bitemarks

PR must expand into online marketing

By David Hargreaves

Jeremiah Owyang produced an interesting piece earlier today asking what will happen to PR firms in a recession based on research among 200 PR agencies. I must confess I am not surprised to see that a small majority of firms are predicting that PR budgets were smaller than they were in fiscal 2008, but then if you if you look at any operating cost, I would be surprised if this wasn’t pretty much tracking the downward pressure on all operating costs.

Having said that I think cost reductions fall into two categories: reducing costs because in this climate ‘you can’ and ‘you need to be seen to’ and then there are those companies that are having to reduce costs because ‘they must’. I wonder what if the PR budget reductions are greater or smaller than comparable ad budgets?

I both agree and disagree with the second point Jeremiah makes when he says that "things don’t look too rosy for the PR industry." If you are a traditional PR agency doing the same old stuff then I would be worried. However, if you accept that the world has changed and embracing social media is neither an option or an add on to your traditional offering then the world looks rosier.

By putting social media at the centre of what we do, we have a fantastic opportunity to extend our remit more broadly into the world of online marketing. Far from being gloomy, as someone who has been involved in the PR industry for 20 years and who has always embraced technology, the future for the industry has never been more exciting.

We just need to get through this economic trough first.

(Photo Courtesy USC School of Communication)

A $4.95 version of Mashable's State of NY Blogosphere

By Matt McLernon and Katherine Cantor

When bloggers talk about the blogosphere to a room full of people twittering about their own blogs, it can seem like the world is coming to a crashing end. Luckily for all of us, this wasn't the case at last night's Mashable NextUp NYC: The State of the New York Blogosphere.

The event had 5 solid speakers talking about the various elements of the current NY and national blog landscape - ranging from the blog format's impact on journalism to the underlying debate of how to get paid. Speaking of paid, while the event was one of the rare ticket-based discussions, Mashable's Adam Hirsch made it clear ticket sales and proceeds were being handled by/going to the 92YTribeca. Since Bite graciously sponsored tickets for Katherine Cantor and I, we wanted to share some of the nuggets of wisdom from each speaker with all of you (for the low, low price of $4.95. You're welcome.)

Matt Buchanan, Associate Editor of Gizmodo

Even calling some online content producers "blogs" is becoming a dated term. For example, Gawker produces content best described as media content, so why wouldn't you call it a media publisher? In addition, as recent Gawker appendages, such as Defamer, have folded back into the main Gawker site, it seems more relevant than ever to call them a publisher.

Alana Taylor, Contributing Writer of Mashable

Online success is inextricably linked to an offline presence. Read, comment, tweet about your favorite online content producers, but make it a point to try and meet them IRL. As a college student attending NYU, Alana remarked that her interest in online journalism has landed her a speaking spot at this event, while had her focus been in print media, no one would be inviting her to speak for at least another 5 or so years. Simply having knowledge of the online space from a journalist’s perspective immediately places you in the ‘expert’ category in the world of journalism.

Caroline McCarthy, Staff Writer of CNET News/CBS Interactive

NYC has a rich legacy of media, but many new media and traditional media properties are having difficulty describing where they fall and where they're going. A notable example is New York Magazine, a traditional property that extended successfully into an online property by turning columns into blogs.

Nicholas Carlson, Senior Editor of The Business Insider

Two key tips for blog writing / pitching to bloggers: 1. Use a direct headline that will grab your readers. Use a full sentence if you need to get your point across - you're not paying for the ink. 2. Use profanity only as a direct description, not as a metaphor. No example needed.

Bryan Keefer, Director of Product for The Daily Beast

We've never paid for the real cost of professional content - advertising has been subsidizing the cost of newspapers, tv channels, etc. since the media industry was formed. Now that content is unbundled online (meaning you can get one story without having to buy the whole issue), the advertising model doesn't fit as neatly, and the online advertising industry hasn't matured enough yet to find a model that works.

BUT WAIT ... as we've learned from countless years of watching infomercials like the Snuggie ... there's more! As a bonus for reading this far, here are some additional one-off tips learned/heard at the event. Please add your own in the comments and I'll update the post later this week.

• Bundled content worked when you had to buy the bundle. Now, instead of writing/pitching one comprehensive story on a topic, company, thought - parcel it out into several smaller stories so each piece is captured and can be read/shared. [via Bryan Keefer]

• Social media is a great way for journalism hopefuls to bypass the "go-fer" internships (go-fer some coffee, go-fer the expense report, etc.). By starting your online presence early, media properties might even approach you. [via Alana Taylor]

• Presentations used to be 75% guest speaker, 25% Q&A. Agreed with Dan Latorre it's time this starts approaching the opposite, with at least a 50/50 split should be used between presenting and questions.

• Send @Tamar awesome company schwag.

• PR folks take note – when you e-mail pitch a reporter, please don’t call them 5 minutes after doing so. Because let’s be honest, that’s kind of annoying. [via Nicholas Carlson]

• The blogs/online properties that will be successful are the ones that market another product. For example, WSJ.com --> WSJ subscription, Mashable.com --> Events, CollegeHumor.com --> T-shirts. [via Bryan Keefer]

ValleyWag is right! ValleyWag is wrong!

By Sean Mills

I’ll be the first to admit that I’m never a social media early adopter. While I penned one of the first posts for BiteMarks, I basically said “this is dumb, who cares what I have to say, please get back to work” and then promptly didn’t write again for just about three years. I was very late in joining Facebook, and still avoid doing much with it aside from seeing what my friends are doing. And while I’ve joined Twitter, and am fascinated with it as a communications channel, I can’t say I’m prolific in my tweets.

It is with that perspective in mind that I laud and criticize ValleyWag’s piece today on Twitter, which used a story from The Times (UK) to rightfully point out that the vast majority of Tweets on twitter are nothing more than pointless, mundane bits of information pushed out to networks of people who really could care less. I’m increasingly dismayed by the cottage industry of “social media” experts who think that because they have a blog and Twitter handle, they are therefore capable of providing social media strategy to companies and the world at large. You know who you are.

However, I do think ValleyWag (and the Times) sells itself short by not going beyond the UK research to recognize that the service clearly has more interesting and useful applications for those who are willing to go beyond just blasting out useless tidbits about what they’re doing right now, or essentially spamming thousands of followers with irrelevant URLs and retweets (RTs) that few of their followeres will actually care about. As with any new communications channel, in time, the “fake experts” will fade away, their influence waning as followers grow disenfranchised with the banality of their updates.

And while I’m not sure I’ll be on a list of Twitter’s “most followed” any time soon, I am learning quite a bit about the tool and how best to use it. Last week I worked with a client to find not one, but two customer references for a story with a major business publication in less than 24 hours. It wasn’t long ago that that process would have taken days, if not weeks. A major DVR manufacturer recently started following my girlfriend when she complained that our new unit wasn’t working properly. And they fixed the problem within 5 minutes, no phone call required. Rahul Sood is doing interesting work creating a network of followers by integrating contests and more traditional marketing practices into his Twittering. Heck, even Shaq is connecting with his fans more closely.

What’s the most interesting use of Twitter that you’ve seen? Or is it really just a communications channel for the vain and vapid?

(Photo Courtesy Brad Fitzpatrick)

How Can Silicon Valley Survive?

By Jason Clarke and James Walker

This past Wednesday night (Feb. 18, 2009), we attended a Churchill Club event entitled ‘How Can Silicon Valley Survive the Great Recession, which was a panel discussion on how leading technology organizations are addressing the current global economic meltdown. The panel included some Silicon Valley gray hairs – Bill Coleman, a veteran of BEA and Sun Microsystems; Lisa Lambert, President of Intel Capital and Patricia Sueltz, President and CEO of LogLogic.

If we weren’t sober enough after the doom and gloom that’s been permeating the news for the last six months, then Wednesday night’s discussions ensured we were positively tee-total. Moderated by a very skilled capital markets expert called Joseph A. Grundfest, the discussion focused on the challenges facing Silicon Valley and the venture capital industry in this current macro-economic climate.

With the IPO window largely shut, funding sources drying up, consumer demand declining and acquisition prices low, the question was posed – how bad will it get and what strategies can Silicon Valley firms and investors follow to adapt to the new economic realities? One thing the panel agreed on, is that they’ve never seen anything like this. A recap of the panelists discussions is below:

Patricia Sueltz, LogLogic

• Despite remaining cash-flow positive, LogLogic has already made job cuts deeper than they needed – the strategy being that if they face an ‘economic nuclear winter’ they have enough dollars conserved to get them through 12 – 18 months
• Almost every vertical has been negatively impacted but businesses able to focus on the government sector should increase their efforts – government is one of the few markets where there still appears to be plenty of spend

Bill Coleman, Cassatt

• The Valley will fare worse this time than the last recession. Recessions have typically happened because technology has been overhyped and reality falls far short however this recession is about the cost of capital. The bigger issue is that while previous crises were local or national, this is global. With no region left untouched there’s no healthy engine to drive a recovery.
• Forty percent of the world’s economic wealth has been destroyed over the last 18 months with some of the most drastic effects felt in Russia, China and India.
• Startups need to learn to monetize their offerings quickly or risk going out of business. The strong will get strong, the weak will cease to exist. Coleman states we are at the next major inflection point in the evolution of technology market. We’ve experienced an invent-boom-bust-rebuild cycle at every other major inflection point, which so far consists of the creation of the integrated circuit, the PC, the network and the Internet. This next generation will be centered on the commoditization of IT through virtualization and monetization of social networking.
• Cleantech is the ‘welfare child’ of Silicon Valley. While the price of oil remains low and the capital intensity of cleantech projects remains high, the sector has to rely on government spending to survive the downturn

Lisa Lambert, Intel Capital

• The speed with which this happened was most alarming. Intel forecast $10.5 billion in sales in Q2 and finally turned $8.2 billion. $2 billion in sales evaporated in 2 weeks.
• While Lisa believes the Dow is nearing a bottom, she also believes that we have seven years left of a 15-year bear cycle that started in 2000.
• Much like industry giants Oracle and SAP, Intel Capital maintains that innovation still happens in a downturn and, as such, it will continue to invest in unique ideas that target at a clearly defined customer profile. Companies with a strong team, differentiated product or services offering and solid business model will always be compelling targets for investment.

The messages from the event were simple - conserve cash and conserve capital. No different to the ‘doomsday’ meeting held by Sequoia Capital with its portfolio CEOs in October 2008. According to Grundfest, survival in the downturn is all about ‘distance to cash-flow positive’ meaning the best companies are the ones that can get to cash-flow positive in a reasonable amount of time with no more than two rounds of funding predicated on clearly defined performance metrics.

However one thing other recessions have demonstrated, is that innovation loves a crisis. Lambert reeled off a list of innovations emerging from recessions years passed: During The Great Depressionof the 30’s and 40’s GE made significant lightbulb advances and Hewlett Packard was formed. During the 1981-83 recession, Microsoft launched Word and IBM shipped the first PC with Intel 8088 processors. There is no shortage of success stories during troublesome times. Even the first version of the iPod shipped during the recession of 2001.

In short, although there are some serious stormclouds overhead the odd glimmer of sun still breaks through. As businesses continue to innovate and develop products that consumers demand, they’ll continue to source capital – the products just need to be unique, differentiated and sellable. As for those of us who are working through our first recession, it’s worth remembering - as Coleman stated - you learn far more during a downturn than you do at any other time.

Source: NTSI

Fashion and Tech: Friends or Foes?

By Katherine Cantor

I love fashion and I am an avid online shopper. In some respects, this simple admission signifies the intersection of fashion and technology. Goods are no longer just available in brick and mortar stores and what’s more, online is the home to many of the most wonderful designer sale sites, such as Gilt, Rue La La and NET-A-PORTER.COM (Bite client) for when I am feeling deserving of a particularly beautiful treat. I recognize however, that there is a far broader discussion happening these days that centers around the collision of the worlds of fashion and tech.

In an effort to discuss the effects that New York Fashion Week is feeling from the economy, the front page of today’s The New York Times Style Section blares the headline, “There’s Trouble in the Tweets.” While the article only touches on the effects of technology amidst the fashion world (the rest discusses other promotions and efforts being made by designers to promote their brand and keep people buying), it’s officially undeniable that the connection between fashion and technology is quickly picking up speed.

A few weeks ago, The New York Observer published an article, “Fashion Bloggers Unite! You Have Nothing to Lose but Your Pariah Status” on fashion bloggers specifically, explaining the struggles they continue to face by simply trying to do their job. The article focuses on Yuli Ziv, co-founder of user-generated online magazine and community MyItThings, Fashion 2.0 Meetup and coalition of independent online fashion publishers Style Coalition, who brings an incredibly fresh perspective to the topic. According to Yuli, “Fashion Week is still a tough place to be a blogger,” as most shows don’t provide bloggers with the amenities they typically require, such as a place for them to connect laptops.

In an interesting twist, a recent article in U.S. News & World Report said:

According to a 2008 worldwide luxury goods study by Bain & Co., 'accessible' brands, or brands that are characterized by affordability, status, and membership, such as Coach and Ralph Lauren, were flat in 2008. On the other hand, 'absolute' luxury brands, or brands that attract the most affluent global consumers with their elitism and brand heritage, remain "truly resilient." These brands, such as Hermes and Loro Piana, were up 8 percent in 2008.

The irony here seems to be that while many fashion labels are hard pressed to embrace technology, it could be the very thing to help keep them afloat by allowing for a broader awareness of their brand, particularly with the ‘accessible’ brands.

The worlds of technology and fashion are both constants, and neither one will be going anywhere anytime soon. Perhaps if they embraced each other a little closer, they would recognize an entire new world of opportunities and successes. I for one am excited to see how this pans out in the weeks and years to come.

Effects of the recession: Thoughts from the little people

By Lorina Zelics

I’m not sure that it’s been talked about just enough yet, but the economy is in a bit of slump. True story. As a young professional out in the business world, these are scary times. It’s certainly the first time the global economy has ever had a real impact on me - to be honest it’s the first time I’ve cared. The recession of the early 2000’s found me in college, entirely consumed with myself and finishing up what amounted to 17 years of education. Nope, didn’t care. The recession of the early 90’s was also of no concern, in fact that was probably right around my My Little Pony phase. I had bigger fish to fry.

Well now I’m in a recession along with the rest of you. Maybe we’re adjusting just how many pairs of shoes we buy, maybe we’ve even cut back on some other little luxuries, “Do I need the DVD box-set of Saved by the Bell?” Turns out, no, no I don’t need it. I’ve got my priorities in line.

A great number of individuals are certainly making the same changes I am, and companies are also having to realign and reorganize their businesses to keep up with evolving consumer consciousness. Some companies have had to endure layoffs, some more than one round of them. Others are cutting back on certain luxuries that their employees may have grown accustomed to… like rubber bands.

Gawker provides a forum for discussing the economic recession in a way that allows me (and you) the opportunity to view a company’s cost cutting tricks straight from employees' mouths. Some of these make total sense: fewer offices, fewer snacks in the kitchen. Gawker features a series of these ‘Stupid Cost Cutting Tricks,’ proving once again why social media is AWESOME. Not only does their nifty little aggregation of cost-cutting tricks satisfy my curiosity, but it also provides an outlet for individuals to connect with others and commiserate over their companies making them pay for their own business cards.

For example, I get to hear from an employee at Sony how they’re cutting costs - they’re no longer allowing overtime for most employees or giving them water anymore, but they’re giving John Mayer a $13 million advance check. I love that I am afforded the opportunity to hear first-hand how other companies are dealing with the recession on a human level.

I think it’s easier to disassociate ourselves from recession talk when we hear about it in terms of, “Conglomerate X announced 5,000 layoffs today.” The number is so shocking, that unless you’re number 4,026 of the 5,000, it’s something I’m not sure we have the ability to entirely wrap our heads around. Hearing from people all over the globe about what’s happening with their organizations gives the rest of us a peek into what’s happening in day-to-day life at other organizations. A site bringing in social media content like Gawker gives what is often a more human feel than an article where you get a figure and maybe a fact.

Social media… informative, educational and somehow managing to make even the recession a little but more humorous.

(Photo Courtesy ICanHasCheezburger)

Is the end near? WSJ and NYT getting along?

By Sean Mills

Noticed something interesting today on the web. Not once, but twice, News Corp properties said something nice about The New York Times, or at least referenced their content as interesting and discussion worthy.

First, Andrew LaVelle of the Wall Street Journal penned this post to the Digits blog, basically rehashing a John Markoff Sunday Times story, and asking people what they think about the story. Then, Peter Kafka of All Things Digital wrote this piece defending the NYT’s web efforts, especially when compared to other national papers, like News Corp’s own WSJ.

If I recall correctly, it wasn’t long ago that the WSJ wouldn’t mention the NYT by name, and certainly no Dow Jones property would ever speak even mildly kindly about the NYT, let alone say that the NYT is the “paper of record on the web.” Are Rupert and his team going soft? Or will we soon also see cats and dogs, living together in harmony?

But seriously, is News Corp now trying to grab some of the NYT’s traffic via association? Are Kafka and Lavalle angling for jobs with the NYT? (I kid, I kid) Or are they just embracing the spirit of blogging and social media, and attempting to ignite a discussion, faint praise be damned? My money’s on the latter.

 

While the NYT has clearly got a lead in blogging and blog traffic because of its head start, it’s interesting to note that, according to Compete.com, the WSJ has seen some pretty impressive blog traffic growth since getting into blogs headlong in the last year.

Thoughts on which property “gets” social media better than the other?

Keeping it personal this Valentine’s Day…

By Nadia Guerirem

Facebook’s latest craze, ‘The top 25 random things’  meme  got me thinking back to my school days when I’m sure a similar chain mails blew up into students personal inboxes around the country (if this was just a British thing, then let me know). The key difference between the two of course is the medium—one is a transparent and completely open social networking  environment (apart from the craze instigator who still remains a mystery), the other a private communication between a select group of contacts.

As the dreaded/anticipated (depending on where you stand) global day of Lovers draws closer, it’s interesting to see just how ‘open’ we’ve gradually become, no more so than in our personal relationships thanks to the marvels of social networking. According to several sources (and strongly reiterated by Charlene Li at a recent Future of Social Networks discussion in SF) the number one reason for de-friending is due to breakups. Breaking up in the digital world now seems to be an acceptable experience—whereas text messages used to be the cowards way out, social networks seem to have added a whole new layer when it comes to finishing with your partner. 

However, one fragment of encouragement is that the reverse is also true. For every boyfriend dumped there’s a relationship started. For every message of malice, there’s an exchange of friendship. For those who aren’t busy broadcasting the latest personal mishap, the delights of Facebook, MySpace and Twitter have become an instant way to share positive memories—engagements, wedding photos, holidays—with friends, family and loved ones…well, for some at least. Subsequently, the question (for everyone who finds this as intriguing as I do) is, how open should we be? And where should we ultimately draw the line when talking about our nearest and dearest, or even just what we choose to communicate via this channel? There are many who have crossed that line and paid the consequences.

As wonder would have it there is also a mixed opinion about how social networks have become the safe medium for dabbling in a careful dose of infidelity. In short, people will use these networks for whatever they need to—whether it’s finding a girlfriend or firing you from your job.

The rapid development of these relatively newfound (and extensive) networks has essentially led to a global drop in peoples inhibitions. Call it a combination of ego, convenience and immediacy resulting in people broadcasting their lives, to sometimes huge groups of people, across the  web—normally with little rhyme, reason or question. Never before have we been able to track quite so intimately one person’s day-to-day movements—exactly as they make them.

In any case whether you are for or against getting up close and personal through the (online) powers that be, in the world of all things social it will be interesting to see what today’s Friday 13 (luckier for some than its 24-hours-older sister) or the famous February 14 bring…feather dusters and cockatoos. I hope not.

(Image credit: mrsboring123)

The lessons we learnt

By David Hargreaves

I know it is old hat now but I do genuinely think that there are some real lessons that brands (and agencies) can learn from Obama’s presidential campaign. There has been so much written about it, but I just wanted to distill it into five key things which I believe are THE most important (plus one I don’t know about):

1. It’s the people stupid: Obvious but true. Obama took advice from Eric  Schmidt, Craig Newark, Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes among others and had ten times more staff dedicated to online compared to the McCain campaign team.
2. You need a content hub: Every social media campaign needs a centre through which to drive and interact with channel advocates. Obama had my.barackobama.com. At Bite we call it a social object. 
3. Content needs to be found: You can create as much content as you like but if no-one looks at it, what’s the point? The Obama campaign understood that only one third of Americans know the difference between natural search and PPC. They also understood the importance of making sure that your content appears alongside searches that yield competitive content.
4. Social media isn’t an add on: I’ll say that again. Social media isn’t an add on. It is just as important to integrate social media with traditional channels as it is to integrate social media channels with each other. Why on earth do some agencies either only do social media or think that setting up a separate company to do it is the right thing to do?
5. Empower your fans: Successful social media campaigns don’t just create content but empower advocates to create it for you. Obama did this spectacularly well by empowering superusers on my.barackobama.com
6. PR that can be measured: for the first time ever the internet has made PR accountable through direct measurement of our actions. I don’t know how they used analytics to fine tune their campaign but they seem to have done everything else so I am sure they did!

I am sure there are lots of other lessons that we can take away from the Obama campaign but I think if we as an agency can deliver campaigns that reinforce these learnings, we will continue to be successful on behalf of our clients.

(Image credit Obey Giant)

When Twitter Goes Bad

By James Walker

Twitter remains a huge point of focus in the media with seemingly not a day going by without publications like BusinessWeek or The New York Times waxing lyrical on why Twitter matters. A UK newspaper recently reported that over the last 12 months, traffic to Twitter.com has increased 27-fold while other sources estimate the site now attracts up to 10,000 new users every day. And just yesterday, the Twitter-based Twestival saw a globally coordinated series of 175+ events raise thousands for charity:water.

Whether following celebrities, building corporate relationships, arranging social engagements or trying to find a job, everybody has a reason to use Twitter. Anything that becomes this mass-market is inevitably going to attract some controversy, and it’s been an eventful week for faux pas’ in the ‘Twitterverse.’

First up a National Post tech reporter and a marketing consultant from Toronto had an offline clash of heads that spilled over into Twitter resulting in the increasingly irate journalist having what one article described as a very public “melt-down”.

Next up, a congressman caused what was referred to as “a major lapse in security” (which even prompted the Pentagon to reevaluate its security policies) when he posted real-time updates on Twitter regarding his congressional visit to Iraq.

These are the latest in a long line of Twitter mishaps. It was only a matter of weeks ago that a PR agency executive Tweeted what could have been construed as derogatory remarks about Memphis only to be confronted by one of the agencies biggest clients (which happened to be based in the city) who took affront to his statement.

Fundamentally, these are all examples of the same thing – when an inner monologue or inappropriate discussion spills into a very public domain. None of these individuals stopped to ask some very simple questions… should what I’m Tweeting be for public consumption…do I really want anyone else reading this…in short, is the conversation suitable for the medium?

It’s no different to the kind of controversies that were limited to email before microblogs took off. One person sends an email to half dozen of his friends not realizing that the viral nature of its content is going to enable it to spread halfway round the world – and not listening to the voice in his or her head that asks “should you really be sending/posting this?” People email, or now Tweet, without thinking and they could lose their jobs.

Various experts have taken it upon themselves to detail “Twitter etiquette”, most recently CIO.com published its ‘Five Do’s and Don’t’s’ of what constitutes ‘good Twitter behavior’. One inevitable question is whether this is enough for businesses with employees using the service. There are corporate policies for blogs and email, how long before Twitter becomes another major concern for legal departments and organizations can no longer rely on a set of unwritten rules in place of official ‘guidelines’.

Twitter is designed to be a very open forum and it’ll be an unfortunate state of affairs if it comes to this. But perhaps it’s only be a matter of time before one of these events goes beyond the mildly entertaining to become something far more serious.

In truth all any Twitter user really needs is some self-control and a little common sense. It’s a simple question of straddling the line between being too personal and too generic and not letting your ego take over. Public arguments, confidential information and anything that could be interpreted as an insult are classic examples of what shouldn’t be shared online.

To avoid unpleasant tangles like those above, all anyone using the service needs to do is ask themselves some very simple questions: Should everyone be able to read this conversation? Is what I’m writing confidential? Who can I possibly offend with this? I’m hopeful that if you can answer all of those with a negative then, with a little luck, you can avoid becoming a feature story on Valleywag.

(Photo courtesy of Charged)