Mike’s Points

While we all are interested in “who’s the biggest,” size does not necessarily equate to quality. (Heh, I sound a bit like SWBU, but look much different.)

Guess I’m puzzled why this is such a big deal: Aegis, WPP Dominate Digital Agency Ranks, Account For Half The Industry.

Size can be important (or, impotent for some I suppose), but it’s the quality and rating of the work that really sizes up a firm. So, for those companies seeking an online marketing partner, don’t be fooled by the size of the package. It truly is what is inside that counts.

– Mike

Now, I could use this opportunity to tout my employer, but I won’t.

Let me preface with what (I hope) you’re going to read by saying that, Google can operate its business however it wishes. Let the market decide if it’s good or not. And, for the most part, the market has said Google’s actions are good.

Let me also state that its effort to prevent companies from buying page rank is not so good to some degree.

“We work hard to return the most relevant results for every search we conduct. To that end, we encourage site managers to make their content straightforward and easily understood by users and search engines alike. Unfortunately, not all websites have users’ best interests at heart. Some site owners attempt to ‘buy PageRank™’ in the form of paid links to their sites. Buying links to improve PageRank violates our quality guidelines.”

Yes, ranking high in Google search results is important for businesses. All businesses, I’d dare say.

But, there are other reasons for “paid links” like what companies like PayPerPost offer: To try to garner a level of word-of-mouth exposure among bloggers.

As long as there is up-front and easily-seen disclosure that a blogger is being paid to promote a product or service, so what?! I’m not stupid. You’re not stupid. We know ads and slanted posts when we read them. Michael Brooks/HistoryMike is a great example. He has a very insightful, and worth-reading blog about current events (international, national and Toledo-area), book reviews . . . and even PPP posts.

When he posts his PPP posts, I scan right through them. For the most part, I don’t care. But, from the majority of his posts, I know (or, assume) the segue and personal info around his PPPs are genuine. So, I might scan more slowly or even follow a link if it’s of interest.

Because I trust the blogger. In many instances, I disagree with Google’s statment that, “Unfortunately, not all websites have users’ best interests at heart.” (That is true often, but those times are rare.)

Mike is transparent.

And, so are most bloggers.

So, Mr. Googles, don’t penalize good, transparent bloggers who are trying to make a buck but still offer quality content. Let search engine visitors decide if the content is worthwhile. Don’t try to put forth some utopian stance.

– Mike

Thanks to Jason Calacanis for the pointer to the Google Webmaster Tools link.

WSJ columnist (and blogger, of course) Jeremy Wagstaff started his own online publication of reviewed technology, Websites and related products and services: tenminut.es.

tenminut.es takes a look at new and old products, services, software, gadgets and people, the only requirement being each is given no more than ten minutes (excluding download and installation times.)

You can read more about it in this announcement.

Oh and, speaking of new media outlets, there’s Social Media Today (pointer to Mike Manuel/Media Guerrilla). (But, why do we need a collection or “media” of bloggers? Isn’t that what feeds are for?)
- Mike

(Clock image from: http://www.sharelibrary.com/Desktop/Screensavers/Mechanical_Clock_3D_Screensaver03060268.htm )

Yes, this is old, but like Marie/Flackette and Todd, I’ve been busy (even shoveling snow here in SE Michigan). But that’s likely not why you’re here, so . . . for an update on the YouTube copyright saga, see here.

Now, in a logical and common sense world, in every decision we, clients and other corporations make, we weigh the positives and the negatives. The risks and the rewards. The opportunity costs. (There’s that social science theme again.)

Technically, I would agree that YouTube is in the wrong for allowing users to air copyrighted material from The Daily Show With Jon Stewart or David Letterman’s Top 10 Lists.

But, if unless those uncopyrighted, illegal re-broadcasts are taking money away from Viacom and the producers, portraying the particpants in a negative light, or otherwise doing some harm, what is the problem?

Could it be that these unauthorized re-broadcasts are cramping CBS’ own use of YouTube?

I’m no lawyer and am definitely open and eager to hear both sides of the argument. However, unless you can show where harm is being done, the only thing that these other YouTube broadcats — and similar unauthorized re-broadcasts/re-use of copyrighted material — are doing are giving more people more opportunity to hear, see and enjoy Viacom-owned material.

And, I would think, increase Viacom’s audience share. If there is harm done, then go after them. (I realize that, to protect a copyright, you have to try to prosecute everyone — even churches — but there has to be some common sense involved.)

Again, it is about using common sense, and weighing risks (such as possible negative publicity, even though you are legally right) with rewards (obtaining evangelists for your brand).

– Mike

I don’t think people really trust the media — new or old.

Courtesy of Micro Persuasion, I found an interesting British study reported at E&P about the trustworthiness of media — traditional and new. In the study, “1000 respondents were asked what percentage of the information they received from various sources was accurate, true and unbiased.”

TV: Scored a 66 percent accuracy mark; this was on a line with information respondents received from friends.
Newspapers: 63 percent accurate.
Radio: 59 percent accurate.
Web sites: 35 percent accurate.
Web logs: 24 percent accurate.

I can understand the difference in the levels of trust between traditional media like TV and newspapers and Web sites and blogs. Blogs, for the most part, are not news-gathering media. They are opinion. Very rarely do you see any form of real journalism. And, for most people, b-l-o-g is a four-letter word, even in the U.S.

But, what that study says to me is that, on average, people only believe two-thirds — at the most — of what they see/hear/read from the traditional media.

One-third of what you see on the TV news is not accurate? Holy cow! That is discouraging, and very disheartening.

In addition to the staff reductions, competition from non-traditional media and labor strife, I think traditional media has a fourth problem to worry about.

– Mike

Technorati tags: media distrust, media, TV, newspapers, radio, blogs

Anyone in public relations or other professional communications position — and every public official and public figure, for that matter — should know that you can never — NEVER — win a battle with the media.

Now, yes, I’ve posted about how companies and organizations successfully “battle back with blogs” against the media. See here and here plus an update here.

Now, “battle” is a bit strong and I use it primarily because I like alliteration. But the examples I’ve blogged about did not battle the media directly. They were/are using blogs to voice their side of an issue, story, or just getting messages out to their respective audience(s) that they feel are not getting out via the traditional media means.

Prime examples of how people and organizations are really battling the media — and will ultimately lose — have come up of late.

First, locally. Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner doesn’t like how WSPD-AM 1370 voiced opposition to a proposed bike path in one Toledo neighborhood. So, he called the A.M. drive host Fred LeFebvre a liar, and threatened to contact the station’s advertisers (see “stalemate”). Plus, Mayor Finkbeiner has banned all city employees from talking on air with WSPD, has stopped informing WSPD news personnel of news conferences, and stopped sending the station any news releases.

In return, WSPD has banned Mayor Finkbeiner from the station until he apologizes for calling LeFebvre a liar.

It’s getting pretty ugly and not good for Toledo, especially since it looks like WSPD is not backing down in its rhetoric of the mayor. But, ultimately, WSPD will win because it’ll have the last word.

Now, let’s go national, and get into the sports world. As you probably already know, the New York Knickerbockers — not liking the media scrutiny and criticism it’s been under this year, and of late regarding fired Coach Larry Brown — scheduled a news conference and only invited a select number of beat reporters and other media outlets (including one owned by the team’s owner).

Of course, the reaction to the Knicks’ poor media relations judgment has not been favorable.

Ultimately, the Knicks should stop its arrogance, open up, take the heat and move on. If the team wins, it’ll all get better. If it loses, the criticism will continue — justifiably. If Knicks management persists in excluding most of the media interested in its team, the team will be continually crucified.

Plus, that tact won’t work. Reporters are resourceful. They are paid to be. They’ll get the story — whether the Knicks like it or not. The Knicks can be left out, or it can contribute and do their best to get their side story out. In other words, participate in the conversation.

Locally, as I commented a day ago, WSPD should take the high road, skip the controversy tact, be reasonable and don’t tick off listeners with extreme programming. It’ll be better off in the long-term.

For the Toledo mayor, get over it. Suck up your pride as there are other issues that you will need WSPD and other media as allies. Or, at least, not as your adversaries.

– Mike

Technorati tags: Toledo, media, PR, public relations, New York Knicks

Though it is early, I’ll be watching to see what — if anything — comes from the new Society for New Communications Research.

Looks like it was launched Oct. 31, and includes at least some well-recognized names.

Its mission is lofty and desireable:
“To investigate, develop, share and transfer in-depth and forward-facing insights resulting from our deep ongoing study, learning, and continuous mastery of new communications tools and technologies with the academic community and industry for the promotion of best practices.”

From scanning the members lists, most are in public relations and blogging, with a couple or so from the ranks of journalism and academia.

I definitely hope the SNCR is successful and bears a lot of fruit. We all will benefit from its success.

As I never feel as if I have all the answers, I do have questions:
> Will any hard-core, factual information come from SNCR’s work? (Surveys, research, etc.?)
> Will the findings be mostly ancedotal and case studies? (These are helpful, not always applicable to our own needs; whereas surveys are.)
> Will what SNCR learns be published/blogged for all to see, or sold as part of a business venture?

Yes, I am a bit skeptical. PR and communications professionals, bloggers, authors, etc. are by nature conversational. That’s great for ancedotal evidence and case studies but not as much for good, hard, practical information.

If I’m wrong down the road, I’ll admit it. If I’m right — and the SNCR falls short of its goals, then I’ll be sorry.
– Mike

Technorati tags: Society for New Communications Research

Those who get their news and information on the Internet are more likely to read traditional media, than their less-than-’net-savy brethren.

That’s at least how it is in Canada, according to a study done by the Canadian Internet Project, and reported on CyberJournalist.net.

The key findings of plus a link to the report are on CyberJournalist. According to the study, “Fifty-nine percent of Internet users cited newspapers as an important source of information, compared to 50 percent of non-users.”

As the study pointed out, “Internet users, it would seem, are simply more media-oriented than are non-users.”

Internet users are just news junkies (like me, I suppose) who use the Internet as an additional outlet to gather information, whether it be useful or useless.

However, according to the study, while Internet users see newspapers as an important source of information, they tend to spend less time reading newspapers and other traditional media.

That makes sense as there is more competition for news and media sources.

So, should more newspapers take a cue from “USA Today” and develop quicker-read stories with graphs to optimize readers’ time?

Some have, but more should.
– Mike

Technorati tags: CyberJournalist, Canadian Internet Project, Studies, Canada, News, Newspapers