Bernaisesource

Thanks C.B. Whittemore for tagging me for the 8 Things Random Things About Me meme.   The game is to come up with 8 things people probably don't already know about you and then tag eight more people to play. 

In the spirit of community fun here is my list:

1. When I was 6, I wanted a Johnny Cash album.  Concerned about his lyrics, the salesperson convinced my parents to buy me a record by John Davidson, who later hosted the Hollywood Squares.
2. When I was 12, I wanted to be Jimmy Connors, the tennis star.
3. My favorite television show is the Andy Griffith’s Show, 1960-1965. The chemistry between Andy and Don Knotts was special.  After Don left, it went downhill.
4. I am more likely to buy a book or see a movie if it has been favorably reviewed by the New York Times. 
5. I hate missing the very beginning of a movie and, once started, I will more than likely read a book to the end even if I hate it.
6. I would rather photograph with black and white film than digital.
7. Neither my VCR nor my DVD player has been hooked up to my 1997 television set.
8. I started using the Internet in 1993, but didn’t begin blogging until 2006.

So now I have to tag 8 people.  Here they are:

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: 8 Things; Meme;

Save to del.icio.us

Ahh, what confusing times we work in.  The Daily Show makes fake news more popular than real news, and marketers pass off professionally produced advertising as amateur content.  Where visibility was once the name of the game, companies are choosing to obscure, not highlight, their involvement.  At the same time, we celebrate candor, openness and authenticity.

Welcome to the world where PR and marketing professionals must navigate between real and fake, news and entertainment, deception and transparency.

When it comes to leveraging user generated content and social media, should we reveal ourselves or hide in plain site?  The new rules of transparency afford us both options.  Sometimes good publicity entails anonymity – lest we reveal the man behind the curtain.   And sometimes it is the man behind the curtain, the inside story, that we want to highlight.

It’s no wonder that Newsweek Senior Editor Steven Levy recently asked YouTube founders Chad Hurley and Steve Chen at the D Conference this past spring how they felt about YouTube viewers being duped by advertising masquerading as amateur content and what they can do about it? 

For marketing professionals and, increasingly, PR practitioners, it is not enough to be informative, we have to be entertaining.  We can’t be straightforward, we have to be edgy.  We can tease and redirect, but we can never deceive. 

Clearly, hoaxes and fake news are not a new phenomenon.  Well placed disinformation has started wars and ended careers.  But as Robert Love asks in his excellent article, “Before John Stewart: The truth about fake news.  Believe it,” in the Columbia Journalism review,  “Can we continue to trust ourselves? Are we prepared for the global, 24-7 fake news cage match that will dominate journalism in the twenty-first century?...The boundaries have vanished, the gloves are off.”

Consider the following: 

• We accept television ads for pain relievers knowing full well the testimonials made by actors are fake because we know the ground rules; we’re used to the form.

• We tune in the Daily Show and while the subjects are real, the treatment is not.  They know it; we know it.  We laugh; it’s funny; it’s entertainment.

• Or the other hand, it’s decidedly unfunny when Wal-Mart Stores set up a pro Wal-Mart blog and didn’t fully reveal that the bloggers were tied to Wal-Mart.

• Or possibly it’s illegal as in the case of John Mackey, chairman and chief executive of Whole Foods who used a fake name to post pro Whole Food comments on an Internet message board.
   

So when is “fake” acceptable?  Talking to marketers and social media experts, I believe it comes down to intent and context.  Make believe is appropriate when it’s intended to entertain; it is completely inappropriate when it’s deception designed to mislead or advance an unstated agenda.

A wink and a nod to the audience may be the difference between a wildly successful viral campaign and outright hostility.  It’s the difference between the saga of lonelygirl15 who was in fact just an actress and the fake blog of a cosmetically-challenged woman Claire who was just a creation of Vichy, a division of French cosmetics giant L’Oreal.  The former was entertainment; the latter was an attempt at a fast one.

Consumers need to be in on the joke, not made to feel that the joke is on them.  At some point, there must be a sign or signal that what they are seeing, reading or listening to is entertainment or make believe.

And that’s exactly what The Lenovo Group did. Most people don’t they are the world's third-largest personal computer maker.  What did they do?  They went viral with a spoof Web site.  As Steve Hamm reported in BusinessWeek that the site attracted 3 million visitors in first few weeks.  The campaign pretended to let viewers in on some super advanced technologies being tested by the company. The site's anonymous producer had supposedly received some videotapes revealing the secret research. The joke is apparent once viewers click through to the tapes.

So how did the YouTube founders answer Steven Levy’s question?  Chen responded that it came down to a question of trust and individual decision.  He felt that it was up to informed users to decide. 

I think that is true, but it is only half the equation.  We as marketing and PR professionals must act responsibly and respectfully.  The mixed signals in the marketplace don’t give us the right to deceive even as we take advantage of new technology, new forms of content and changing consumer expectations to entertain, inform and ultimately promote our companies and our clients.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: Daily Show; Jon Stewart; Steve Levy; Lenovo; Robert Love; Chad Hurley; Steve Chen; D Conference; Marketing; PR; Fake News;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us

Technorati Tags: Michael Bay; Transformers; Summer Bockbuster; Branded Entertainment;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us

“The biggest conundrum, of course, is whether consumers really do love brands as much as those working for brands and their agencies do. And even though transparency has been a buzzword in marketing for a while, will viewers really choose to navigate to a site with such blatant consumerism at its core?”

Bud.tv was announced with great fanfare in publications like the NY Times and iMedia Connection.  Despite reports of an approximately $30 million budget for Bud.tv, A-B's branded entertainment network has not lived up to the expectations. The issue is Bud.tv, not branded entertainment in general.

Here’s where I think A-B went wrong.  It struck me as a touch anachronistic, that A-B was trying to build a destination.  The media coverage focused on the network, not the programming.  The industry talk was bud.tv, but how many could tick off a memorable show – of course the current swear jar clip is pretty damn funny.

This point was driven home in an interview with CBS President and CEO Les Moonves at the recent D Conference.  When Walt Mossberg asked, What’s the CBS brand? Moonves said, “The network’s shows are its brands, the networks are not. Our business is about putting the best shows we can on our network.”

The D conference also demonstrated how strong the bond between technology and entertainment has become.  Content providers are increasingly becoming more Web 2.0 centric to reach the coveted 18-34 year old demographic.  And marketers are following as traditional forms of advertising are proving less effective as well.  

In short, A-B was right to use the Internet; they were wrong in how they used it.  

As Steven Johnson writes in his book, Interface Culture, new technology is transforming the way we create and communicate.  Back in the 1950’s making the shift from radio to television meant adding pictures to existing formats.  That was easy.  Web 2.0 requires new rules of engagement. 

A few have offered ways to save Bud.tv including Kevin Dugan in his excellent piece.

One of Bud.tv’s major challenges was its restrictive registration process to weed out consumers under 21 – the very consumers they try to reach with their Super Bowl advertising.  Another problem, the content could not be found on other sites.  

A-B may have been better served and spent less money by offering up its content snippets on YouTube or by creating syndicated programs delivered on blip.tv.  Others are creating original content made for the web in a serial format, known as webisodes. In these ways, A-B would have less control over the content's distribution, but they may reach more viewers.  

Ultimately, as a user, I have to already know about and seek out Bud.tv, I can’t just stumble upon, which is one the best parts of the web. The content may be funny, but it is difficult to share.  Take the recent Ray Ban video.   Like the sunglasses in the clip, the video is getting tossed around virally on the Net. 

Whether Bud.tv survives is less important than the ground it is trying to break.  As Andrew Wallenstein wrote back in March in Adweek, “Bud.tv has attracted attention for portending a paradigm shift for online media, allowing advertisers to pitch directly to consumers with their own programming.”

And so, I get back to the point of branded content on the web. Companies like A-B are going to have to rethink their appoach if they want to be successful.  Using the Internet for entertainment is still in its infancy.  Brand marketers who are willing to take chances will be the first to reap the benefits.  It is no longer enough to just get product placements. The ads themselves must be the entertainment.

Web 2.0 is wide open.  There are no restrictions on content.  Short form, long form, mobile devices or desk tops -- they all apply.  Even users themselves can create content.  The only limits will be the marketer's creativity. 

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: Bud.tv; Blip.tv; YouTube; Anheuser-Busch; Branded Entertainment; Branded Content;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us

I mark my one year anniversary as a blogger with a movie review. 

There is an interesting film now playing in Atlanta and elsewhere across the country.  It's called “Into Great Silence.” It’s about an order of Carthusian monks who live lives of near, but not total, silence. Prayer, song and some discussion are also part of their way of life. It’s a world far removed from the one we now know where every aspect of our lives is posted on a blog or YouTube and every observation is forwarded on Twitter.  It is also a far cry from those who avoid the sounds of nature and instead run outside listening to an iPod or retreat from the sights of nature by flying around in SecondLife.  

Enough said.  Here is my review:

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: Movie Reviews; In Great Silence; Carthusian Monks; Twitter;

Add to NewPR Save to del.icio.us

Meskimen:  I like it, but I don't think it is organized very well.  I am a bit wary of it, because it is so uncontrolled; for instance, anything I do as an actor can wind up there to a massive audience.  That's fine, if I'm proud of it and if anyone can actually find it.  I'm not getting paid, but it is free promotion... but what if my car gets hit by a train and anyone can watch me get splattered over and over again?  It's kind of creepy to think that with all the cameras around, pretty much anything is available, even the things that human dignity would suggest be best treated with privacy.  Hey, what a funny interview, huh?  Man, cheerful stuff!

Greenfield: If the Internet were a joke, what would be its punch line?

Meskimen:  I don't know.  But if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has an email address, is it mailto:Netanyahu@yahu.net? 

Greenfield:  Thanks Jim.

-------

To me, the likes of the Daily Show, E! News and YouTube are raising (or lowering) the stakes – turning news into “newsotainment.”  What does this mean for PR folks when an interview with Jon Stewart may be more impactful that one with Katie Couric?  And in a nod to ABC News, what does it mean that many Americans get more of their news from the Daily Show than from any other source?

Now I make a distinction between celebrity news (E! News) and parody (the Daily Show) whose “news” formats serve to blur the distinction between news and entertainment and YouTube where featured video clips make their way to mainstream news.  These clips are often entertaining even if the subjects of the videos were not intending to be (e.g.  the Comcast rep caught on video falling asleep on a service call).  YouTube’s popularity only guarantees that more embarrassingly funny true moments of real people (and possibly our clients) will find their way into the news cycle.  We now are all actors in our own lives.  Is news the new Hollywood?

We, the keepers of the PR tradition, have decisions to make.  Do we continue playing it straight or do we start infusing some humor into our press releases and pitches?  Do we start producing podcasts and YouTube videos with entertainment in mind?  My advice: tread carefully.  As Jim pointed out, humor is “hard work.”  Being unfunny, when trying to be funny, may be funny but not the way you intended.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: Jim Meskimen; JibJab; The Daily Show; YouTube; Bill Mahrer; Katie Couric; E; Jon Stewart;

I read John Miller's AP story with relish and fries.  Apparently two Boise, Idaho city employees recently made a midnight run to a Burger King drive-through atop two Zambonis.  According to the story, the two big ice-resurfacing machines were not damaged in the mile and half round trip trek.  The two employees were fired after their actions were reported by an anonymous tipster. 

Now if you are the keepers of the Burger King PR flame, how would you respond?  Is it a Whopper of an opportunity or a King-sized headache?.  Ahh the joys of having it your way.

In the PR 1.0 era, you may have avoided the controversy.  These days where two guys with some Mentos and Diet Coke can become overnight celebrities, where people get their news from Comedy Central and amateur videos are the rage on YouTube, companies need to be nimble and embrace user-generated content and oddball opportunities -- even if doing so incurs risk.  And in the case of Burger King, a little risk seems consistent with their ad campaigns. 

So if you were the King for the day, would you reach out to those city employees or hope the whole incident blows over?  Post your thoughts.  Maybe the good folks at Crispin Porter, Burger King's ad agency, will feature your ideas in an ad campaign.

Let me get back to you.

Technorati Tags: Burger King; Zamboni; Crispin Porter; Mentos; Diet Coke;