Intr-o zi am primit de la Ramona un link

Ce  pot spune despre site?

-Pot spune ca e interactiv, m-a prins faza cu compusul melodiilor...Chiar daca sunt mereu in criza de timp, m-a facut sa incerc cateva note.

-Pot spune ca e ca o manusa pt toata comunicarea Cola de pana acum (music+refreshing).

-Pot spune ca putea fi imbunatatita partea cu autoplay de la radio (btw, nu se incarca imediat ce intri pe site); un pop-up ceva pe box-ul cu playerul ar fi mers (daca se poate tehnic vorbind)...asa ca sa vad toti omuletzi care intra pe site de unde vine zgomotul ala ciudat (mai ales dc poarta ochelari)

-Pot spune ca ar fi putut fi mai generos la premii clientul Coca Cola (mini-frigider, marele premiu?? come on!!!). Dar asta imi spune mie altceva despre brief, parca il si vad ... anyway.

-Pot spune ca imi merge destul de greu aplicatia cand vreau sa compun muzica (nush ce explicatie tehnica are...pp ca ceva cu flashul sau poate conexiunea mea face figuri) ... n-am avut rabdare sa construiesc o melodie

Aici un link cu o alta perspectiva despre site

Mi-am schimbat parerea despre Zoso. Dezamagire totala ... (asta e, nu o sa afle decat toata agentia). Chiar credeam ca e un fel de e-journalist super cool. Nu m-ar fi deranjat postul lui atat de mult daca ar fi fost obiectiv ... o critica solida, construita ca la carte: argumente pro si contra (altfel nu e critica, ci altceva...). Poate mai invatam ceva util ds online. Whatever, let's not digg more on this subject.

Asta-i treaba cu online-ul ... oricine poate spune orice. not a rocket sience.

Ah, back to business.  Let's finish up a post that we have been writing for a few weeks...and would have finished weeks ago, if it was not for whole Blogger snafu.

Twitter.  Certainly a very big buzz word for the past several months (years, if you have been paying close attention) and one that will probably come up more than once at ESTO this week.

So, what is twitter?  Well it is easily summed up as a micro-blogging service where communities of friends and followers keep answering the same, basic question, in 140 characters or less...what are you doing?  You can also think of twitter as the best part of MySpace, the status bar (or what are you doing bar).

To say this service is popular with it's user base is a massive understatement.

Before we get too much further, let's take a look at a few recent articles about Twitter that should help you understand the importance and power of this seemingly little site / mobile application.

Seven Ways to Get Your Mom on Twitter
A great article from Mashable explaining how to get your Mom on Twitter.  Examples, step by step instructions, plus a Twitter lingo chart (very important!).  You should know what a 'Fail Whale' is.

Twitter As News-wire
An excellent post from the official Twitter blog showing the sheer power of Twitter in reference to major news events.  In this case, the earthquake in LA a few weeks ago.  The earthquake happened at 11:42am...the first twitter post about the quake happened with 60 seconds.  Stop and think about that for a second.  In the past, you might not have heard about the quake for hours afterwards depending on when you flipped on the TV or visited CNN.com, however if you were following @thevixy on twitter you knew about the event almost instantly.

Not only does this make a compelling argument for the influence and timeliness of twitter, but also demonstrates the power that a majority of twitter users have.  We always hear talk of how one person tells 5 friends and then they tell 5 friends, etc, etc.  Well, the users on twitter are that first friend who starts the conversation.

Sci Fi Tries Out Twitter
The Sci Fi channel is using Twitter to promote an ongoing show, Eureka, via a computer-based character on the show who has set up a Twitter account.  Cheesy?  Probably.  These people know a character from the show is not really speaking to them via Twitter, but they do know it is someone from or related to the show and that is enough for them.

Again, this is proper use of new interactive media.  Show on Sci Fi + tech crazy TV viewers + Twitter account = 2,602 people reading what a show character has to say.  That is a small number, but these are 2,602 people who are asking to follow a commercial message about a product, in this case a show.  How more targeted can you get?  Have a special episode, DVD release, action figure, guest appearance on Regis and Kelly, tell your Twitter fans and watch the viral campaign begin.

How “Janet” Fooled the Twittersphere She’s the Voice of Exxon Mobil
Ah, but there is always a downside.  As with most things online, anyone can say, do or even pretend they are someone else.  Same thing on Twitter.  Anyone can register the 'George Bush' Twitter name and start tweeting away (tweeting? You should have read the lingo chart!).  Or in the case of the story, begin posting message on behalf of one of the biggest corporations in the world, ExxonMobile.

Refer back to our recent post on How To Protect Your Social Media Footprint.  Twitter was listed.  Register your name and start tweeting (if you are the interactive / social director*) or set that profile to private.  Either way, make sure you are not surprised one Wednesday afternoon when the CEO runs into your office asking why some guy is tweeting on behalf of your company.

*Just the other day, we had become friends with @CrocsInc, the Crocs footwear company.  4 or 5 days later, the account was gone, deleted.  I would assume an overly friendly employee got his hands on a computer and started tweeting, until management heard about it and shut it down.

Side note, one of our favorite celebrity tweeters has to be Darth Vader.  Good stuff.

Okay, Twitter basic training is complete.  So now what?  Who is actually using this in the travel space?

Well, for one, Mo and I are, with two different approaches:

http://twitter.com/ArizonaTourism
In the case of AOT, we are posting messages from an actual person, making real-time updates to our feed.  Telling our followers what to do, where to go and what is happening in Arizona as well as talking to people on Twitter.

http://twitter.com/TravelOregon
Travel Oregon has taken a bit of a different angle on Twitter.  Rather than posting live comments, they are using an RSS feed to send blog and calendar of events updates directly to the service.  No one has to monitor this 24/7...although, some monitoring is still involved.

Two different approaches, both with the same goal, begin to communicate and inform travelers where they are spending time online.

Other travel-related organizations on Twitter:

http://twitter.com/CarnivalCruise
http://twitter.com/JetBlue
http://twitter.com/SouthwestAir
http://twitter.com/MeetMinneapolis
http://twitter.com/BaltimoreMD
http://twitter.com/ExpCols

Just looking:

http://twitter.com/BritishAirways

There you go, a pretty good primer on Twitter.  Should every DMO, CVB and travel organization be using the service right now?  Probably not, like all of these social media applications some time dedication is required.

Is Twitter a great, free and easy way to communicate with those 'influencers' we always hear so much about?  Absolutely, Twitter is a great way to start your social marketing strategy.  In the overall scope of things, producing 140 character thoughts 2 or 3 times a day is a whole lot easier than maintaining a Facebook page.

Should you register your company's Twitter name right now? Yes!  Why are you still reading this!

We already have a substantial body of authored contributions being made on blogs in particular. Nearly Legal himself has been blogging intelligent legal commentary for over 2 years; he has now also attracted joint contributors and these collective comtributions - CC licensed - now form part of the free legal web. Transform this and all similar resources to the Free Legal Web - ie repurpose them in creative ways (with permission) - and most contributions will look after themselves.

There's reason to be optimistic too about leveraging law firm publications. These articles are written to be read, to reflect well on the authors and their firms and to gain them business. If their headlines and excerpts were syndicated by RSS, the FLW could give them wider, well-targeted, explicitly linked and attributed exposure and deliver the Google juice they desire.

Geeklawyer points to the less than succesful attempts by others to set up specialist law wikis. But although Susskind's vision does refer to "a Wikipedia of English law", I'm pretty certain he was using  the term loosely in a generic sense. It would be a big mistake for us to think no further than using standard wiki software to ape Wikipedia for the law; crazy to suggest that an encyclopedia of UK law would magically emerge from scratch, user-generated contributions. The scale is massively smaller than Wikipedia, the level of authority needed for content is much higher; and the reasons users will contribute will be different.

If Geeklawyer sounds sceptical it’s because he is but not because he don’t support the vision. It could work, it needs to work and it may. But it is a big job.

Granted, this is Whedon at his unhindered finest: he created Dr. Horrible during the writer's strike, so he didn't have studio execs sniveling over his shoulder. In addition, the series boasts Hollywood-caliber production values and killer talent (Neil Patrick Harris can really carry a tune while setting an Olympic record for facial expressions)...

[vodpod id=Groupvideo.1495613&w=425&h=350&fv=]

So I do celebrate the fact that the Web has opened doors for independent artists and producers like myself, liberating us from the evil villain GAMO (Gargantuan American Media Oligopoly). But as an entertainment junkie, I'm also saying, "keep it coming, Hollywood, keep it coming!" I like what the big guys produce when they're not doing the deed for the sake of ratings or box office...

That same day, I get an email from a friend announcing that he's developing a website for an A-list celebrity. (I can't divulge who, but she's a hot item.) My friend is also a filmmaker, so I ask him if he'll pitch her on doing a webisodic series. My friend asks why she would want to do that: she already has fame and fortune and more film offers than she can possibly handle. Why would she bother with a relatively low-budget, unproven medium?

Indeed, why do any of them do it? I don't know how much Neil Patrick Harris earned for Dr. Horrible, or how much Rosario Dawson (pictured) is getting paid for Gemini Division (another recent webisodic series, this one backed by NBC), but I'm surmising that it's not about the money. At least, not entirely.

Although the Screen Actors Guild is splintering into fratricidal pieces over how much actors should get paid for online productions, so far there hasn't been a single online "hit" worth fighting over. All of YouTube, for example, will make an estimated $200 million this year -- not chump change, but roughly what the top summer flicks make in about three months (or, in the case of The Dark Night, about three minutes).

Even the YouTubers aren't buying mansions with their share. I recently observed a discussion featuring some YouTube stars -- or cewebrities -- including former Rocketboom host Amanda Congdon, French Maid TV producer Tim Sweet, and Hayden Black of Goodnight Burbank and Abigail's X-Rated Teen Diary. I'm impressed at their accomplishments to date -- applause, applause, applause -- but none of them is yet making a fat living online.

So why would Hollywood stars bother to plunge headfirst into such shallow waters? And why should others follow? Oh let me enumerate the reasons...

1. Self-Promotion: Everyone can always use a bigger fan base. Just ask Eddie Murphy. The exposure helps promote the "true" products: impending movie or TV launches -- for example, Joss Whedon has a new series, Dollhouse, coming to network TV soon. In addition, if a star has her own clothing line, fragrance, or even a favorite charity, she can use the series to promote them.

2. Control: The Internet = no studio interference. A director can savor that rare prize: 100% control over the script, casting, etc. The actors have the opportunity do things that they've always dreamed of, but that the studios haven't yet allowed them to do, like write or direct. Writing or directing an online hit will give them more clout back at the ranch.

3. Creativity: In addition to lack of studio interference, there's no FCC or MPAA running around with whips and muzzles. More importantly, not having to worry about ratings or box office receipts allows imaginations to run amok and flout Hollywood conventions. Just look at HBO's groundbreaking fare and, of course, Dr. Horrible.

4. Toehold: While there may not be a lot of wealth in webisodes right now, everyone's talking about the Internet as the future of filmic entertainment. So many Hollywood players want to be hailed as "pioneers" -- or they want to create a buzz before everyone else jumps into the pool.

5. And, yes, money: I spent $5 to download Dr. Horrible from iTunes because I hate watching long streams. Would I spend money to download my other favorite series, Tiki Bar TV? Uh, no. I'll stream that. And that's because I irrationally equate a celebrity-driven Hollywood production as worth spending money on. And I'm not alone in my illogic: Dr. Horrible was reportedly the #1 downloaded TV season on iTunes for five weeks in a row. In addition to consumer purchases, the series also garnered sponsorship from the likes of Dove and Best Buy. The total revenue might be pocket change for a star, but it pays for the production or can be donated to charity.

So, alas, my fellow independent producers, the all-too-brief era when user-generated videos ruled the web has ended. Hollywood has arrived. Yes, there will still be millions of views of our free work posted on YouTube, but Hollywood has raised the ante -- and is getting paid for it. To compete, we'll need to pump up our production values and sharpen our creativity to a lethal edge. We might even need to get (shudder) agents. And that's a pretty horrible thought.

In a nutshell, activities - like fan pages - need to encourage communication and community building within the social network, not direct them offsite (because, presumably, it interrupts users' conversations and communication).

One nice example is an Alicia Keys fan page, which revealed exclusive news, events etc. Fans are driven to join, debate, sign up to events, share and so on. I'm assuming this has a lot to do with why and how fans think - such as playing one-upmanship and showing other fans how much of a bigger fan you are.

Read Jermiah's blog post on Web Strategist

A few take aways from the CNET article "Widget Makers Get a Makeover":

- Atomization of the web has proved to be viral and scaleable on the usage front. Not necessarily so on tying revenue to those usage models. I think there is an analogy watching what Google is doing with the Feedburner asset (blog on feedburner), AdSense and RSS monetization?

- Advertisers dont seem to like UGC and are still skeptical on this "new medium" where they still dont understand the interactivity factors. Fast-forward to the end of the article....advertisers take a long time to understand where their customers reside and understand what their customers are doing online. Curious to see how Visa fares, for example?

- Education: Widget makers are moving to language such as "social entertainment applications" to describe the experience; putting lipstick on the pig or evolving the landscape and maturing the marketing message?

- And the forecasts...."Forrester Research predicts.. in a report late last year that ad spending on "emerging channels," which includes social media and widgets, will grow to more than $10.6 billion by 2012, one-sixth of the overall $61 billion spent on interactive marketing by that time. That's up from about $2.1 billion it expects in 2008." Seems really really aggressive? I am quite skeptical to say the least. But these are the types of numbers that support the ridiculous valuations of Slide, RockYou and Facebook (oh yeah, and LinkedIn)!

- Again: "Within emerging channels, the research firm forecasts that social media will drive most of the ad spending. In 2012, it expects ad sales to social media sites will be $6.9 billion, up from $1.5 billion this year and $600 million last year."

- I completely agree with Ms. Li in that "this market is extremely confusing to marketers, some who even don't understand what Facebook is," said Charlene Li, a former analyst at Forrester Research. "The VCs are taking a step back, but what's the reality behind this, is that it takes a long time for marketers to understand where their customers are at."

I recently watched a rerun of Kitchen Nightmares where they visited Sebastian's in Toluca Lake, CA. The restaurant was doing everything wrong. They were microwaving food, nothing was homemade, and they had a complex menu that took the waitresses 20 minutes to explain. Chef Ramsay came in and turned the place around. By the way the show ended, I thought the restaurant was off to a great new start. So upon looking at the listing on Citysearch, I was amused to find the restaurant now closed, and 73 reviews for Sebastian's, many of which were people who had not been to the restaurant but were appalled by what they saw on the show. Though I can't be certain, about 10 of the reviews seem to come from the owner (who else would say "It's SEBATIOUS!" 12 times in one paragraph?). These entries included raving reviews of the food and atmosphere and bantering people who wrote negative reviews about Sebastian's.

I am not sure if the owner of Sebastian's could have saved his business if he'd responded to the reviews differently, especially considering his overall performance on the show and in the reviews. Internet users can easily see through a fake review, and it will only result in a poor image of that business.

Here are a couple of examples of great business responses that Sebastian's should have tried:

1. From a personal experience, I ate horrible food at a Mexican restaurant in Minneapolis once and wrote a review about my experience. Soon after, I received an email from the company offering a coupon to give them a second chance. Although I chose not to go back, I felt like the company had listened. I hoped that they would make some changes to their menu. The coupon offer gave me a more neutral feeling for the business, which toned down my desire to tell everyone I knew to never eat there.
2. Take a look at the reviews from CustomInk on Yellowpages.com. A customer says they tried to call the company, but had trouble getting through. CustomInk wrote a business response to this person explaining that they were experiencing a higher call volume than expected, but promising to add more staff and the goal to answer all calls on the first ring. This business specifically addressed the issue and let the customer know they were working on a solution. Great job!

These two examples are great because the business responded in a very real way. CustomInk was honest and admitted they were having a problem.

The new wave of the internet includes businesses getting involved in online communities and listening to their customers. The way you respond to what your consumers are saying has a direct affect on the success of your company.

So EA Sports decided to reply to the guy’s video by filming a video response…featuring the real Tiger Woods.

Of course, the cynic in me wants to ask the original Levinator25 video poster if he’s in the employ of EA or any of its suppliers. Nice work either way.

Yes, most times they're donned with TV station call letters or the names of newspapers, but who cares? I've always needed a handy-dandy triangle-shaped multi-color highlighter thing, and I wasn't going to pass it up just because of that. You never know when you might need quality highlighters, and thanks to the Times-Union, I'll always be prepared.

So what's this all about? I'm suggesting that you spread some trinket-love to your community members? Just think of a reason. Any reason will do. Identify the top posters of the month or the people with the most pictures in their image galleries and tell them they've won a prize.
Just make something up.
It's easy to get caught up in development or managing and growing the community and then suddenly realize that you haven't been very engaging, or that your core audience hasn't heard from you in a while.
This happened to me just yesterday. So, I delved into some stats, identified twenty people who met a certain criteria and sent them e-mails requesting their addresses.
This morning, I sent out 20 GOLO mousepads.
A small chore, but the result will be a grateful group of people who feel valued and know that their participation isn't taken for granted.

So, if you don't have any trinkets lying around, get some.

In their new September issue, Fast Company magazine features a fascinating story about the comedy web video business and how it's almost impossible to make these websites profitable.

They lay out many of the current business models, but I think an addendum is useful. In this post, I will outline a mindset that hurts that industry, what the current business model is and why it doesn't work, a suggestion to ensure profitability, and the business model that can make an online video site profitable.

First, The Mindset

We tend to think about web videos as a "thing." It is a product. It is content.

Forget this mindset. If you're a video producer, web video might be a tangible thing that comes from tangible people sitting around your tangible office. But it's not.

For your audience, web video is an experience. There's no actual product for the viewer - the video elevates the spirits or gives us hope or connects us to others. It has more in common with a trip to Disneyland than it does with buying razor blades.

So stop thinking of a video as a commodity and start thinking of it as an experience you provide for your viewer.

Second, The Model

As the Fast Company article points out, the prevailing business model is advertiser-based. This has been the case for most things in the U.S. for more than half a century.

However, the advertiser business model cannot support web video. Consider it: the marketplace is fragmented, niche sites have the most loyal visitors, online is still new to many advertisers, audience has a decreased appetite for ads, and the content (at least on the comedy sites) is oftentimes...edgy, to put it diplomatically.

Even off-shoots of the advertiser model don't work, such as product placement and sponsored shows. The huge conglomerates that have the money to invest in these small comedy sites only know these sorts of models - give the product away in exchange for some advertiser time.

No matter how many times you throw money at the problem, this business model still doesn't work.

But that doesn't mean web videos will never be profitable. (Misters Murdoch and Branson, please have your assistants print out the following explanation.)

One Suggestion

First, just a suggestion: keep the suits as far away from the video production as possible. Nothing kills comedy like business people.

You want to appeal to college kids? Hire college kids or recent grads to do the show. Fast Company points out the CollegeHumor.com, a site still operated by the creators, plays well with YouTube and still cleans up at the bank.

"The site has attracted advertisers such as Motorola, Fox, and Subaru and reaped $4.2 million in ad revenue during the first quarter of the year. CollegeHumor is profitable - the only profitable major comedy-video site."

You do what you're good at and hire people to do what they're good at. (This applies to most businesses, not just online video, by the way.)

One Solution

OK, you've been waiting for that business model that will work better than advertising, right? This is how major media companies can succeed with online video.

Here it is, step by step, just for you titans of business:

• Take all the money you would spend on focus groups and market research.
• Invest this money into your online video business.
• (Once the site is up, collect the bits of ad revenue and re-invest it.)
• Use the website to do all the market research you would have done for your other shows.

Web video sites can be profitable when the "product" is not the web video. Websites are the perfect venue for market research. You can find out anything you want - people are dying to share their opinion for free!

Can't decide between jokes for a sitcom? Film them both and let the website audience vote. Feature pilot shows on your website and only air the most popular ones. The money you save from traditional research and focus groups (much less money lost in terrible shows you would have aired), will more than pay for your video website.

Eventually the website might make money and that's fabulous. Until then, use it as a seed bed. Test out new acts, try out new jokes, ask your audience's opinion, and gauge their interests. Web video sites can have immense value if they are viewed as research laboratories instead of content production facilities.

But what do you think? Maybe advertising just isn't being done correctly for these online comedy sites to become profitable? Maybe a subscription model like The Bitterest Pill podcast would work? Let me know what you think in the comments section below.

*

If you liked this post, feel free to show some love:

Subscribe to OnlineMarketerBlog.com via email or RSS

Stumble it

Share it on Twitter

Sphinn it

Mixx it

This coming Freshers Week the University of Kent in England will once again be hosting a record attempt through the organisation of Kent Union, the JCC's and RAG!

They will be attempting to break the world record for people dressed as me!!! Check out the details below and dig out your stripes!

Largest Gathering of People Dressed as Wally/Waldo
New record stipulation: 200 people

Date: 23rd September
Location: University of Kent, Canterbury, England!

Rules:
All participants must wear:
- A white bobble hat with a red bobble and red trim
- Clear glasses (NO sunglasses)
- Red and white striped shirt
- Blue jeans
- Appropriate footwear

Remember also a lot of these things can be made. A normal white beanie can be painted and have a bobble added to it. A shirt can also be painted!!

With all those Wally's, I wonder if anyone will find me??

Hope to see you there!

For more details - http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=23975146446&refurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fs.php%3Fq%3DWhere%2527s%2Bwally%2Brecord%2Battempt%26init%3Dq

A while back, I explained to a web editor how the BBC was planning to introduce more user generated content (UGC) to its site – namely its new Share/Find/Play strategy.

As is increasingly common among web editors now getting to grips with UGC, the following sentiment sprung forth: won’t that mean masses of useless content to wade through?

I’m finding this is an increasingly common concern among content professionals.

I'm not trying to sell in UGC services as a whole here, but I'd like to document some of these concerns and provide some of my own thoughts on why they exist.

User generated content means poor quality

By who’s standards exactly? Granted, UGC can be riddled with appalling writing, unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories but unless you’re running a talent website for writers or budding journalists, who are we to judge?

UGC is about letting users express themselves in their own way. Resist the urge of the sub editor in you to correct content. Editing or censoring ‘errors’ in your users content is a big no-no. Let them be.

The same applies if you’re looking for balanced debate or hoping that the quality of your blogs will raise the profile of your site. Have faith in your community and put trust in the adage that users vote with their mouse. The online stars of your platform will gather momentum as they gain a following, while the never do wells wither away and die from the drought of page visits and replies.

All that editing and censorship will mean massively increased workloads

So what? Isn’t your remit to increase user traffic and activity on the site?

UGC isn’t just about blogs and forums of endless editorial debate. Content suffers when UGC is half heartedly applied to traditional publishing models, where the user is constrained in what they can submit.

Why only allow users to submit written editorial content? It’s no surprise that web editors have concerns over UGC because, understandably, they’re looking for quality editorial. But why? The vast majority of people aren’t professional writers. Many don’t like writing full stop.

Instead, give the user access to a completely open platform, where they can submit any type of content – editorial, but also audio, videos and images.

As the likes of YouTube and Flickr are showing, users are becoming increasingly sophisticated and are evolving from ‘readers’ to multimedia content producers.

What if I have empty blogs, forums or no user comments?

I’ve yet to meet an editor or journalist that’s never written an article which is designed to inspire debate or gain a reaction from readers.

Avoid having empty blogs and message boards – roll them out to carefully selected users or offer only one forum topic at a time. Once they grow, open up more and cast the net wider.

Never open up a major network of forum or blog networks on day one. Unless you’ve got millions in marketing spend or you’re MySpace in a position where your URL gets a mention in virtually every news wire on a daily basis, you need to coax users in slowly.

I’ll have to deal with – ugh - the public!

Ever worked in print journalism? If you have, you’ll know that letters to the editor and opinion articles are the lifeblood of any publication. Having a healthy post bag and bursting opinion schedule is a great position to be in. It shows that your readers trust and respect you enough to engage with you and your brand. Thanks to UGC, readers can now take this brand engagement to a whole new level.

UGC is a fad. It’s a waste of time and money

We’re seeing more and more mouse potatoes take root (see what I did there?) at home and, much to the alarm of employers, in the office.

The web is moving away from being solely a lean-to technology focused on information retrieval. This is about taking the traditional publishing model and applying the benefits of the web – interactivity, the ability to publish at minimal cost, automation and search.

Quality websites with opinion and debate have the edge over others which simply break news. A team of quality writers can initiate that debate, but now you can allow users to actively take part and reinforce that role / value. More users spending more time on your site have obvious benefits, not least to your ad sales team.

Don't under estimate how valuable UGC really is. The traditional web publishing model, by its very nature, pumps out content which appeals to a mass or large niche audiences. Even the best attempts to be super niche will assume some common ground among users.

Blogs, on the other hand, allow this homogenous content to be tailored by really niche users with heterogeneious preferences and opinions. UGC effectively widens the appeal of your content, making it relevant to more audiences, no matter how small or individual - all this is possible with very little effort on your part.

Such is the case with the paidContent site and its recent acquisition by the Guardian. The mainstream media owner has wasted no time at all in pulling paidContent, er, content, into the MediaGuardian's own digital news pages. Not sure how this impacted the existing digital news team there, namely Jemima Kiss, but hey, who are we to second guess one of the most successful publishers in the UK?

But integration and cross promotional thingies have increased even more with today's inclusion of a post from the MediaGuardian's own PDA digital news blog on paidContent's site. Not sure if the byline format works for me, but it's interesting how this is slowly developing into something interesting. Assuming this is step two in a defined long term game plan.

Separately, the paidContent blog talks about a new website by the creators of Dazed & Confused called Dazed Digital. Not a magazine extension site it appears, but a destination in its own right. Quite nice, but no obvious sign of comments or UGC services for us fickle read/write/rip consumers of content. Also, most of the videos seem to suffer from poor lighting, making each interviewee look like they're in silhouette. Artistic fancy or handycam hitch?

His reasoning behind the panel goes as follows:

The age of content being managed only by authorized professionals is over. Users expect to contribute to, rate, review, recommend, filter, tag, and moderate their experiences on the web. What does this mean for designers and content management professionals? How do you encourage appropriate behavior and discourage spam and vandalism, without completely reverting to non-participation?

Granted, this should be (really) old news to any decent content producer going to SXSW, but the panel discussion promises to provide some practical tips on how to get the best from those crazy 'read/write' contributors all us editors shake our heads and tut at now and then.

Vote / add your comments to John's proposal page right now.

Until recently, the Post-It people thought they made a simple (read: boring), useful product. To their surprise, almost overnight, their Notes became a means of creative expression. Liam points to the many talented people showcasing their skills with these li'l sticky canvases. Yet another example of customers using products in original and alternative ways to express individuality.

So often you hear marketers complaining "but, my brand isn't cool". Newsflash - cool is subjective. If your consumer product/ service is any good, someone somewhere probably thinks it's kinda cool. These people are very important. And if you're willing to listen to them, and relinquish control, there's opportunity there.

Rocketboom ha firmato un importante accordo con Sony, che ha acquistato i diritti di distribuzione e l'esclusiva per la vendita di spazi pubblicitari relativi allo show.
E' un accordo da un milione di dollari, che accontenta entrambe le parti: Andrew Baron può concentrarsi sulla creazione dei contenuti; Sony acquista un contenuto con un pubblico già fidelizzato, rafforzando la sua strategia editoriale, in forte in espansione.
Rocketboom verrà pertanto distribuita su Crackle.com, PSP, PS3, Sony Bravia, ma potrà rimanere anche sulle piattaforme attuali (YouTube, iTunes, TiVo), così come rimarrà intatto il sito originale.
Non è la prima volta che Rocketboom prova a intrecciare partnership per agganciare inserzionisti, ma finora nessuno, dice Andrew Baron sul blog, è stato in grado di gestire le diverse presenze online dello show.
Sony ha evidentemente la competenza di intraprendere strategie multipiattaforma e la forza di garantire un margine economico agli autori. A questo proposito Erick Schonfeld su TechCrunch ha osservato: "The deal does raise the question, though, of whether Web video startups can thrive as independent entities or require the distribution muscle of a major media company to go mainstream".

Chissà, magari un giorno non ci sarà bisogno di intermediari "muscolosi", ma al momento è un ottimo segnale per le start up, poichè indica la disponibilità del mercato a investire nei nuovi contenuti. Complimenti a Andrew Baron, Joanne Colan e tutto il team di RocketBoom!

An inciting and insightful video presentation on the ethnography of YouTube by Dr Michael Wesch from Kansas State University that made me feel all warm and fuzzy about user generated content... and perhaps just a teensy bit insecure about making a living the traditional way.