03.05.07
YouTube Early Struggles
BBC will broadcast its clips on YouTube. Not just the news, but clips from some of its best shows. Lots of other smaller companies are signing up for YouTube as well. As the Times reported last week, about 1000 smaller media companies are now on board, including the NBA (not so small, but still). The NBA and its fans would be able to broadcast clips from games. Others include the Sundance channel, smaller video producers, and a company called Wind-up Records. Fans will be able to stream clips online, as well as listen to some of the music the company offers.
So what’s the problem? These guys aren’t making the news. The Times reports YouTube has signed up for more than 200 partnerships per quarter. I am sure their PR departments are working overtime, but its falling on deaf ears and that is unfortunate. The fact that NBC and Viacom don’t want to work with YouTube seems more hefty and disappointing, but it shouldn’t be. The big guns want more money or want to launch their own video casting sites. This would be my guess. They also don’t want to dilute the brand and show CSI clips amidst the sea of amateur singers and kittens YouTube is unfortunately famous for.
Regardless of whether Viacom and NBC sign up for the service, YouTube will become a great platform for video broadcasting online. It will also be a very useful tool for public relations professionals, as they look for more ways to showcase their clients’ videos or to make announcements, the way JetBlue CEO did recently. It may also become a new way for young filmmakers and producers to show their work.
It seems to me YouTube is still deciding what its brand is going to be and some great players are coming on board to help out. For now, I’ll watch re-runs of “Absolutely Fabulous”, and keep my fingers crossed Jon Stewart comes back. But if he doesn’t, maybe I’ll tune into something new, something I haven’t heard of, and discover a new talent. That’ll definitely be worth the time.
Peeling oneself away from Paris
Last week Associated Press said they will stop writing about Paris Hilton. The celebutante was caught driving with suspended license and AP put out a 300-word report about the incident. But after that AP announced this would be the last time they will report about Paris, barring anything critical from happening. I, personally, applaud this decision. I am sure the reporter covering her is also breathing a big sigh of relief. This is brave and ballsy. AP, one of the founding organizations of American journalism, and one of the most reliable news sources in the world, is essentially saying that it is refusing to make a story out of something that is a non-story. Paris Hilton is not a story by any journalistic standards. And therefore, she’s not crossing any more AP wires. Thank you, AP.
Years ago, Dan Rather made a decision not to report any more news about Chandra Wilson, until her remains (or she, alive) were found. This decision also made the news. Rather always talked about courage. He even signed off from his last broadcast by wishing his viewers courage. For him, courage meant many things, including being able to stand up for one’s editorial conviction.
The other day, CNN followed the courage of their convictions when they chose not to broadcast from the funeral of Anna Nicole Smith, opting to cover the bus overturning on the Atlanta highway for hours on end. It wasn’t perhaps as juicy, from the gossip point of view, but this was a respectful decision that set the network apart from the rest. By the same token, AP set itself apart, and took what some may see as an unpopular route, but ultimately, a respectful one.
I wondered what it would be like to live without celebrity news altogether. It’s easy for editors to argue that reporters must continue writing about celebrities because this is what people want to read. But this is a self-perpetuating machine. The more we hear about celebrities’ lives, the more we think we want to hear. But if we stopped hearing and reading about their romps, rehab stints and love lives, would we really miss them all that much? I hope more outlets continue to refuse coverage of Lindsay Lohan, Britney Spears and Nicole Richie’s arrests and struggles in rehab. Let’s welcome brave, courageous editorial decisions not to follow the pack, but to strive for higher levels of journalism. We’d all be a little healthier hearing less news about someone’s ultimately very unhealthy life.
02.26.07
We miss you, Al!
Okay, Al Gore, enough joking around. You have to run for President. After your rock star performance at the Oscars last night, I believe the Hollywood community, the rest of the world, and even mere mortals like myself, are waiting for you to make the announcement. In fact, I am already sick of Hillary and Obama. They’re going to tell the same old tale for many months to come. Before we know it, we’ll have Hil-Obama fatigue.
As this week’s Economist rightfully points, for Al to enter the race would be a no-brainer. He’d be a late entrant, by today’s standards, and could easily upset the whole spectacle. He’ll be a fresh face in this race. With an Oscar in his back pocket, soaring popularity, and rich friends in Hollywood, he can be an unstoppable force. But more than anything, I was surprised to see how lively, charming, and totally natural he was sans script. He joked that only William Hung could play him in a movie. He seemed to be humorous, relaxed, yet solid and smart. Back in 2000, his wooden appearance and all-too-prepared speeches bothered me. He was stiff, unnatural, too groomed by media and political advisors. Now, Al is in his element. He’s cared about the environment for 30 years. Today, global warming is finally a hot topic (no pun intended). The Economist predicts he may even be up for the Nobel peace prize. He may gain a lot of momentum on his environmental stance, along with his stiff and consistent opposition to war, and perhaps nostalgia for the more peaceful days of Clinton administration.
Last night at the Oscars Al had me gasp, when he started to make the announcement. But then music came on and we all knew it was a joke. My personal prediction—if Al runs, he’ll blow everyone out of the water. He’ll have a guaranteed win. After 8 torturous years, we’ll finally have the president who deserved to be in the White House to begin with.
02.24.07
Week in crisis public relations, part two
The week in crisis PR continues. For starters, let’s examine the absolutely ludicrous White House attempt at spinning British troop withdrawal from Iraq, namely Basra. Without blinking an eye, Cheney says to John Howard (suck-up Australian Prime Minister who always looks like he’s about to break out in tears) that this is exactly what the U.S. is trying to achieve—stability in the region, which will ultimately allow for troop withdrawal. Okay, so the fact that Britain is getting out (along with a few others, including Denmark and Lithuania) is actually a sign of success. Lithuania has only slightly over 50 troops, whereas Denmark slightly over 400. This is our “coalition of the willing” quickly falling apart.
Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post calls Cheney’s statements freighting because of their Orwellian nature. This is almost classic doublespeak. What’s even funnier (if this is funny to begin with) is that there are a few reporters, outside of Sean Hannity, who’re buying this garbage. That is, of course, if you consider Sean Hannity a reporter. Couric asked openly during her newscast whether anyone believes these statements. Froomkin also quotes both Ed Henry of CNN, saying “This is a blow to the White House, no matter how they try to play this.” And NBC’s David Gregory stated on the air that this good spin is doing nothing more than covering a much bleaker reality.
And, oh by the way, Howard will lose Australian elections. Somehow, popular opinion there turned against the war as well, one of his main trump cards. Cheney and company just really need to get in touch with reality and soon.
The other crisis PR this week involves one of the more annoying rodents—rats. They are now permeating New York City’s KFC in the village, as well as the famous Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington DC. Or was it mice? The situation at Walter Reed’s outpatient clinic is horrible. Thanks to an expose by the Washington Post, our new Secretary of Defense went into a full-on PR attack, calling for an investigation. But some general (don’t remember his name, saw him in the news) said, the conditions really weren’t “that bad,” and this is another “liberal attempt to bring down the war.”
I rest my case.
Crisis PR week part two
The week in crisis PR continues. For starters, let’s examine the absolutely ludicrous White House attempt at spinning British troop withdrawal from Iraq, namely Basra. Without blinking an eye, Cheney says to John Howard (suck-up Australian Prime Minister who always looks like he’s about to break out in tears) that this is exactly what the U.S. is trying to achieve—stability in the region, which will ultimately allow for troop withdrawal. Okay, so the fact that Britain is getting out (along with a few others, including Denmark and Lithuania) is actually a sign of success. Lithuania has only slightly over 50 troops, whereas Denmark slightly over 400. This is our “coalition of the willing” quickly falling apart.
Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post calls Cheney’s statements freighting because of their Orwellian nature. This is almost classic doublespeak. What’s even funnier (if this is funny to begin with) is that there are a few reporters, outside of Sean Hannity, who’re buying this garbage. That is, of course, if you consider Sean Hannity a reporter. Couric asked openly during her newscast whether anyone believes these statements. Froomkin also quotes both Ed Henry of CNN, saying “This is a blow to the White House, no matter how they try to play this.” And NBC’s David Gregory stated on the air that this good spin is doing nothing more than covering a much bleaker reality.
And, oh by the way, Howard will lose Australian elections. Somehow, popular opinion there turned against the war as well, one of his main trump cards. Cheney and company just really need to get in touch with reality and soon.
The other crisis PR this week involves one of the more annoying rodents—rats. They are now permeating New York City’s KFC in the village, as well as the famous Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington DC. Or was it mice? The situation at Walter Reed’s outpatient clinic is horrible. Thanks to an expose by the Washington Post, our new Secretary of Defense went into a full-on PR attack, calling for an investigation. But some general (don’t remember his name, saw him in the news) said, the conditions really weren’t “that bad,” and this is another “liberal attempt to bring down the war.”
I rest my case.
02.23.07
Boy, what a week!
As I was deciding what to write about this week, I was stuck between JetBlue, Britney’s shaved head, Google releasing business software as a direct hit to Microsoft, and a new survey that shows most users are not too keen to pay $500 for Apple’s iPhone. So I decided to do a quick summary of the week’s various public relations crisis and snafus, and offer my personal predictions of what may come of it all.
1) JetBlue passengers’ bill of rights. Dare I say? This will be a good public relations move for the airline. There have been conflicting opinions as to whether the airline handled their crisis communications well. I think JetBlue fared very okay. The CEO, David Neeleman, immediately went to newspapers, appeared on morning shows, and even got himself on YouTube (questionable, but okay) and nervously apologized for the snafu the airline caused its passengers last week. Neeleman introduced the passengers’ bill of rights, promising vouchers to customers whose flights have been cancelled. As the airlines increasingly face cancellations due to bad weather (or bad business), I wouldn’t be surprised if other airlines followed in JetBlue’s footsteps. The notion of customers’ rights is getting a lot of buzz in the media. Moreover, I just heard on CNN that mobile phone companies may also be introducing similar “bills of rights” for their consumers. We’re yet to see what that entails, but this may start an interesting trend.
2) The battle for Britney’s mental health continues. Either the girl has lost it, or she’s just lashing out at her ex-husband, but we ought to leave her alone, before her publicist does. Although it does make for an interesting story. But it has to stop.
3) A survey shows most consumers aren’t ready to spend $500 on Apple’s sexy new iPhone. You can find the research results in the article here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/20070223/tc_pcworld/129329
I am just wondering whether Apple should have conducted this type of research before pricing the product? That could have been wise. I mean, only 1 percent of respondents said they are ready to pay full price for iPhone. Most will wait for the price to come down.
I have little doubt that iPhone will be a big hit when it comes out, but not right away. It will follow Motorola’s RAZR’s path. That phone was also initially priced at $400. Nowadays, everyone has it because it is so cheap.
4) Just as Microsoft launched Vista, Google continues to challenge the operating system giant with its own free software. Google said Thursday it is unveiling a number of business applications for next to nothing: $50 bucks a year. You can find more information about it here:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070222/wr_nm/google_software_dc_2
According to AP, more than 100,000 businesses already use Google Apps, shared free software that includes spreadsheets, Gmail and Google docs and more. I used to naively think that Google and Microsoft wouldn’t ever really be in competition with one another. One is a search engine, the other—a dominant operating system. This may change. I am sure it’s a bit of a nervous time in the Microsoft headquarters nowadays. Google is irresistible to many, especially those of my generation. It’s hip, looks great, easy to use. And it’s free. Almost. What could be better?
And to make Microsoft’s day even worse, the company was ordered to pay $1.52 billion dollars in patent violations to Lucent-Alkatel SA.
Have a great weekend!
02.20.07
My solidarity with Britney
With all the talk of Britney shaving her head and how this is a “cry for help” or “she’s lost her mind” (note the framing of the message here), I am actually wondering if the media itself is what’s driving her to shave her locks. Whatever her problems are, the media is on her tail, watching every move, and discussing it in detail on the evening shows. Yes, she shaved her head. The act of shaving one’s head is hugely significant from a psychological point of view. Buddhist monks have done this for centuries. Religious Jewish women shave their heads as their loyalty to Queen Ester, when they enter marriage. It’s an act of defiance on one hand, and purification on another.
Sure, she has problems, but is it up to us to decide what they are and how to help her? Besides, a woman’s heart is a secret, even too often, to herself. Maybe we are her problem? Who are we to judge her?
I was flipping channels, watching one hour after the next how scrutinized she was from one pundit to another. We’re talking Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Keith Olbermann. These guys usually talk hard politics and legislation. Now they’re discussing Britney’s psychological problems in order not to lose ratings. This is crazy.
I am against this public scrutiny. I’d like to think of her as a very talented young lady who’s been dubbed as nothing more than a bimbo and a young sex symbol. She’s a product of her managers, too young to make her own decisions, thrust into the spotlight which I am sure, she adored. But when it came to ask questions about who she really was, I am sure she has no answers. Before she knew it, she had two kids with a total loser. Maybe that’s why she’s breaking down. It seems like she’s doing it publicly but she has no other choice. We’re thirsty to find out more about what she’s doing, even if it comes from reliable political commentators like Olberman or Scarborough.
We, as the public and the media, could do her a great big favor and just step away. Leave her alone for a while. Let her sort out her mess. With two kids, and a failed relationship, I am not sure I’d stay sane either. I just couldn’t imagine what it would be like if I turned on channel after channel and saw my photograph everywhere, with Chris Matthews commenting on my private life. I think I’d shave my head too.
02.18.07
IBM in hot water
A man is suing IBM for $5 million dollars because he was fired over visiting an adult chat room while at work. He claims he’s an Internet and sex addict. His addiction is a result of suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder upon returning from Vietnam in 1969. Internet for him is an addiction, a way to take off the tension. At first, this seems like utter absurd.
You can find the article in BusinessWeek:
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/tech/D8NC23000.htm
Fifty eight-year-old Vietnam vet James Pacenza worked for IBM for 19 years. His lawyer claims the company is just preventing him from retiring and this is a blatant case of age and addiction discrimination. I doubt a company of this magnitude would come down on one employee this way and prevent him from retiring. The guy was making 65K a year. How much could he have really put away for retirement?
But I was also wondering—have we just hit bottom in jurisdiction? If this gentleman was doing something that clearly violated IBM’s rules, he should be fired. That said, I wouldn’t be surprised if IBM goes into PR damage control, claiming to have provided its employees all the necessary psychological counseling when needed. If Pacenza indeed needed help, IBM should have provided it. Instead, according to his lawyer, Pacenza was denied counseling for his Internet addiction.
According to the article, in a recent Stanford study, 14 percent of Internet users said they neglect sleep and other activities to surf the net. Men and women surf the net to distract from their negative state. It could very well be that the Internet is manufacturing another addiction, something the defense will undoubtedly use.
It’s also eerie to hear echoes of Vietnam, manifested in cases like these, regardless of how absurd they seem to be at first. When I step away from the seeming absurdity of it all, this case really brings up questions of individual and company’s responsibility, addiction, stress, depression, labor laws and jurisdiction. Great case. I will be curious about the outcome.
02.16.07
The fuss over DRM
I must admit, I don’t quite understand what digital rights management is and why this issue got so much press after Jobs’s recent call for record companies to relax DRM. So I contacted Center for Democracy and Technology’s policy analyst Alissa Cooper and asked her what the fuss was about and why there is so much resistance from record companies.
Digital Rights Management is tricky. Basically, this is a mechanism that helps limit the number of computers that can play and store music, which was legally purchased through say iTunes, or other stores. So if I downloaded an album on iTunes, I can share it only with five of my friends and not more. Cooper mentions that since the copyright law is so murky, every company is forced to determine for itself what it can skirt under the fair use law. Apple determined five times was the magic number. Others have made different arrangements. DRM doesn’t however limit the number of iPods, and understandably so. One can’t download music from an iPod to a computer.
Apparently, Jobs idea of relaxing the DRM is nothing new. As a technology pioneer, it’s not surprising that Jobs wants iTunes users to share music with one another without limits. But how would the record companies make money if one can hand out infinite copies of his or her favorite albums? Their resistance in this case is perfectly understandable. “We at CDT always believed that the market will end up determining whether DRM stays in place, or whether record companies will eventually abandon it,” says Cooper. “As long as consumers have enough information, they will be the ones to decide what will work for them.”
Cooper says that once DRM is relaxed, fans would be more inclined to share music, and thus create more buzz and hopefully, popularity for artists. I asked Cooper, if this type of a scenario would cause the artists to lose out on the profits. Simply put, if we just start swapping songs with one another, wouldn’t the songwriters and singers be the one left without a dime? “It is a possibility. A definite possibility.”
02.14.07
Radio industry and the convergence of media
An interesting article today in today’s Times discussing how radio is increasingly expanding into other mediums, as it tries to stay more relevant in today’s world of meshing mediums. Specifically, more producers and radio programmers are looking for new ways of broadcasting their shows—be it via the web or even television.
Many have long said that radio was a dying animal, complaining that outside of one’s car, radio is becoming irrelevant. I worked in radio for five years and know for a fact that radio was one of the first mediums that started streaming live on the Internet, giving listeners an opportunity to listen at work at their desks. Many radio programs are now available in podcast format. Most stations have strong online presence. The “innovative” idea radio bosses are entertaining is videotaping radio DJs, ala Howard Stern and Don Imus. These TV/Radio shows would then be broadcast on the web or even shown on TV. On one hand, this could create a larger audience outreach; on the other hand, this could pose dangers to the medium itself.
See, in the world of traditional broadcast, radio is a very intimate medium, unlike television where everything is very exposed. For years I didn’t buy many office clothes because I could show up to work wearing whatever I wanted. On some overnight shifts, anchors (and even myself) wore pajamas or sweatpants. Introducing cameras into the mix breeds a whole different medium. Radio on TV can’t provide the visual stimulation of television because the picture doesn’t change that much. What makes radio personalities great is what they’re actually saying, not the makeup they are wearing or the exotic locale they are visiting. Radio is built on one’s imagination. The listener has to fill in many gaps, whereas the reporter/DJ has to be that much more creative to provide sound and description of what he or she is seeing to put the listener right into the scene without the help of visual aids.
The Internet is bound to change all that. The conservative side of me, the ones that still romanticizes radio as much as I do, want the medium to remain true to its original nature. But times are changing and the business can’t afford not to produce podcasts, stream online etc. These tactics still preserves radio’s authentic feel. The video aspect may not be that beneficial for radio, at least in the short term. It breaks away from what radio does best—create intimacy. Instead, it introduces more bad television.
If I were still working in radio, I’d stay away from videotaping my hosts as much as possible. Besides, I like pajamas. The last thing I’d want is for my colleagues to do is start spending hours on their hair and makeup.
