane Quigley and Greg Verdino represented us in full force.

They also represented two of our clients: ooVoo and Panasonic - with the latter being involved in a unique live taping of cultishly popular Diggnation, led by their two hosts Kevin Rose and Alex Albrecht.

The partnership in question (episode #194) was to highlight Panasonic's Living in High Definition initiative in a promotion called, "Diggnation lives in HD"

From Greg:

If you like taking pictures or shooting video -- or just want to take a look at our latest social marketing tactic to promote the Living in HD community site -- visit the promo page to find out how you can qualify for the competition.  Don't forget to join LiHD, friend the Diggnation crew.You might win a sweet Panasonic digital still camera or HD camcorder.

Greg's photos from the event are here.

To pay or not to pay, is THAT the question?

Forrester just released a report titled "Add Sponsored Conversations To Your Toolbox," authored by Sean Corcoran.

Kmart gave some bloggers a free shopping spree in exchange for a blog post about the experience — a practice we call sponsored conversation. With appropriate protections for disclosure and authenticity, this practice will take its place alongside public relations and advertising activities in the blogosphere. Marketers should take advantage of sponsored conversation as an entrée into the online conversation. To succeed, you should get to know the bloggers you plan to work with and set expectations across your organization.

What's interesting is how Forrester is pretty deliberately putting this approach into a category of its own, alongside it's predecessors or cohorts (depending on your position), advertising and P.R. and in doing so, plays a part in terms of legitimizing or formalizing an emerging practice.

His colleague Jeremiah Owyang covers it here and Brian Morrissey at Adweek covers it here. Marshall Kirkpatrick from ReadWriteWeb takes a strong counterposition here.

I was interviewed for this piece by Sean, as was Chris Brogan, who participated in the aforementioned Kmart program, sits on the board of IZEA - the company behind the program (and the one formally known as PayPerPost). Chris responds specifically to Marshall with this post.

Here's the thing. In my time in this space thus far in a formal capacity (i.e. crayon), I've worked on two pretty public and well received programs: My ooVoo Day and the Panasonic CES program. In the former example, both Marshall and Chris were participants; in the latter one, Chris was one of the bloggers. I'm not sure I would call either of these programs "sponsored conversations". In fact, crayon calls them "tactical hooks" - a mash-up of the best (practices) of the advertising and social media worlds. Put differently, we believe that influencer outreach should be treated with the same consideration, commitment and investment as a traditional communications program from both a planning and production standpoint.

It's imperative to give influencers both a reason to believe and a reason to behave. Too often, we are lazy, greedy and gratuitous in terms of what we expect from bloggers and the like and essentially what we expect back from them, relative to what we put in, in the first place.

In a personal capacity, I've participated in both the Nikon D80 giveaway and the Sears program (part 2 of IZEA's Kmart 1-2 punch). In both cases, I wouldn't say this remotely smacked of PayPerPost; nor would I say my conversation was sponsored. In some respects,this is no different than a "celebrity" (TRUST me, I'm using that loosely) sponsorship - from loaning a star diamonds on Oscar night to adorning Tiger Woods with a cacophany of swooshes in exchange for mega moolah.

I guess the point is where on the continuum does blogger or influencer outreach fall. Personally, I believe we should be calling this "blogger/influencer outreach" and not "sponsored conversation". Let me also be very clear (and you can see from the definition), that I don't think Sean meant this to be taken in a negative light. I spoke with him and we had a great conversation. I think the real ambiguity and problem lies with us (i.e. the readers of the report; the commentators and so called social media experts etc).

Part of the problem lies with the fact "sponsored conversation" sounds a bit like "paid search" does it not? Putting two terms which seemingly mean exact opposites together and in doing so, creates a rather jarring disconnect.

Part of the problem as well lies in the endless, boring and inaccurate comparison between the new class of content creators (bloggers if you wish) and journalists. They're not...at least for the most part.

And so we come back to the two core issues:

1. Should bloggers be compensated in any way, shape or form for their time, effort, energy, passion and contribution. The answer can only be a resounding YES, with standard terms and conditions (disclosure, transparency etc) which make both common sense and business sense.
2. Is expecting bloggers (in return for aforementioned compensation) to write, talk, post, create etc about their experiences, reflections, ideas, participation crossing a line? The answer here is a resounding NO, provided there is adequate disclosure and transparency.

Come on people. Grow up and wisen up. This is a nascent industry and space which is learning and maturing all the time. What we have here is in many respects no different to how the world was, but in many respects is also incredibly and completely different. It's time to get off our high horses and open our minds, instead of stubbornly holding on to and exhibiting self-righteous, hypocritical and close-minded positions.

Whatever you call them, "sponsored conversations" are here to stay. And just like the vast differences between crap and mediocre creative (lumped together) and inspiring/breakthrough creative, so too will there be a marked difference between influencer programs that stand out from the crowd or get trampled by it.

YouTube Live - if you missed it, I know a website you can visit to view it

I tuned in on Saturday night to watch parts of YouTube Live's launch. I must say it was quite impressive - a celebration/concert that was pretty slick, even with the occassional geeky and amateur hour moments. 

From the 3 cameras (main stage, backstage, off stage) to the integration with YouTube's recognized interface (comments, ratings) to the usage of YouTube Weblebrities like Tay Zonday to the tie-ins with brand partners (the live wi-fi feed from Virgin America was pretty cool), this was a well orchestrated and executed effort.

All in all, 700,000 simultaneous views at the peak was a pretty good start to YouTube's first stab at appointment viewing, but do I even need to point out the longevity associated with that model :)

I'm also curious as to which marketing bloggers were invited to attend this event (if you were invited and/or attended, let me know...) Often times marketing bloggers are included in programs which seem a bit left field, but this is one of those times where I think it's going to make a lot of sense to involve the marketing community in a conversation about commerce.

Still not entirely sure where this goes (from a money making standpoint), but it's pretty obvious that wherever video is involved on the conversational web, live/streaming functionality will have to follow and when it comes to video, YouTube has an interface/infrastructure that is built to succeed.

Here are some screenshots and a few articles / posts that talk about the "event"

 

 

Oh and here's some video from me as well:

This holiday season, give the gift that keeps on giving...

Ahead of this year's holiday season, I thought of doing a little experiment in a fairly straight-forward and transparent way. In a nutshell, it's a spin on corporate/bulk sales, mixed in with an experiential twist.

During these challenging times, instead of that throwaway pen or gift subscription to iTunes, why not give something that arms your recipient with knowledge they can use in this rapidly changing, dynamic market?

In exchange for purchasing* a certain number of either/both/a combination of my two books, "Life after the 30-second spot" and/or "Join the Conversation", I'll barter an increasing amount of services to essentially offset the investment, including:

• Personally autographing** the books
• Providing a thank-you link/blurb on Jaffe Juice (blog and podcast)
• A phone or ooVoo conference call of varying amounts of time
• An on-site keynote presentation*** (domestic or international depending on tier)
• A day's consulting

* I'd put you in touch directly with a Wiley representative that would quote a discounted rate
** From a logistics standpoint, most likely we'd use nameplate stickers.
*** My normal T&E T's&C's would apply and be over and above the price of the books (incl. taxes, S&H)

The tiers are as follows:

• Purchase 100 books: Thank you blurb and link on Jaffe Juice (blog/podcast) and signed books
• Purchase 500 books: 1 hour conference call (oovoo or phone), TY blurb/link and signed books
• Purchase 1000 books: On-site keynote presentation (US only) + TY blurb/link + signed books

For amounts larger than 1,000, please contact me privately to discuss further.

The benefits are obvious to anyone purchasing the book for their colleagues, co-workers and/or customers. It's an original and utilitarian gift, which resonates for anyone whose business depends on creativity, progressive and innovative thinking and embracing a methodology which incorporates change and conversation.

What's in it for me? It's a little less obvious, but in addition to selling books, it's an experiment in of itself, which is consistent with my M.O. If it works, it becomes a new way for authors to supercharge their corporate/bulk sales. To be honest, my most powerful motivator is that I strongly and passionately believe in both messages and so my desire to "spread the word" outweighs the need to monetize it (at least in the short term...)

This offer is good through end of the year or until the Long Tail stops wagging.

10 Reasons your company *should* blog...

BL Ochman wrote this piece in one of the advertising trades titled, "10 reasons your company shoudn't blog" and specifically references requests for CEO blogs within this corporate category.

Perhaps all of these alarmingly regular requests to BL are being adhered to, as only 74 of Fortune's 500 largest companies (representing 15%) have any semblance of a direct relationship/conversation with their customers.

Personally, I think this approach is dead wrong. In today's day and age, "authenticity, transparency and purpose" (I'm quoting the Senate Banking Committee) are stabilizing forces that keep us honest. Moreover, as marketers we have never had the ability (nor perhaps will we ever have such an opportunity) to establish and maintain such a powerful, undiluted and open pathway of communication between ourselves and our customers. Never.

Whilst I recognize that most attempts or efforts at corporate blogging can be miserable, pathetic, superficial and/or downright embarrassing, isn't it up to us to steward and guide our clients through this virgin territory and proving ground in order to demonstrate how impactful this can truly be?

So with that said, I'd like to build a top 10 list here to counter BL's list and with it, points including "you need to read constantly to be a good blogger", "you need original content" and "you need to drive traffic to a blog".

Perhaps BL can set the ball rolling with some of her reasons in favor of companies committing themselves to their customers....

Visiting the brand E.R. - the difference between onslaught and onslaught(er)

Andrea Vascellari sends me this Greenpeace video response to Dove's Onslaught (their follow-up to Evolution...and not to be confused with Slob Evolution)

In his post, Andrea notes this as a perfect example of how public reputation can be smashed down in less than 2 minutes (1m27 to be exact)

The video is in response to this piece:

It's a far cry from Slob Evolution, which was a playful and irreverent spoof of the ground-breaking Evolution video, which seemingly ushered in a new era of thoughtful and purpose-based brands that put authenticity, transparency and social responsibility before corporate greed, profits and acquisition.

Until now...

On one hand, this sends out the clearest of messages to faker brands looking to "get in on the conversation" by sending out a stern warning: you gotta walk your talk if you want to join the conversation. Think like an advertiser and attempt to cut corners and you will be found out and duly punished.

Put differently, if you want to commit to community, dialogue and partnership, you need to have your entire house in order first.

Now that said....I would be remiss by dumping on Unilever if I didn't point out this timely update from Greenpeace itself:

UPDATE: Thanks to the staggering public support for our international Dove campaign in April 2008, Unilever has now agreed to play their part in saving the Paradise Forests of South East Asia. As the biggest single buyer of palm oil in the world, Unilever has a special responsibility to help clean up the industry that's behind so much forest destruction.

They have agreed to support the call by Greenpeace for an immediate moratorium on deforestation for palm oil plantations. They have also agreed to urgently contact other major companies calling on them to support the moratorium.

This is the first success in a broader campaign to secure real change on the ground in South East Asia -- to stop the palm oil industry from destroying the Paradise Forests. Greenpeace campaigners will work with Unilever for th next six months (starting May 2008) to bring together a major coalition of companies to make the moratorium a reality. We will see at the end of this period how things are progressing and if we need to change our campaign approach.

The update is both in the information box on the YouTube video post, as well as in the comment thread. It certainly alludes to the fact that Unilever is listening and although being taken to task, is prepared to change or at least take steps in the right direction.

That said, I wonder how many people will notice this "fyi" and in the process, how much brand reputation damage will occur?

Conversation Killers: Why most viral marketing amounts to lazy, clueless chatter

My latest Adweek article is up. It's called "Conversation Killers: Why most viral marketing amounts to lazy, clueless chatter"

Here's the text:

The movie Rounders contains a life lesson: "When sitting down at the poker table, look around for the sucker. If you don't recognize the sucker, get up and leave, because the sucker is you." Along the same lines, the next time you sit down at a planning table to discuss something viral, look for the moron leading the project and if you don't see him, excuse yourself from the meeting because that moron, my friend, is you.

As an industry, we're awfully good (and by good I mean bad) at bastardizing or perverting pretty much any natural and pure expression of engagement, influence, authenticity or passion. Take word of mouth for example: It's the oldest and most credible form of influence and "persuasion" (insert your choice of chart proving that word of mouth obliterates any other form of marketing, advertising or media), and so what do we do? We add the word "marketing" to form a new compound phrase synonymous with lame and ineffective.

It's the same concern I have with the phrase "conversational marketing," which I either created myself or just took credit for. It would appear that the second we find something that actually works, we do our best to exploit it to the point where it becomes unrecognizable and downright repugnant.

It's the same for the term "viral marketing," which has seemingly sprouted an entire industry dealing with shocking or extreme video designed to ring up "hits" on YouTube.

Don't get me wrong. I'm a big fan of the masters of pass along. I don't profess to be expert in how viruses are spread; what makes them infectious and what defines, differentiates or classifies one virus from another. It's terrific when the "world" in "world wide Web" embraces a piece of video (did you see the one where the elephant paints a self-portrait?), site (www.manbabies.com) or idea (moveon.org).

That said, I'm not terribly sure that it's predictable or reliable to plan for this kind of spreading of the word and, even more troubling, I'm not convinced that it actually works.

Here's the thing: In this day and age, all content has the ability to be wildly viral, that is, embraced, internalized, evangelized and disseminated. Rather than plan with the end in mind, might I suggest instead that we focus on the idea itself and the means to achieve that end. In other words, getting back to basics to generate compelling, relevant and engaging content and then liberating it to be embedded, hacked, mashed and showcased accordingly.

Then there's the efficacy element of the viral industry. In many respects the viral video is separated at birth from (in the greatest irony of all) the 30-second spot: Although they live at opposite ends of the spectrum, each is equally ineffective at selling stuff. The latter sells too hard, whereas the former doesn't sell hard enough. Indeed, the viral video seems to be almost apologetic at putting a brand face on an allegedly infectious value proposition.

But what if the goal of the viral is not to sell stuff at all? Heresy, I know, but not unlike 99.72 percent of all unmeasurable paid media that would make John Wanamaker vomit just a little in his mouth. What if the goal is to ring up those "hits," those faceless impressions that are reconciled with a paid media cost of zilch and multiplied by an earned media commensurate value? It's hard to argue with a free lunch, but at the same time, surely our efforts are better served by an agenda that balances quality with quantity views.

Perhaps it is unfair to hold the viral ad to a higher standard than the rest of the peanut gallery. After all, we're still talking about OfficeMax elves, CareerBuilder monkeys, a subservient chicken, Ray-Ban performing dudes and Waspy New England Smirnoff Tea Partayers aren't we? Compare this to the Stupid Bowl CareerBuilder debacle -- or as Wendell, the Miller Lite delivery guy, would say, a most effective anti-drug commercial -- and it surely seems like a steal (versus the real thieves behind the 30-second fireworks display).

True enough. But by the same token, we're also still talking about Apple's "1984," Miley Cyrus' Vanity Fair "exposé" and that incredible Kruger National Park scene with the buffalos, lions and alligator. Great content is great content, whichever way you slice it, dice it, prepare it or serve it, whether as a conversation starter, accelerant or superficial water-cooler fodder.

So let's do our best to keep our eyes on the prize: creating unique and compelling content that is sharable and infused with sociability (conversation). We'll rack up those views sure enough and not have to concern ourselves with cutting corners, reducing costs and duping our consumers into doing our jobs for us.

More video from Minneapolis, Finland and Toronto.

Enjoy