Chuck Tanowitz

Is the TXT MSG the key to crossing the digital divide?

The digital divide has plagued Web 2.0 from the start. Web 2.0 is only possible with two elements: a relatively powerful computer and consistent broadband Internet access. Both cost money, quite a bit for someone struggling to get by and in many cases broadband access may not even be available.

So when the digerati trade pictures on Flickr or log onto Facebook and MySpace to share with friends, they are doing something that entire segments of the population can’t. This gets worse as you move out of the US, where people not only can’t afford a computer, but don’t have an easy way to access the online world.

These populations do, however, have cell phones. Not fancy cell phones with Web access and email, but simple phones that may or may not have a camera, but can certainly handle text messaging.

Which is why I was heartened by companies like SCVNGR and Assured Labor, which focus on delivering information to these devices as well. In fact, Assured Labor CEO David Reich said that the company is specifically aimed at reaching out to people who do not have access to the fixed Web. In a sense, text messaging technology is the key to crossing the digital divide.

Experts predict that even with the current market conditions, smartphone sales will continue to increase this year, as those with the means will make picking up an iPhone or a BlackBerry Storm a necessity.

However, sales of traditional handsets are expected to fall. And it’s not because smart phone sales will cannibalize cheaper handset sales, but because many will simply put off upgrading their phones. In a way this will exacerbate the digital divide, with the “haves” gaining access to the mobile Web while the “have nots” will only have text messaging and maybe some limited, and expensive, browsing.

That’s why I’m heartened to see so many companies including the text-only capabilities as part of their growth strategies.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on November 20, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Where the excitement is: Mobile Monday

Last night I attended my first Mobile Monday. For the uninitiated, Mobile Mondays are held around the world and are opportunities for people working in the mobile industry in any given city to meet with peers, face-to-face. Last night’s meetup focused on showing 10 local startups.

I came away with two overall impressions:
 

1. There is a lot of optimism and hope in this industry. Yes, everyone is talking about the recession and tough times ahead, but they’re eagerly developing the next generation of technology.
2. Apparently the whole world uses the iPhone. Yeah, I know, it’s not true. But the iPhone App. Store has given developers an immediate outlet for their work. Several companies noted proudly that their core application was already being sold there, while it was still under development for other devices. BlackBerry will have an application store too, so hopefully that will help even things out.

The young engineers and business folks showing their best stuff have done some wonderful creative thinking with the existing and emerging mobile infrastructure.

Cadio, for example, is marrying location-based information with contextual targeting to create a solid understanding of movement patterns. The purpose is to create targeted ads that aren’t a nuisance, but actually fit in with people’s lives. Cadio took 2nd place in the mobile category in the MIT 100K Entrepreneurship Competition last year as Social Sense.

Pongr lets people take pictures of products in a store, then use that picture to find the same items around the web, do research and even find out if the price they’re getting is a good one. This potentially can put a lot of power into the hands of the shopper.

Drync also uses a camera phone, but then goes beyond giving wine enthusiasts a way to save their favorite wines, find out reviews and even buy them on the spot.

SCVNGR is among the most interesting companies I saw, giving companies an platform for developing scavenger hunts. The applications of this are pretty amazing. Colleges and universities area already using this as part of their orientation programs to help students learn their way around campus and to meet other people. Trade shows use it to move people around and drive traffic to certain booths, and the MFA used it for their Assyrian exhibit to engage younger visitors.

Assured Labor also uses location technology, but this matches workers with people who have work to give. What’s interesting here is that it’s based on text messaging, thereby targeting the non-tech savvy portion of the population who use cell phones but may not have PC or Mac-based Web access.

In all I left the meeting pumped and excited to see what other companies are coming down the road.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on November 18, 2008 at 12:45 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Information Overload or Filter Problems?

While I was in New York at the Web 2.0 Expo, I ended up taking several walking trips through Times Square, something I never really did even when I lived in the city. The amusing thing about Times Square is how we simply accept it, but it's also a metaphor for the information overload that many people point to when talking about Web 2.0.

Each time I talk about Google Reader, RSS feeds, blogs, Twitter, Facebook, the mobile Web or anything else coming down the pike, someone shakes their head and says "too much information."

Just look around Times Square, there is simply too much information coming at us. Signs blink, move, talk and do everything but physically grab and shake us (though I'm sure that's coming next). Yet, we have a natural filter where we can quickly get used to this sensory input. We block stuff out, take in what we need and just walk onto the next block.



Yet, even with the multi-million dollar ads shining down from above, commerce still happens with cold-hard cash on the street. There, below the constantly flowing newsfeed from ABC News and the right-wing talk show hosts from Fox News and the Broadway show ads are simple newsstands selling papers, magazines and candy.



In his keynote today author Clay Shirky talked about the fact that we aren't experiencing information overload, but the failure of our filters. In fact, he goes back to the invention of moveable type and points out that by the year 1500 more books were printed than any literate human could read in a lifetime.

That was information overload. But what happened was that filters developed. Publishers started filtering what could be printed for "quality" and people learned to pick and choose what to read.

The same process has happened all through the information age. The problem today is that the old filters don't work in the new environment, so we need to develop new ones. That's coming.

In my opinion what's happening is a shift from someone else deciding what's important to putting the power in our hands to decide for ourselves. I'll write more on this later.

While at the show I met a guy from a company that turns Web content into audio content. One of his customers, the International Herald Tribune, takes things one step further, letting people run searches on different keywords or topics, then creating a customized podcast that can be automatically downloaded every morning. So, in a sense, rather than picking up the paper or even loading it in a browser, you, as the user, receive the information you want in your iPod, then listen to it on your way to work.

That's just one example of the filter and while it's great for conquering information overload, it makes our job as PR people that much more difficult. It eliminates the "discovery" of finding a story in the paper that you didn't expect but still like. That means people need to be looking for what we're selling, not just finding it in order to get our stories.

But these filters aren't just technological, they're human. A person who you follow on Twitter may lead you to great content. A blogger may say something you agree with, you may follow a specific reviewer for good movies or meals. They're all examples of filters and we'll all learn how to use them.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on September 26, 2008 at 1:35 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Social Media and the Social Good

I just returned from the Web 2.0 Expo in New York and my head is spinning with all the things I learned and the ideas I'm dying to try out. But what struck me most was Tim O'Reilly's keynote, one he's delivered before, in which he called on the best and brightest working in technology to cast aside silly little viral Facebook applications and focus instead on something important.

He ran through a list, including climate change, income inequity, slavery, energy, etc. and everyone smiled and nodded. Then we all went back to our jobs trying to push viral Facebook applications to test our friends on their knowledge of 80s movies. I did quite well on that quiz, by the way.

I thought about this again today when I read a New York Times story about a soon-to-launch startup that aims to capture the voices of students to help high schoolers choose schools. It's a pretty typical story about the power of social networks, including the obligatory clueless marketer:

“I’ve got to be honest with you,” Christopher Gruber, a vice president who oversees admissions at Davidson College, told me. “I’m not spending a ton of time navigating those student-driven sites. It’s too much to manage. My sense is that the traditional big players, like Princeton Review, are the major sources for online information too, in part because those are the names that parents still recognize. Those are the names that are going to have greater panache, and so those are probably the ones that will be turned to. The ones that we supply information to are the ones that we spend the most time on, filling out surveys for them to make sure that that information is accurate.”

Then, as the story reports, we find out that about 1/8th of the Davidson student population has already submitted content to the site. Good luck Mr. Gruber.

In any case, the reporter eventually asks how this can be a "grass roots" kind of thing when it's lining the pockets of major investors. This is commerce, pure and simple, masquerading as social change.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on September 22, 2008 at 11:14 AM
Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Texting: What did the Obama Camp Really Get?

The news came down at 3am. Three million people signed up to be the first to find out Barak Obama's VP pick, they were going to get the news at the same time as ABC, NBC, The New York Times, the Associated Press and hundreds of other major news outlets. They were going to be "in the know" right when it happened.

But they were asleep. Worse, they were scooped.

A few hours before the text message went out I happened to be awake and reading some online news. The AP broke the story that Joe Biden had the slot at about 1am, based on an anonymous source. Pretty typical reporting.

What's more, the 3am timing, even as planned, meant that the Obama camp had a very traditional advantage: they were on the morning news, in the morning papers and controlled the "news cycle." Which begs the question: why do it?

The obvious first answer is that it makes the candidate look tech-savvy, something that is pretty important when trying to woo young voters against a Republican candidate who admits that he doesn't go online.

But I think that misses the point. The biggest thing the Democrats got out of this was a list of cell phone numbers and email addresses.The exact number isn't known, but it's as many as 3 million, sorted by zip code. The company that handled the process isn't giving out many specifics.

Considering that those elusive younger voters often don't get landlines, choosing instead to stick with a cell phone, means that the Democrats have contact with people who don't turn up in public directories. These are people not polled when the calls go out, asking "who are you likely to vote for in November?"

It means that these phone numbers can be called with fund raising requests and, more importantly, get-out-the-vote requests.

In 2004 I spent election night in a Newton living room using my own cell phone to call people in battleground states reminding them to get out and vote. Of course, those were public numbers. Now the Democrats have their own list to use. One that will reach a very young crowd.

As a side note, our own Ross Levanto is attending the Democratic National Convention and will be both blogging and tweeting from the event. I don't think he's planning to send out any text messages.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on August 25, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Bring out Your Dead!

MORTICIAN:  Bring out your dead!
      [clang]
      Bring out your dead!

CUSTOMER:  Here's one -- nine pence.
DEAD PERSON:  I'm not dead!
MORTICIAN:  What?
CUSTOMER:  Nothing -- here's your nine pence.
DEAD PERSON:  I'm not dead!
MORTICIAN:  Here -- he says he's not dead!
CUSTOMER:  Yes, he is.
DEAD PERSON:  I'm not!
MORTICIAN:  He isn't.
CUSTOMER:  Well, he will be soon, he's very ill.
DEAD PERSON:  I'm getting better!
CUSTOMER:  No, you're not -- you'll be stone dead in a moment.

Every time I hear the argument that PR is dead, which seems to happen all the time, I come back to one of the early scenes of Monty Phython and the Holy Grail.

We're not dead, and frankly, we're feeling better.

Admittedly, public relations needs to change if it wants to stay relevant. We know that and we're working very hard to do it. Our business is no longer about taking our clients message and sending pitches out to reporters. We are taking a much more active role in the conversations externally, but also in the internal conversations. When I work with my clients I don't just take what I'm told and move along, I advise and help them find their voice. As much as I'm a translator for the media I'm a guide for them, helping companies navigate a world that they don't know as well as they know their own industry. I also learn from them aspects of technology and their business that I could never learn on my own.

A lot of bloggers and reporters are saying that PR is dead because they want to find things on their own. That's great, and today's networked society makes finding information much easier than ever. But if bloggers think they discovered a technology on their own, they may be fooling themselves. Quite often people find those technologies because good PR people (and internal marketers) put out the information for them to find. It's not as overt as calling people on the phone and asking them to take a briefing, but it's just as much PR as anything else.

I represent a company called Investment Instruments, which has a great tool for renters called the Rentometer. We work very hard to keep the buzz high about the product, but often when I read a blog post about it, the blogger begins "I discovered this great tool ...." They discovered it because the PR is working.

It's also important to remember that Web 2.0 provides tools for communications, but it doesn't mean that everyone knows how to use those tools. I can buy all the lumber, hammers, nails and saws I want at Home Depot, but the only thing I manage to make with all that stuff is a mess. If I keep from cutting something off my body I consider myself pretty lucky. Making the tools available doesn't eliminate the need for a good carpenter. Frankly, it may increase the need for a good emergency room.

So, which would you prefer, the carpenter or the ER?

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on August 14, 2008 at 10:19 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Finding the Fractured Audience: Steps to take in the new media reality

Last night, I didn't turn on my TV, but I did watch a few episodes of Mad Men. I had conversations with a number of people, but only picked up my home phone a handful of times. This morning I found out the Jets have Brett Favre as their new quarterback, but I never turned on my computer, TV or picked

up the morning paper.

In today's media environment, information transcends the channel in that no two people get their information in quite the same way. It used to be that a PR plan had some definite rules: you reach out to the publications that reach your target audience and the right people receive your message. Need to reach enterprise IT buyers? eWeek is a great venue for that. Going after a more business-level audience? InformationWeek is your target. Consumers? The New York Times and USA Today come to mind.

Our main issue today is that no one truly knows how people get information. The problem runs

deep--even NBC doesn't know and is using the Olympics just to figure it out. That's more than $1 billion spent so they can better understand where the shrinking TV audiences have gone.

I watched Mad Men by streaming the video from an online source, which created a delicious irony of watching a show about advertising without seeing any ads. I talked with a few people by my home phone, but many more through IM, Twitter, Facebook and on my cell phone.

As for the Jets, I heard about the Favre trade by reading my BlackBerry and seeing the email from the Jets, followed quickly by an email offering to sell me a Brett Favre jersey. I'll probably end up getting one for my 9-year-old, who is a long-time Favre fan and can now combine the best of both worlds.

Even as I got my Favre news from one source, my wife heard it on the local TV news, which she usually watches for the weather. So two people, one house, one piece of news, two sources.

What is a company to do in this environment?

1. Think about influencers: Rather than thinking in terms of "reporters" and "bloggers," think in terms of influencers. Reporters at the New York Times are influencers, as are Michael Arrington and Robert Scoble. The fact that they attack the media world from different vantage points is irrelevant.
2. Focus on your true audience: Examine the people who will bring you revenue and learn what communities they participate in. Many of my clients have found that small mentions on targeted sites like Fierce Wireless or Curbed.com often drive more traffic and users than similar mentions in InformationWeek or in the New York Sun. On paper the publications come out looking like they have more readers, but the other sites have the right readers.
3. Don't Dismiss the Small Stuff: CEOs sometimes get told by their VCs that doing interviews with smaller publications is a waste of time. It's not--it all helps feed the larger media beast. There is a balance here, however, and it's up to a good PR firm to help find that balance. You can't chase everything, but today you have to chase quite a bit just to make a good impression.
4. Experiment: This is an exciting time for marketers because it opens us up to all sorts of new things. Create a podcast or a video, just to see what's possible. Try new things. Some will work, some won't, but in this market you don't know until you try.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on August 7, 2008 at 6:08 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Cuil Launch?

By any traditional measurement Cuil.com saw an amazing PR launch. Positive articles appeared everywhere, traffic came rolling in, people were talking on the boards. Several people IM'd me to try it out, stopping me in the hallway to ask my opinion, etc.

The problems started with what came next. Those same people who said "did you try it out?" usually finished the converastion with "I wasn't impressed." The online discussions have been brutal, attacking Cuil at every step, from the search results to the fact that the server crashed due to the traffic. Even the name itself is under attack.

If you're going to try to topple the king of search, which most of the Cuil.com articles suggested is the goal, you need to come with more than just a big library. But that's the search technology and frankly, I'm a not an expert in that area. I do know, however, that challenging Google means getting people to change their habits, and that doesn't happen with a one day boost. You need chatter, interest and a long-term strategy.

When a client comes to us with a consumer launch I usually suggest a relatively long closed beta, something that is at least a few months. Then listen to the feedback they're getting on the blogs and in the discussion board, respond to any issues that come up and be prepared to do the coding necessary to make any fixes.

In many cases this idea gets rejected, not because it's wrong, but because other business factors (such as investors, competition, etc.) force the company to put out the product immediately and not wait for the closed beta. Essentially they've come to us too late, not hiring the PR firm until they needed the coverage.

The closed beta does two things: it helps build viral buzz and it allows the site to get a pretty good test group so it can work out the kinks. The fact that most people chatting about Cuil.com complain that the results just aren't good or accurate is something that could have been fixed during the closed beta. If the bloggers and reporters were briefed, but not put under embargo, then they could have written about it, built the buzz and then general users would have had to wait until launch day to access.

A great example of this is Evernote, which is run by a former client Phil Libin and the marketing is

handled by Andrew Sinkov, one of the best young marketing pros I've ever worked with. I'll write more about them another time. Both came out of Cambridge-based CoreStreet.

Cuil.com has a lot of work to do in order to take on Google. I'm sure they prepared for the long haul, but now they also have a deep hole and will have to climb out.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on July 31, 2008 at 8:19 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Social Media Blunders Abound: Hasbro

This week saw two major PR blunders in the online world that are worth noting: Hasbro and Cuil. These are two very different companies and two very different business models, but both made some basic mistakes that could lead to long-term problems. I'll talk about Cuil in another post, but Hasbro is the bigger current problem.

Hasbro is a big name here in New England, especially in Rhode Island where they essentially own the state. One of the biggest attractions on the way to see the Pawtucket Red Sox is the large Hasbro facitlity featuring a statue of Mr. Potato Head.

A major staple of this brand are the board games, an area notorious for its copyright issues. Over the years I've spoken to many people with board game ideas who say they can't sell into Hasbro because games are so easily copied that the company won't even LOOK at outside ideas. So it's no surprise that Hasbro took a page from the RIAA handbook and called in the lawyers to shut down Scrabulous. For the uninitiated, Scrabulous is the Scrabble-like Facebook game that has become an addiction for many.

The problem? Scrabulous infringes on the Scrabble copyright. The other problem? It was written by two brothers in India. More problems? Mattel and Hasbro share copyright, so Hasbro only has it in North America. So what does Hasbro do? It shuts down Scrabulous in North America and releases its own game.

The key problem here is that Scrabulous has a rabid fan-base. Apparently Hasbro tried buying the game, but failed and then turned to lawyers. The results has been a backlash against Hasbro and Scrabble.

Of course, this could have been avoided. Instead of shutting down the game, Hasbro could have started to market its boardgame to the Scrabulous players. Some people have said that playing the online game renewed their interest in playing the board game. They could have used the online game to boost their tournaments and meetups. They could have tried harder to purchase the game or invite the developers to help them create an official version. They could have used the Scrabble brand and extended it to Boggle and Upwards, two other games. They could have developed a series of word and letter-based games on the Scrabble brand, all building on the viral success of a game they didn't create.

All of that would have been a better PR move than shutting down the game, which now has people trying to boycott the company and refusing to buy the board game. Worse, hackers apparently attacked the official version of the game, shutting that down.

What could have been a resurgent interest in an old-standby of a game has, instead, turned into a crisis situation by trying to protect copyright.

This story also shows the true power of social media. A pair of brothers in India managed to create a game that attracted users around the globe, something that the gaming powerhouses Hasbro and their online parnter Electronic Arts failed to do. In this world it's not about size, it's about ideas.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on July 30, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

Does Boston "Get it"?

Remember the 80s? I do. Yes, I wore a jacket with the sleeves rolled up and Topsider shoes with no socks. I even had a poster of Max Headroom on my wall (I also had the Coke give-away Max Headroom watch and matching wall clock).

It all seemed so cool then. In fact, there were those people who looked down on you if you didn’t have the latest clothes or listened to the coolest tunes. Now it just seems as silly and frivolous as music with lots of synthesizers (take that Gary Numan!).

That’s the kind of frivolity that I sometimes feel pervades Silicon Valley. They’re always chasing the next trend, looking for the next big thing, riding the wave and thumbing their nose at anyone who doesn’t “get it.”

I keep hearing that the Valley understands Web 2.0 while Boston VCs don’t “get it” and are missing out on some great opportunities. Everyone knows Facebook was founded in a Harvard dorm but ended up in the Valley. I keep hearing a number of companies getting pressure from their VCs to move from Boston to the Valley in order to truly make it.

Yes, Web 2.0 is all the rage now and yes, I do think that a lot of elements from Web 2.0 will change the world. After all, my business cards say “New Media Strategist” on them and I’ve been singing the praises of “user-generated content” and “social networking” for years. But that doesn’t mean that Facebook is the be-all and end-all of the social networking world. In this environment another company can come up and eat its users as fast as it overtook MySpace and as fast as MySpace overtook Friendster.

Honestly, I’m not all that convinced that the value of Web 2.0 lies in the consumer world. Yes, there are a lot of great things you can do as a consumer, but as a company, can you really make money by giving just about everything away for free?

Here in New England, where we tend to favor navy and black, polo shirts and sweaters that can come out of the closet year after year without fear of going out of style, the VCs tend to focus on more stable, if less sexy investments. No, securing a database isn’t sexy, but it is necessary, especially in the enterprise. And you know what? Companies are actually willing to pay money, real money, to have their database secured. Wow, imagine that, a revenue model! Yes, real opportunity is in the enterprise.

The main problem with Web 2.0 is that it takes full advantage of the desktop and Web browsers. Why is that a problem? Because usage is shifting to cell phones and mobile devices. Yes, the iPhone has made it possible to have a small computer in your pocket, but most Web 2.0 companies still look at the desktop as a final destination. In Boston a lot of companies are looking well beyond the desktop. Take Schwartz client Vaultus, which specializes in making enterprise applications work on mobile devices. Or even look at LocaModa, which focuses on display technologies that bring the Web off the desktop.

These companies are well ahead of the curve and focus on the not-so-sexy world of back end technology. No, they’re not on the cover of BusinessWeek yet, but they’ll be written about on the inside pages where it really counts. They’re the companies that are actually leading the way.

I’m sure you’ll hear about similar companies in a few years, when the Valley starts to think they’re sexy and drops millions of dollars into them. Of course, that’s when hearing the name “Facebook” may elicit the same snickers as “Max Headroom.”

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on June 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

When New Meets Old: Symbiosis and Contention

This weekend, both the New York Times Magazine and the Boston Globe Magazine offer glimpses into the way new and old media continue a symbiotic, if sometimes contentious, relationship. They are also prime examples of why a solid public relations program must balance both sides.

Over at the Times, blogger Emily Gould writes a long and very personal cover story outlining her trials and tribulations in the public spotlight, thanks in large part to her personal and outspoken blog posts on Gawker.com. This piece is the definition of irony, offering up mea culpa after mea culpa and self-defining as an “over sharer” even as she over shares some more.

But the irony goes beyond the text itself into the subtext. Take, for example, the fact that it is written for the New York Times Magazine, an old-school publication to the Nth degree. Then there is her simple one-line bio at the end that states flatly “Emily Gould is a writer in Brooklyn. This is her first article for the magazine.”

Oh, right, she’s just another writer with no real following.

Gould didn’t take her own growing celebrity seriously until a disastrous appearance on another old-media stalwart: Larry King Live, which on that day was guest-hosted by Jimmy Kimmel. The clip gained even more prominence when it was distributed on the new-media powerhouse YouTube.

To convince her therapist that she was, in fact, a celebrity, Gould brought in a New York magazine article on Gawker and read allowed from it. Even a breakup happened on old media, with her boyfriend writing a long article for the New York Post Sunday Magazine, the nation’s 13th oldest newspaper and one founded by Alexander Hamilton.

Also telling is the comment from Magazine Editor Gerry Marzorati, who told Media Bistro that in the first six hours on the Web (where the story was published before being seen in the printed magazine) the article nabbed more than 600 comments. The fact that this is a cited as a sign of success points out that things they are a-changin’ at the venerable publication. I still wonder how many of the Times' readers will sift through all the Web reaction and how it will get filtered back into the main discussion. 

Still, the back-and-forth nature of the discussion shows how stories that develop online move into the mainstream media, and those stories in the mainstream media blend back into the online world. To do PR properly you must be firmly planted in both of those worlds.

Then there is Seth Mnookin, who wrote a cover story for the Boston Globe Magazine that attempts to dissect the seemingly-exorbitant $200 million Newton North High School. As this is my home town and I blog on the issues regularly, this is very close to my heart. I’ve written my thoughts on the subject, but more importantly are those of the rest of the residents, including some of the people interviewed for the piece.

If you look over on the Newton TAB blog, you can see people taking shots at Mnookin. It gives a much clearer view of the piece, or at least adds facts that allow the reader to have a better understanding of the debate that exists within the city.

But, my guess is that few readers will ever see those comments. Sure, they’re there as additional facts for someone doing research on the subject, but as far as the winning the hearts and minds of the broader populous, those comments aren’t going to help.

This is the fundamental flaw with the “self correcting” theory of Web 2.0. The idea is that the crowds will correct inaccurate presentations of "the facts," which is oftentimes true. The problem is that most of those corrections happen in forums that are frequented only by the most ardent. So unless the Globe goes back and writes another cover story, the battle is already lost. The issue is not correcting the stories for everyone, but correcting it for the right audience.

So the question is, which audience is more important? If the goal is to win the hearts and minds of the whole of Massachusetts, then Newton will have to influence the coverage in the mainstream media, something it's already doing by having an active forum. If the goal is to influence the local audience, then the forum is the perfect place because it speaks directly to that audience.

As Brian Solis noted in his much discussed entry on TechCrunch, a key "secret" is to identify the key audience, only then can you actually speak with that audience. So while these two examples are great macro discussions, the question for both Emily and for the City of Newton is: what audience really matters?

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on May 28, 2008 at 5:40 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Boston vs. the Valley: Does Geography Matter?

I chose to live in Boston, the city didn’t choose me. That is, I wasn’t born here, I have no family ties here, but instead my wife and I moved here out of love for the location, though not for the weather. 

So I can’t figure out why so many people want to declare this place dead, at least in the technology sense. The latest is Sarah Lacy, journalist of many titles and the woman who drew the ire of “tweeters” at South by Southwest.

The interesting part of this debate is why geography matters at all. Don’t most Web 2.0 companies exist on the premise that geography doesn’t matter? That you can continue to stay in touch with someone on the other side of the world as easily as you can with someone down the street? Sarah's point is that starting a business is difficult and it's better to be surrounded by peolple going through the same experience. If it's easier to start something in the Valley, why not do it?

The Boston Globe's Scott Kirsner has been tackling this question for quite a while, including his very interesting article examining why Facebook went west when it should, by all rights, be a Cambridge-based company. 

Facebook went west because East Coast VCs wanted to see an income model and at the time Mark Zuckerberg couldn’t show them one. West Coast VCs were willing to take the chance based only on the energy and the possibilities. 

A former client of mine who moved to the Valley in order to take over a consumer-oriented company once commented that Boston is great for the intellectual companies, those that will sell to the government or other enterprises. The brainpower at MIT, Harvard, BU, Brandeis (had to throw my alma mater in that list) and other Boston-area schools makes this a hotbed of intellectual talent. 

However, The Hub lacks the energy of the Valley and for those consumer-focused brands that feed on that energy, the Valley is the only place to be. 

Who is right? Today it looks like those in the Valley are brilliant. But when I was a kid Wang, Digital Equipment Corp. and Polaroid were at the top of the heap. Today the Wang Towers house a number of small companies, DEC’s offices belong to HP and Polaroid’s Waltham headquarters is about to become condos. 

Two years ago everyone talked about Friendster. A year ago it was all about Second Life. Today they’re the butt of jokes. Even Peter Shankman joked the other day that MySpace is being dropped "faster than third-period French."

I don’t believe Boston is dead, I believe it’s just in the shadows for a while. These things run in cycles and right now consumer-facing technologies are hot, so the money flows there. Then again, it also takes a lot more money to get a consumer brand off the grounds. Eventually VCs will swing back toward the more conservative investments and Boston will thrive again. 

Perhaps the tech economy will truly become global and the geography won’t matter much, but the fact is, innovation will continue.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on April 29, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Utopian Future, or Going Back to It

Peter Shankman gave a wonderful talk at Schwartz this week and he had a lot of interesting things to say about networking, technology and communications, but two pieces caught my attention.

First was an initial concept that everything we predict and know is bulls***. That is, social networking just comprises tools that allow us to do what we should already be doing: meeting, talking and connecting with people. He’s right, of course. But part of that is the concept that prediction is almost impossible. He pointed to Back to the Future Part II as an example, in which everyone in the future (which is closer to today) had a fax machine in every room. Today faxes are passé and inefficient, but in 1985 they were new, exciting and efficient ways to communicate, so it was good comedy to have a future with one even in the bathroom. 

Of course, that same movie featured flying cars. So take it for what it is. 

His second concept was a future in which everything in our house has an IP address and connects to everything else. Hit the snooze button on the alarm clock and it triggers information that starts a chain reaction. Your coffee maker starts, your news downloads, your kids are awoken by gentle singing of angels…. 

Frankly, this sounds a lot like the digital version of Doc Brown’s Rube Goldberg-like machine at the beginning of the original Back to the Future that fed the dog and made eggs, but I digress. 

He goes on, of course, to the point that getting a plane ticket triggers a Twitter (or twitter-like) note to your friends that you’re about to head to another city, then when you arrive your phone registers your location and tells you about local restaurants you may like as well as people who you may want to meet and where they’re dining. 

This utopian ideal sounds great, except I’ve heard it before and we’re supposed to be there by now. I remember hearing about connected refrigerators that read the RFID chips on the food you purchase to tell you when you need more milk or even allow you to run recipes based on what you already have. 

You can buy a fridge that is connected, of course, but it’ll cost you a lot more than a very nice not-so-connected fridge just so you can have a built in TV. And besides, the technology isn’t there to tell you that the foil-wrapped leftover chicken has started to grow something usually reserved for the college chemistry lab. 

But my real problem with this concept is the digital divide. Having an IP address on every electronic item in your house means you have a house-wide network, probably a wireless network. Connecting with people through electronic devices means these people also have electronic devices and are as connected as you. So basically it restricts you to people of similar socio-economic backgrounds. The digital divide is real, municipal wifi networks have failed to take off, so this kind of technology is not available to everyone. We are isolated enough in how we live our lives, I’m not sure that connecting only with people who have similar technological access is the best way to go. 

If we’re going to focus our development efforts anywhere it should be on making sure that those with little or no connectivity get it. Verizon has been great about bringing FIOS to my affluent suburb, but what about less affluent areas? How long will it take for them to get their piece of fiber? Then how long will it take for those people to get on Facebook, Twitter and other communications concepts that may not even exist yet? 

It’s great if I can meet and network with people who can move my business forward, but it’s also great to learn from people who have a very different view on life.  

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on April 25, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Polaroid's Demise: Why Old Doesn't Mean Trash

I pass a sad sight each time I get on 128 South from our Waltham offices: the all-but empty headquarters of the once-proud Massachusetts institution, Polaroid. The sign covering the windows of the large, empty cafeteria proclaim "Polaroid Now," but Polaroid is mostly in the past. When the company announced recently that it would soon stop making its eponymous film, many cried while many others said "they still make that stuff? Why?"

This past Sunday's Boston Globe had two articles in the demise of the technologically innovative company, one that focuses on the artistic side while the other looks at the business and technological legacy Polaroid left behind.

While my title here at Schwartz includes the line "New Media Strategist," I'm a big fan of older technologies. My camera collection includes a number of film cameras including a 1950s era Kodak Retina IIIc and a medium format twin lens reflex with technology dating back to the 1960s.

Each has its own personality and quirks that makes it worth keeping and using. I pulled out my Colorpack II and loaded it with Fuji instant film to take the shot in this post. Yes, Fuji makes instant film and frankly, it's a lot better than the stuff Polaroid was putting out. In fact, the guys at my favorite camera store believe Fuji will probably pick up the rights to the rest of the Polaroid line. 

People peg Polaroid's demise to the digital revolution, but it really began with one-hour photo machines. While Polaroid offered a single instant picture, you could take your standard roll of 12, 24 or 36 picture 35mm film into the local Walgreens, get prints back in an hour and still be able to make copies later. A Polaroid offers only one image.

That said, my kids usually want to see their pictures on the back of my digital camera, but they are amazed by the tactile aspect of the Polaroid. The idea of holding a picture in their hands 2 minutes after taking it blows them away. Also, the uniqueness of that image contrasts with the quick-copy culture that digital provides.

Everyone looks to new technology to supercede the old, but that doesn't mean the old is worthless. One morning while drivng to work I heard a WBUR-FM story about a local shop that repairs and sells manual typewriters (I have a few of these around my house as well). The owner was saying how he gets a lot of teens coming in to buy machines that were once on the cutting edge but are now considered stodgy. As a person whose first professional writing job involved pounding on a manual typewriters, there is something nice about hitting keys that make a *WHAP* sound and have a bit of a reaction. Just as with film, when you type on paper you take more care in your work, since you can't erase by just hitting the "backspace" button.

On twitter Businessweek Reporter Stephen Baker recently commented that his book editing process is amazingly archaic. Maybe that's not such a bad thing.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on March 19, 2008 at 1:10 PM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Needs and Wants in Information Saturation

Part of news judgment is balancing the fact that information exists with the need for the greater public to actually know it. You can run around reading journal articles and Supreme Court documents on this topic until your head spins and you can even ask experts and people on the street, each will have their own opinion on the subject. A fuzzy line divides the “need to know” and the “want to know”, but sometimes it seems rather clear.

Prince Harry’s deployment in Afghanistan is certainly one of those easy delineations. What good came of the public knowing of his deployment? Third in line for the throne is certainly a high-value target to any enemy, yet he is also a young man trying to grow, learn and serve his country. 

Military service on the front lines is nothing new to England’s royal family. Kings and princes have long led their men (it was always men) into battle. But today, right now, does it benefit the public to know that a figurehead serves on the front lines? No, it doesn’t. 

Matt Drudge, who “broke” this story should not be held up as a hero. I know he had the information and in this information age, having information is akin to sharing it. But “having it” doesn’t make “sharing it” right. In this case it means putting Prince Harry, and the men serving with him, at risk. It doesn’t take a military genius to see that.

Of course, it does rankle some folks, or strike them as odd, that the military and Fleet Street drew up such a deal, but I must say that it showed some great foresight on the part of the British military. Rather than just ignoring the problem and hoping no one noticed such a familiar face on the front, they dealt with the problem directly and forthrightly, even offering to provide pictures and stories later. A pretty good PR move, in my opinion. The fact that it lasted close to three months is amazing, but also shows that there is still some life in “old media.” 

From the old media to the very new… I recently have become more active on Twitter (I’ve had an account for a while but never really spent much time on the site) and I’m amazed at how much information gets shared, but how little truly does. People are happy to share what they’re doing, when it’s about writing, working or TV, but what about their emotional state? How are things at home? Happy with the spouse? Are those anti-depressants kicking in yet? Any trouble paying the bills? Certainly questions you will probably never see answered in a tweet or even in a blog post. And they shouldn’t be. That’s information for the private life, not the public one. 

The public doesn’t have a right to know everything.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on March 4, 2008 at 8:35 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Required Reading: Are blogs now just a regular part of the reporting process?

Over in my little corner of the world, the city of Newton, Mass., is putting up a rather expensive high school. With a $186 million price tag it is the most expensive school in the state both in terms of actual dollars and cost per student. I bring this up because the Boston Globe recently ran a front-page story on our little construction project.

It happens that Newton has a very active blogging community, not only because of TheGardenCity.net (started by yours truly) but also because of the local newspaper has an active blog, as well as a series of other local participants. 

But when this story came out one local blogger bemoaned the fact Globe reporters "don’t read blogs," and then cited several problems in the reporting. This brought up an interesting question about bloggers: is it now required for reporters to read bloggers' thoughts as a general part of their reporting? 

One of my early journalism lessons was to not trust the phone. Yes, you can do an interview over the phone and it's very convenient, but nothing beats face-to-face interaction, since you can see a subject shift in their seat and watch their face. Conversations are different in person. 

One reason for this is described very well by New York Times Sports Reporter Jack Curry in a conversation with Mets' Pitching Coach Rick Peterson. 

During my interview with Peterson, the discussion drifted into the subtle ways that a pitcher could tip off his pitches. Peterson used my behavior to help explain his point.

"When you take notes, your head tilts to the right," Peterson said. "But, when you listen to what I'm saying, your head tilts to the left. Wouldn't that be a shame if that tipped someone off to what you were doing?"

Peterson made me think: Do I carry my notebook differently when I have a scoop? Do I keep my pen in a different pocket if I think I have some exclusive information? I was impressed with Peterson's attention to detail.

But over the past several years I've seen a shift, with more people conducting email or IM interviews in place of phone or in-person meetings. What's to stop reporters from just quoting from blogs? Many already do, but could that supplement an interview? 

The other part of the question is when listening to bloggers, who are you listening to? Is it just the loudest part of the population or are the thoughts espoused truly indicative of those of he broader population? Turning back to Newton, during a recent meeting of the Board of Aldermen (Newton's version of the city council), an elected official called the commenters on the local blogs "crazy." So I guess he doesn't believe that he's hearing from his constituents. 

A few years ago I worked with a professor who had an interesting theory about online forums. In his paper “Strategic Manipulation of Internet Opinion Forums: Implications for Consumers and Firms,” Chrysanthos Dellarocas made the broad point that corporate manipulation of online forums is a good thing because people automatically assume that some is going on anyway, so they discount the information they're reading. Companies that are not engaging in this kind of manipulation are doing a disservice to themselves, but also to the readers, since intentional manipulation serves to create a greater separation between the positives and negatives of any given discussion. Stephen Baker at BusinessWeek.com wrote about this as well. 

It's an interesting theory. But the end result is this: reporters do use blogs as part of their reporting and, in some way, it's going to influence them. The goal is to be part of the conversation not only to reach customers, partners, employees, competitors and the general public, but also to reach the reporters' audience as well.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on February 27, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Library of Congress Goes Social

I love sifting through the Library of Congress online libraries. There is something about perusing all those old photos and documents that can be pretty thrilling. While I haven't had time dig into the physical archives, the online versions give me the fix I need.

Now the LOC is doing something very interesting with Flickr. By taking a number of photos and putting them online, archivists are hoping to receive public comments and input as to what is being seen. Sure, a lot will be junk, but there could be some gems in there too.

What's most interesting to me, however, is how well the "old technology" of film continues to stand up over time. Take a look at this image, it looks like it could have been taken yesterday. Even better, it can be viewed TODAY since the technology is rather simple. Shine a light through it and you can see it. Storage is a file cabinet, not an outdated magnetic medium.

The fact is, this is a pretty interesting use of social media. Imagine walking through a museum and putting a sticky note on a Picasso with one of your observations. It's that kind of idea.  

It's worth clicking through some of the pictures, which can be found here.  

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on January 28, 2008 at 9:10 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Facebook activates sentences!

Mr. Boyle, my 10th grade English teacher took one look at the first article I published in the school paper and quickly circled every is, was, were and to be, then handed it back. I remember the crushing feeling of defeat as I'd previously been so proud of the piece; easy lesson, well learned.

Nearly every time I assign a release to a young writer they turn in something riddled with passive sentences. My first piece of advice: drop the verb "to be." What I get back is often much better and they tend not to make the same mistake again. Though, I try to do it without the humiliation.

Facebook finally let us choose our own verb for our status updates, eliminating the annoyingly passive "is" from our writing requirement.  

Thank you Facebook, for passing 10th grade English. 

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on December 21, 2007 at 11:47 AM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Battering the Old Press Release: Just tell me a story

Press releases take a lot of heat. Considering that over time, these standard tools of the PR world have proven themselves pretty effective, it's amusing that they continue to be the butt of jokes and constant redesign.

Back in the heyday of the dot-com bubble, you'd see releases loudly touting "paradigm shifts" and "robust, scalable architectures." We've tried to get away from a lot of this overblown writing, but it still gets through.

The latest debate is over the "Social Media News Release." SHIFT Communications has taken the lead on this concept, putting out a template for others to use. Today Search Engine Watch took the template to task for not really accomplishing its goal and Brian Solis fired back.

The problem is, we're debating the wrong issue. The problem isn't the format, its the content of the information we're putting out and determining the true goal for that information. Frankly, unless you're a major corporation like Disney, GM or HP, no one really cares that you just hired a new CEO. You may write a release and put in on your Web site, but do you really need to send it over BusinessWire? And does it really need to be three pages long?

No, we need to learn from bloggers and change our style. We need to start talking conversationally in our tone and attributing information to individuals. We need to write compelling stories, not just make announcements. This takes talent and skill, something many PR firms have in spades. 

The most interesting news release I've seen recently comes from Google when it announced Android. What's that? You didn't see the release?

Right, there was none. They put out a blog posting on it. But, this is no less a news release than one formatted in the traditional manner and put on BuseinessWire. It's just a different way to get out information--one that is truly part of the conversation, not trying to push itself into it.

And the best part? It actually worked. Not because it was a blog post, but because it gave people information they wanted in a tone and format that made sense.

In fact, it included this paragraph, which you would normally find in any old press release (though, in the first person):

Android is the first truly open and comprehensive platform for mobile devices. It includes an operating system, user-interface and applications -- all of the software to run a mobile phone, but without the proprietary obstacles that have hindered mobile innovation. We have developed Android in cooperation with the Open Handset Alliance, which consists of more than 30 technology and mobile leaders including Motorola, Qualcomm, HTC and T-Mobile. Through deep partnerships with carriers, device manufacturers, developers, and others, we hope to enable an open ecosystem for the mobile world by creating a standard, open mobile software platform. We think the result will ultimately be a better and faster pace for innovation that will give mobile customers unforeseen applications and capabilities.

Yes, I know what you're saying--Google can get away with a lot more than any small company. And you're right, no Wall Street Journal reporter is eagerly reading every corporate blog looking for tidbits of information. But, we can learn a little more about writing for bloggers here, since the tone of the "release" was truly conversational. This wasn't written from high on a mountain top, but from a person with a voice. You can feel it in the very first sentence: "Despite all of the very interesting speculation over the last few months, we're not announcing a Gphone." In fact, it IS from a person, it's attributed to Andy Rubin.

The bottom line: a release should become indistinguishable from everything around it, not because it looks different, but because the content makes sense and tells a real story.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on November 28, 2007 at 7:23 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Judgement Day: When Web 2.0 Goes Mainstream

Tabblo founder and former client Antonio Rodriguez recently pointed out on his blog that mainstream America still isn't using many of the Web 2.0 tools out there. He's right. Stand on any soccer field and watch the parents snapping away on their digital cameras, then ask them if they planned to share those with the team via Flickr or if they were going to put them on a Facebook site, and you'll get a lot of blank stares. Most just email a few shots to relatives, or use a legacy service like Shutterfly.

Recently I spoke with the founder of TownConnect.com--social networking technology for families, schools, teams, etc. He told me that he isn't bothering with Flickr integration since most of his targeted audience--suburbanites living in communities like mine--don't use it.

Mainstream America will get there and start using some of these tools. It's happening slowly, but it's probably going to change how we measure all this. Today links in and out of a site drive search and Technorati rankings. But that kind of measurement relies on an active community of users who participate as much as they read. As the mainstream takes over, people will probably read more than they participate.

Sure, we all have statistics and numbers about how many unique visitors are coming to a site, but those are neither audited nor shared. That leaves us with sampling sites like Compete and Alexa, but those have their own issues in that they don't get large enough samples from smaller blogs. So without reliable numbers, how will we know what's popular?

That's why I love our CAIT concept, which tells us that by looking beyond the Technorati 100 or Techmeme Leaderborard, we can still have a simple way to evaluate whether a blog is worth our time. Because as this area continues to grow, figuring out who is reading and listening to what is going to become increasingly difficult.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on November 9, 2007 at 10:13 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Walt Mossberg takes on the cellular industry. He's right

By Carol McGarry, Schwartz EVP, who heads our wireless practice

Every good PR person is an advocate for their client. As I work with clients, I inevitably find that I am caught up in the excitement of bringing their innovation to market. I'm infected by the enthusiasm and determination of my clients. And when my clients run into business reversals, I share their disappointment.

So when I saw a recent article by Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal, I felt compelled to write to him. This article was not about the latest cool gadget. He wrote about the domination of the wireless carriers here in the U.S. and their impact on innovation. He said:

A shortsighted and often just plain stupid federal government has allowed itself to be bullied and fooled by a handful of big wireless phone operators for decades now. And the result has been a mobile phone system that is the direct opposite of the PC model. It severely limits consumer choice, stifles innovation, crushes entrepreneurship, and has made the U.S. the laughingstock of the mobile-technology world, just as the cellphone is morphing into a powerful hand-held computer.

His words struck a chord. I remembered Wildfire Communications, whose technology was one of the very first speech recognition interfaces, launched in 1994. It behaved like a human assistant by forwarding calls, announcing callers and all sorts of nifty and intuitive features for busy people. Guess which major carrier in the U.S. ended up buying that company? Nope, it was Orange, the innovative European provider. And my mobile phone's speech recognition is still less sophisticated than my Wildfire "assistant."

Seven years ago, a client who offers location technology articulated an exciting vision of services like this one. Imagine walking past your favorite store in your local mall and getting a message on your mobile phone telling you they're having a big sale and you get an additional 15 percent off every purchase. As a dedicated sales hound, I'd love to get a message like that (at no charge of course), but I don't get them now.  My client had a software platform that would make it happen. So why don't we get messages like this on our phones now? Ask your service provider and I'll ask mine.

In Europe and Asia, consumers use their mobile phones to pay for various goods and services. Not here in the U.S. The list of innovative services that are not available to U.S. consumers is long,  although the innovative technology to support them has already been created.

I've been involved in the wireless and telecom market for about 20 years now. I've worked with many clients here at the agency who've come up with fascinating innovations. Too many of those entrepreneurs did not succeed because the U.S. mobile providers have lagged so far behind the rest of the world in adopting innovation. Mossberg is right, it's time the industry changed its ways and opened itself up to true innovation.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on November 1, 2007 at 10:45 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tech Blogging Event

I'm tired of going to events in which someone stands up and says "So, can you tell me what exactly defines a blog?"

Yes, this is an important question for someone just coming to the table, but many of us are well beyond that and the discussion is now about more high-level topics, such as "how are the current crop of blogs affecting coverage?" and "how can bloggers, reporters and PR people work together?"

That's what last night's great event at the Cambridge Innovation Center was all about. Scott Kirsner put together a great group of panelists, including Bijan Sabet, venture capitalist at Spark Capital; Barbara Heffner of CHEN PR; Don Dodge, director of business development at Microsoft;  Jimmy Guterman, editor of Release 2.0 and blogger at O'Reilly Radar; Scott Kirsner, who writes the Boston Globe "Innovation Economy" column; and Nabeel Hyatt, CEO of Conduit Labs. Both Schwartz Communications and CHEN PR sponsored the event, as well as Morse Barnes-Brown & Pendleton and the Cambridge Innovation Center.

The panel was just a start, as I was charged with running around the room to bring in discussion from others attending the event. Dan Bricklin has a few pictures as well as the full podcast up, so rather than me running through the whole thing, go and have a listen.

Discussion items included:

• Why do you blog?
• What is your most popular post?
• How addicted are you to statistics?
• Where do journalistic ethics come into play?
• What does blogging do for your business?
• How do you maintain an authentic voice?
• How do people who cannot write well engage in this environment?
• What role do edited blogs (like this one) have both in the corporation and in the blogosphere in general?
• Can you do a "news" announcement only through social media?

Don Dodge shared great pieces of advice--both of which I violated on my various blogs--that he received from Robert Scoble.

First: include your own name in the name of the blog. Of my personal blogs only two have any part of my name involved, the Tanoblog and Tanophoto. And second: include your picture. While my picture is on my Schwartz bio, it is not on my Media Metamorphosis page, which may be why Paul Gillin didn't include my name in his roundup of the event.

I also enjoyed the discussion on edited blogs, in which Nabeel noted how the corporate blog at Conduit is, in fact, edited. The point is to have a common voice and to acknowledge that the company must come first, in this context. But also it's because there are people within the organization who have great thoughts when they're standing at the whiteboard, but do not have the ability to express themselves in writing. In this case the editing process is not about sanitizing the content, but about saying to those who are more self-conscious, "hey, we've got your back."

I found the ethics discussion to be among the most interesting and will be writing more on that later. But let me just share this from Don Dodge on conflict of interest: "No conflict, no interest."

On a personal note, I got a chance to meet David Laubner, who writes the excellent 93South blog, one I've been reading for some time.

In all, a great discussion of some of the primary issues facing modern tech journalism. I'm sure there will be more discussion on the various Boston-based tech blogs, but the podcast is probably the most complete recounting of the event. Though, not everyone identified themselves before speaking, so it sometimes be tough to follow.  

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on October 24, 2007 at 12:34 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Judging Social Media: Listen to CAIT

Whenever someone comes to me asking about blogs and other social media sites, I get the same question: what are the top ranked blogs? I try to point out that there are several ways to cut this, but people still want numbers.

The short answer? Size doesn't (always) matter.

I've long been critical of the idea that links determine much of anything, partially because they don't measure number of readers, but also because they assume that readership equals active participation from other blogs.

Shel Israel has made the point that if you have a blog with no links and three readers, it comes up as unimportant in the blogging world, but if those three readers include President Bush and his Chief of Staff, then it's influential.

Still, in the PR field we have a problem. Clients pay us to get them the best possible coverage in a defined period of time. So here at Schwartz, we've focused on what we call CAIT. That is, Community, Author, Intelligence and Topic. For each we ask a series of questions:

• Community--Does this blog have an active comment community? Are they gaining links from other bloggers and reporters? Do reporters/influencers/analysts read them?
• Author--Does this person put up their name? Do they work in the industry? Are they an analyst? A competitor? Interested party?
• Intelligence--As you are reading the posts, do they make sense? Are they in line with what you know about the industry? How do those commenting react?
• Topic--What is this blog truly about? Did the author write a piece about a client's area just once or is it a regular topic?

We look for a balance of all four elements. The reason is pretty simple: social media relations isn't about the big audience, it's about the right audience. So if a blogger, podcaster, vlogger, Twitter user or anyone else influences a community in an intelligent way that speaks to the topic of our clients, then that's someone with which we want to talk.

The fact is, these same concepts can be applied to just about any media and will work properly, but in the traditional media world we tend to know understand this concept inherently. When dealing with social media we need to be taught.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on October 19, 2007 at 7:30 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)