First they came for the downloaders…

February 6th, 2010

CNET: “The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child pornography and other serious crimes.” This is wrong on so many levels, but especially because we already know what the FBI will do with this stuff – play Gestapo with our freedoms. Let me digress.

A survey by MTV and The AP in December revealed that a shocking one-third of U.S. teens have engaged in “sexting,” the sending or receiving of sexually explicit pictures or video via the Web. Here’s the key finding, according to Wired:

Of those who admitted to distributing suggestive images of themselves, about 61 percent report that they were pressured by someone to send the image. Girls were more likely to share a naked image of themselves than boys. Those who are already sexually active were much more likely to send an image than those who were not sexually active.

Most of the respondents sent the image to a significant other or a person of romantic interest to them. But 29 percent said they shared naked images of themselves with someone they knew only online.

So there’s a whole lot of pictures of naked teenagers floating around cyberspace to potentially be used against those who participated, one way or the other. After all, we have laws pertaining to child pornography, for which, let’s face it, this certainly fits.

Take the strange case of Matt White in Sacramento, the 22 year old man who is headed for jail for “accidentally” downloading child pornography. He’s pleading guilty for a reduced sentence, but he’s going to serve three years and be branded a sex offender for the rest of his life. For what?

Two years ago (that’s right. Let me repeat that: two years ago) White was downloading “Girls Gone Wild” via the file sharing service LimeWire when he says he discovered the images and immediately deleted them. “I’m into girls my own age.”

About a year later, FBI agents showed up at his family’s home. The family agreed to let agents examine the computer, and at first, they couldn’t find anything.

Investigators later were able to recover the deleted images from deep within the hard drive.

“I asked them, ‘Where did you get that? I don’t remember that.’ I asked them, ‘Could I access that if I wanted to?’” Matt said. “They said no.”

To throw the book at a young guy for this is evidence of how far our culture has bought into the boogeyman theory of Web users. If the FBI has nothing better to do than destroy lives for something like this, we need to seriously rethink not only the laws but also the duties of those who enforce them. Of course, nobody in any legislative capacity has the balls to step forward and say such, because, after all, we’re convinced people like Matt White are predators who are after our children.

“Well, Terry, cough-cough, this will, ah, cough-cough, have a chilling effect, cough-cough, ah, um, on those who would, ah, cough-cough, prey on our, cough-cough, youth.” Yeah, right.

Where will this end, folks? A deleted file that the cops admit can’t even be accessed by the user is evidence only that it was, at one point in the past, downloaded. Go after LimeWire, if you wish, or one of the hundreds, if not thousands, of “sharing” sites, where evidence of this exists in the here and now. He committed this evil deed when he was 19, for crying out loud. Is he a child rapist in the making? Bring on the gang from Criminal Minds.

And now that teens are filling cyberspace with this “sexting” craze, the FBI is going to need a bigger boat while having a field day knocking on unsuspecting doors years after the fact. And they want ISPs to do their work for them.

People, really. Is this the kind of world we want to live in? First they came for the downloaders, but I was not a downloader, so I said nothing…

Posted in Culture, Legal | No Comments »

Michigan State logo is a lesson in transparency

February 5th, 2010

I have written extensively about the cultural shift to postmodernism for almost ten years now, and occasionally something pops up that cements my position. The issue of “transparency” in all walks of life is really a matter of PoMos wanting to participate in their world than it is some new moral mandate for hierarchical behavior.

Take the strange case of the Michigan State logo. The school had been embroiled in a controversy with alumni and fans over a “discovery” that the school was trying to bring a new logo through the trademark registration process. Somebody found it and made it public, which prompted several weeks of sometimes contentious give and take. It was apparently to be a part of a sweeping, Nike-sponsored brand marketing plan that gets underway this Spring. Then, yesterday came this statement from Michigan State athletic director Mark Hollis:

“After careful consideration, we will use the current Spartan logo design, first used in the late 1970s, to build our visual brand identity.”

The logo on the left is the old logo. The one on the right is what was discovered during the trademark registration process.

This is a case where a little participation by students, alumni and fans up front could have made things turn out differently. Remember, it’s hierarchical modernity that’s being disrupted, so anywhere unilateral decisions are made, they run the risk of backfiring in a culture that increasingly wants to participate in the decisions that influence their lives. Technology may provide the engine, but it’s the cultural shift that’s providing the heat.

Frankly, I like the old logo, so in this case, it might not have mattered anyway.

Posted in Culture, Postmodernism | No Comments »

Are you just a node on a network?

February 5th, 2010

This comment to a PaidContent.org article on Belo’s 4th quarter losses caught my attention. The report included that revenue from the TV station websites in their network was off 3.2 percent during the quarter and 5.2 percent for the whole year. That prompted the Disqus comment below:

Now I know what you might be thinking about an anonymous comment, but this is something I’m hearing rather regularly, especially from advertisers who really understand the web. The days of media companies setting high rates for display ads associated with news content are numbered. Moreover, local media companies that function as third-party ad networks will not fare well in the future, because the assumption that ads adjacent to content “work” is suicidal.

This is one of the reasons Gordon Borrell’s conference next week in New York is so important. It looks at companies that are making money beyond their brands and their brand.com websites. I also have believed for years that the flexibility for revenue growth with local media companies exists at the property level, and not by lumping all those properties together as a network. Why? Because all the tactical flexibility for revenue growth exists at the property level. Moreover, the needs of the network outweigh the needs of the individual nodes on that network, so media company divisions that function as ad networks eventually do a disservice to the company as a whole.

Thank you, redsonja420, whoever you are.

Posted in Advertising, Media 2.0 | No Comments »

Media 2.0 101: Continuous News is a social loop

February 4th, 2010

The next step for a newsroom participating in the “news as a process” business is to include the audience in the process of gathering and reporting events as they’re occurring. This may seem obvious, but Continuous News is a continuous loop that includes consumers on a scale with which traditional media companies are unfamiliar.

Traditional media is a one-to-many paradigm, and this influences our use of social media. We “get” that Twitter, for example, is a great notification system, so a part of its appeal to us is its one-to-many side. We want to get a message “out,” and Twitter is very good at that. It’s the feedback loop that we fumble with, and this is even true in the Continuous News model. To begin today’s lesson, let’s back up a bit.

News is evolving away from what I’ve called “finished products” for several years. To be sure, we’ll always have newscasts on TV, some version of a “daily record” in print (after all, we need that first writing of history), and websites that offer completed stories, whether they are blogs, like Duncan Riley’s wonderful Inquisitr or online newspapers, such as the Huffington Post. What the news is evolving “to” is a continuous stream of elements that need no finished packaging, as is practiced by the gossip site TMZ.com. You can laugh all you want about the content of TMZ, but they are masters of the concept of continuous news.

Social media is also driving the news business to the continuous stream. This is a new form of news, which, I suppose, is why it’s so hard for media companies to explore. We keep defaulting to finished stories and everything that goes with that, and we’re missing the opportunities of professional life in the stream.

One thing we must all learn about the stream is that it’s not exclusive, because our contributions are just that — our contributions. They’re part of a vast linear timeline that is here and now. We don’t wait for anything; our deadline is always “now.” So if we are but contributing to a much bigger stream than our own, what are our responsibilities to others participating in the stream? This is a critical question, as it relates to our future relevancy as professional journalists in the ongoing stream of consciousness that is the Web. We may even have to interact one day with, OMG, our competitors!

One problem we have with this feedback loop is that we don’t control it, and this is counterintuitive. We may not control it, but we can influence it. For example, let’s say a television station airs a segment in one of its finished product newscasts that shines a light on the best local tweets of the day on that particular story or issue. We certainly can use such — and we should — but how many of us go the extra mile and notify those people that we’re using their creations? What happens when we do that? Lots of things:

• We acknowledge that the stream is bigger than just us.
• We give credit to those who participate, thereby encouraging others to do so.
• They get a chance to notify their friends about “being on TV.”
• Our Twitter street creds grow exponentially.
• Our “finished” presentation is better served, and we’re better off for it.

The same holds true for comments on our sites. Merely acknowledging their presence is big, but connecting back with them is even bigger. Interaction begets interaction. If we have none, we must look in the mirror. The stream is alive with people — our people — each of whom has a place in the infrastructure that is Continuous News, and we’re smart if we lead that all that participation by example.

When big events take place, do we create hashtags that everybody can use? Do we engage those on Twitter through the use of hashtags or through replies or direct messages? The people formerly known as the audience are waiting to be invited in, but not just to become our pawns (let’s face it — that’s what they mostly are have been to us).

In the stream, we’re all equal. Let’s not forget it.

Continuous News is a work-in-progress. We’re all learning as we go along. The AR&D clients who practice the concept are, we believe, far ahead of their competitors who don’t. “News as a process” is a lot different than finished product news, and that includes the way it’s monetized. The sooner we learn how to drop commercial messages into the stream, the better off our bottom lines will be served. Our clients are figuring all this out as they go along.

Others in the business are waiting for somebody to figure it out first. What they don’t realize is that by the time “the book” is complete on Continuous News, it’ll be too late for them.

(Originally published in AR&D’s Media 2.0 Intel newsletter)

Posted in Continuous News, Media 2.0 | 1 Comment »

The rules of the old don’t govern the new

February 3rd, 2010

The new deal between Netflix and Warner Brothers (and soon to be every Hollywood studio) to not rent films until 28 days after DVD release is another clear example of a 20th Century institution refusing to accept the reality of the 21st Century. The problem here is that DVD sales have plummeted, and the studios believe that by forcing a delay on cheap rentals, people will return to buying DVDs. That, I’m afraid, is a fallacious assumption.

This is similar to the thinking – Mark Cuban included – that media companies are expressing in attempts to put the toothpaste back into the tube in their dealings with aggregators. They believe they can force people to go to their own sites to get the news by blocking access to their content from aggregators like, well, Google.

These people actually think that distribution is the problem. Or supply and demand.

It’s not. It’s the people formerly known as the audience who are using technology to avoid the pocketbook rape that they’ve had no choice but to accept from the so-called copyright industry for many, many years. What will the studios do when they realize that DVD sales are going down even further during this new deal? What will media companies do when their revenue falls even further after closing off the aggregators? Who will they blame then?

We’ve turned the page on a massive cultural shift, from the hierarchical modernist world to that of participatory postmodernism. No amount of wishful thinking (that’s what this is, BTW) is going to put the quo back with the old status. It ain’t happening.

It’s like the Roman Catholic Church’s efforts to license printing presses in the 15th Century. Their authority was forever altered as the Bible found its way into the everyday lives of people, and the scribes who used to hand-write copies of the scripture found themselves unemployed. Human achievement exploded, and the modern culture was born.

We’re in the midst of the “second Gutenberg moment” in the history of the West, and this one will change things even more than the first. Getting in sync with this new culture will determine who will lead and who will follow, as a new elite is inevitably created. That which defines the new elite will be very different than that which defined the elite of the old, and therein lies the rub.

Rather than following this foolish assumption, Hollywood should be working within the disruption, for that’s where opportunity exists. Could Warner Brothers have created Netflix or Redbox? Of course. The problem is they didn’t.

Posted in Copyright, Culture, Disruptions, Postmodernism | 1 Comment »

“Tweet Me” is a new Valentine’s wish

February 1st, 2010

I’m a little late on this one, but…

Sweethearts, the company that makes those cute little heart-shaped Valentine’s candies with messages, has jumped into the social media world with a couple of new additions this year: “Tweet Me” and “Text Me.”

According to the NECCO website:

“For the first time in its 145 year history, the New England Confectionery Company is unveiling a new generation of Sweethearts® that includes all new expressions selected entirely by the American public, along with a re-formulation of the iconic candies made in the USA.”

The company discarded all its previous flavors and sayings this year and launched an entirely new series, including Strawberry, Green Apple, Lemon, Grape, Orange and Blue Raspberry.

The chances of finding “Tweet Me” are one in 80, according to Jackie Hague, vice president of marketing, who told ABC News that the phrase was the number choice of a consumer survey of suggestions for new messages.

“It’s a recognition that society is changing the way to say, ‘I love you,’ ” she says. In fact, she says, because the phrase was the top vote-getter among consumers, “It’s less commercial and more democratic.”

To meet the demand for its “Conversation Hearts,” NECCO produces them from late February through mid-January of the following year. According to the website, the entire production–about 100,000 pounds a day– sells out in an amazing six weeks.

I can report from experience that the new purple, blue and yellow hearts are tasty, but the green and pink, not so much.

Posted in Culture, Just Plain Fun Stuff, Uncategorized | No Comments »

With iPad (and Kindle), it’s about the content

January 31st, 2010

The idea of newspapers (and others?) bundling subscriptions with a free portable device is gaining traction. Here’s Joe Zeff:

Love it or hate it, the iPad remains the publishing industry’s best chance at resurrection, but only if enough consumers buy in. The price tag is the biggest obstacle — $499 for an iPlane Jane model or $629 plus monthly service for 3G-powered Pad. But what if the publishing industry helped to defray that cost, bundling an iPad with a multiyear subscription to hundreds of newspapers and magazines? It’s a short-term investment that could pay off handsomely, and one of many options that should be considered in order to lure a new generation of readers to a new world of possibilities.

Stan Schroeder at Mashable.com noted that the iPad is all about what’s IN the iPad, not the device itself. “The iPad “shouldn’t be sold in Apple stores, it should be sold on newsstands (together with a 24-month subscription to some newspaper), in video clubs, in libraries.”

I honestly expected a lot of subsidized options for the device if you agree to buy some content with it, but Apple hasn’t really delivered that — yet. If I’m right, and if Apple starts doing that, most of iPad’s shortcomings won’t matter.

A few weeks ago, I made the same suggestion via Twitter.

The response to my tweet was mixed. Some thought it spot-on; others thought it was foolish for an industry already limping due to lack of funds. I think that’s an empty argument.

And, as Poynter’s Damon Kiesow notes, this isn’t really “new” thinking.

The New York Times and others have already started down this path, selling subsidized Kindles in return for annual subscription packages. The advantages of this model were proposed a year ago when the Silicon Valley Insider calculated it would be cheaper for the Times to buy its subscribers Kindles rather then print and deliver them each a daily paper.

I feel pretty strongly that this is going to happen, and as a Kindle owner, I would welcome it. The device is fabulous for the treadmill, the bathroom and other places where the size of the font makes multitasking much easier. I promise to keep it out of my car.

Posted in Disruptions, Newspapers | No Comments »

Will marry for health insurance

January 29th, 2010

Move over, “Pants on the ground.”

You think you’ve seen everything until something new pops up. Terri Carlson, 45, of San Diego has launched a website and YouTube videos advertising for a husband. The criteria? Health insurance! While I’m not sure it’s intended to be funny, Terri is quite a character. Take a look.

Of course, we’ve no way (yet) of knowing whether this is a put-on, but the story is already getting some media attention. Next up? The talk shows and yet another unexpected 15-minutes of fame.

Posted in Just Plain Fun Stuff | 1 Comment »

C’mon, folks. It’s not about content!

January 29th, 2010

At the risk of being labeled “Johnny 1-note,” let me repeat this truth about media and the future. Paid content concepts divert media company attention from the real issue, which is the revolution in advertising. This keeps going through my mind this morning, as I read reaction to Apple’s iPad announcement and ponder the future.

Let me repeat: focusing on paid content concepts diverts our attention from the real issue, and that is the disruption to traditional advertising. The problem here is that media companies think they’re in the content business, but they’re not. Perhaps it was true in centuries past, but today the “business” of media is advertising.

The rise of content marketing and “advertising as content” in the Media 2.0 world are permanent disruptions in the way businesses sell their wares. Enabling commerce is the new mission of media, not serving ads, and the sooner we get going with it, the better.

I don’t doubt that there will always be a place for subscriptions and advertising, but those are not the kinds of growth categories that public companies need to impress investors. Yes, broadcasting has “matured,” but it will still make money (and lots of it), but media companies keep staring at red herrings instead of attacking what really matters.

Will the iPad help media, especially newspapers? I think it will, but not to the extent that newspapers especially need the help. So let’s all smile, but let’s do so with an eye on creating apps that enable commerce, especially locally.

Posted in Advertising, Broadcasting, Disruptions, Media 2.0, Newspapers | No Comments »

One-third of U.S. adults post to the Web

January 29th, 2010

When Nokia predicted two years ago that, by 2012, one-fourth of all entertainment would be created and consumed within peer groups, a lot of people just rolled their eyes. It was a laughable notion, after all, that people would turn away from Hollywood to entertain themselves, but that was a misinterpretation of the prediction. And evidence continues to mount that suggests we are indeed moving in that direction.

To “make” media, you have to begin somewhere, and new data by Forrester Research sheds light on where that’s taking place. One-third of U.S. Web users now post status updates once per week via social media, and Forrester has created a new Social Technographic term for them, as Josh Bernoff explains.

When we created the Social Technographics® ladder of behaviors, we anticipated most categories of social behavior that continue today with one exception: the rapid conversations that take place in tweets and Facebook status updates. To reflect the new behavior, we’ve added a rung to the Social Technographics ladder: Conversationalists.

Bernoff adds that the new category, Conversationalists, reflects two changes. “First,” he wrote, “it includes not just Twitter members, but also people who update social network status to converse (since this activity in Facebook is actually more prevalent than tweeting). And second, we include only people who update at least weekly, since anything less than this isn’t much of a conversation.”

Conversationalists are 56% female, more than any other group in the ladder. While they’re among the youngest of the groups, 70% are still 30 and up.

The new data from Forrester also confirms earlier trends spotted, that Spectators are maxing out at around 70%, Joiners are still growing rapidly, and Creators are still growing slowly. One-fourth of U.S. Web users are in the Creator category, and they’re the ones who are leading the revolution in personal media.

Of course, the greatest threat to traditional media from all of this isn’t the creation of competitive content, but rather that the people formerly known as our advertisers are participating on all rungs of the ladder, including making their own media. The Web has lowered the barriers to entry to any media business, and that includes everybody from kids to professionals, writers to film buffs, and, of course, those former advertisers.

Forrester has done us a favor by categorizing all of this and publishing it, because the sheer enormity of what’s happening tends to escape those who don’t wish to see it.

Posted in personal media | No Comments »