HACK by Michael Hackmer

I just had an interesting email exchange with a friend of mine who was concerned about posting an article he wrote on different sites or commenting about an issue he cares about. His concern was based on the idea that he did not want to appear to be promoting himself too much, or appear to be too biased. He even mentioned the idea of creating an alias or using others to post on his behalf.

That got me thinking. Are we so concerned about “self-promotion” that we actually stop saying what we want to say in public?

I remember Dick Vitale talking about an event he does for kids with cancer on Mike and Mike in the Morning. At one point, in the middle of a typically emotional and loud response, Dicky V brought up complaints he has received from people saying that he always promoting himself and his work as if it was a bad thing. Vitale’s response was, and I am paraphrasing here, “Come on, baby! If you don’t promote yourself or what you do - who is going to do it for you? Who will ever hear about what you are doing or why you are doing it?”.

Of course, in blogging, or interacting socially on any medium for that matter, we tend to confuse self-promotion with what we really want to achieve, which is a type of genuine sharing. Seth Godin has a really good short post on this in which he acknowledges that the very term “self promotion” is often used to described someone promoting him/herself at the expense of others. But do we really think that of everyone who promotes themselves?

It’s easy to see Dick Vitale get some flack, because I know of people who are tired of his routine and find his personality… well… annoying. But the truth is - Vitale’s pitch is designed to encourage awareness not so much of himself at the expense of others (fame for the sake of fame), but of his work to helping fight cancer. Translation - there is something genuine and true and useful connected to his promotional efforts. He wants to make a change, and by telling you about that - he is hoping you will join him in that cause.

To Godin’s point, so long as you are really promoting something useful - such as a useful ideas - or tactics or products that actually benefit the person they’re reaching out to, you really don’t fit into this more negative interpretation of “self promotion.”

The other component to this is that you should not let conventional perceptions about promoting yourself to deny you from making a public effort to change a trend or influence people. In the case of my friend, I recommend he take the plunge and get introduced to social media - particularly blogging - so he can experience for himself how people exchange ideas through their blogs and how others respond to them. Because if you hide behind an alias or keep yourself from spreading your useful ideas, you can’t expect to develop the clout or means for the change you want to achieve.

.

There is little doubt that the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and birth of democratic governments in eastern Europe (as well as the economic and military unification of Europe), should call into question the purpose of Cold War institutions and policies. After all, times change, and new challenges arise that require a different objective.

Yet, much of US foreign policy seems locked in bipolar, Cold War-esque policies. Even the seemingly natural realignment of NATO into a leaner organization structured around rapid-response and anti-terrorism (with a goal of fading into a strong European defensive network) has become bogged down by larger US interests in the Middle East. The NATO charter is still built around identifying one hostile aggressor as a threat to Europe. Any guesses why the Russians might object to NATO expansion?

All things considered, the same holds true when concerning matters of US foreign aid. In a recent article, published last week in the Weekly Standard, Ken Hagerty (President and Found of Global Venture Investors Foundation) writes about how the end of the Cold War “deprived our foreign aid system of its strategic underpinnings” and has rendered it as an “amorphous exercise, motivated by a marbled mixture of altruism, vanity, pragmatism, guilt, and nobles oblige.”

Hagerty, whom I’ve known for the past few years, is correct that the US foreign aid system is not built on encouraging growth in free markets on a consistent basis. But taking the issue further, Hagerty notes that US development assistance has “become a global welfare system, with many of the same syndromes that afflicted America’s war on poverty.” Instead of creating a post-Cold War foreign aid program that encourages free market capitalism, recipients opt instead into a cycle of dependency rather than achieving self-sufficiency. This is where Hagerty’s “Free Cities” program comes into play.

The “Free Cities” program is a way to “harness market forces to jump-start non-corrupt, globalized private sectors inside impoverished countries.” It is essentially a new development paradigm designed to generate a economic version of Hong Kong without “the baggage of colonialism.”

To learn more about this program, I highly recommend you read Ken’s article in the Weekly Standard. You can read it by clicking here.

To reach Ken Hagerty, you can contact him through his website by clicking here or via email at: kenhagerty@gvif.org

Geoff Livingston’s tweet this morning focused my attention on a post by Sarah Perez entitled, “Content is Becoming a Commodity.” Geoff’s tweet said that he could not disagree more with the post, so that drew my immediate interest. I’ve known Geoff Livingston over the years (click here to read his blog, The Buzz Bin), and lately, he has become something of a legend in the social media space. Even though we don’t agree on everything (occasionally I can be wrong), I do value his opinion and enjoy working with him.

So, in thinking about Geoff’s comment, I sat down to read Sarah Perez’s post.

In reading Sarah Perez’s post, my initial reaction was that a lot of what she was writing about was not new. The discussion of content as a commodity has been around, as one comment put it, since before the copy machine was invented and placed into libraries. However, “Is my content a commodity?” is still apparently an issue. Can you leverage your blog entries for profit, or is there a more invaluable or incalculable aspect to content?

My reaction to Sarah’s post are as follows:

1) Many people in the tech and social media spaces are very focused (some jubilant) on becoming more viral and open through technology, blogs, etc. I recognize there are complaints whenever a company aggregates a blogger’s content. However, I often find that these are the same folks who complain about the recording industry’s assault on those who illegally download music. To put it simply, you can’t split the baby on this issue, folks. In my view, there is a definitive line between intellectual property and self-promotion, but too often we blur that line for our own immediate gratification. Perez is right, in a sense, that the loss of “physical form” plays a roll in the justification of stealing, but as we blog, produce video and other types of content, we need to give some thought as a society to how we protect what needs to be protected.

2) Perez’s comment about how individually produced content has less of a value, but “in aggregate, can become something of value” has merit. ActiveAccess, a division of the company I work for, is a producer of a communications platform, a super-widget if you will. We’ve traditionally worked on widgets for clients, ie, radio stations, colleges and universities. We have a new project on the front-burner that is for a consumer market segment - a direct to consumer application. It’s on the horizon (check back in early May), but one of our beliefs is that by coupling content together (RSS, etc) and establishing content partners, we can help build a portal for a community. The idea on our end though is two-fold… a) consolidate content and services into one place for the consumer / reader; and b) establish a revenue-sharing platform for content providers, ie bloggers, which should help expand their brand recognition and value.

3) Perez writes about NBC’s Jerry Zucker railing against Apple. This is an amusing quote, but broadcast media has distinct advantages over new media that often gets overlooked - ironically enough - by people in broadcast media. New media is certainly younger, faster and more agile in some respects, but in others - it lacks establishment, audience, capital and other benefits. Rick Ducey (BIAfn) commented on this to an extent (see Rick’s blog post at: http://blog.bia.com/bia/?p=26). Rick is at the 2008 NAB Show, and believe me, broadcasters are intensely focused on social media, networks like Facebook, YouTube, etc. If you’re interested in NAB - you can follow their blog at: http://www.NABShow.com/blog. They also have a Twitter feed that you can track. It’s a great place to read about technology, media and other topics bloggers are interested in.

4) So, how do these two differing perspectives (one often associated with those in broadcast media and the other with those in new media) translate for bloggers in particular? Well, while you can’t stop being viral or promoting yourself, you also have to examine how your intellectual property - because that’s what we are talking about here - may be valued or better utilized elsewhere. If you are concerned about it being lifted and think that is going to happen, which certainly is taking place, one method is to seek out the established forces and team-up. Certainly, some people view Apple as a corrosive force, but people used to think of that way about Sears. Everyone feared the end of “Mom and Pop” stores. Then along came Wal-Mart, and the same fears were echoed again and again. Of course, we still have “Mom and Pop” stores. The point is that successful businesses learn from their landscape and find a way to either do something no one else is doing or they find a way to do it better. The same is true for bloggers.

5) Last thought, the idea of a blog as a “destination” is a good point. I did not read the post from Mark Evans that Perez references (you can click here to read it if you want), but it sounds accurate. Essentially, this comes back to what I wrote in point 4 - you need to take more ownership of your material and know the marketplace. Of course, if you don’t consider your content a commodity that you want to protect and profit from - that’s a whole other issue. But if you do, then you need to treat it like any other business asset.

The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) 2008 Show is now in full swing, stacked with an agenda that is heavy on digital technology, video, social media and the latest product innovations. But those are not the only things going on this year at NAB worth noting.

In an effort to expand its marketing reach, not only does NAB have a very active Show Blog up and running, but they also have a NAB Twitter feed that you can subscribe to. Whether you are at the show or not, these are great ways to stay informed about what is being discussed on the show floor and in the sessions. Since the 2008 Show takes over the entire Las Vegas Convention Center, and is expected to draw over 102,000 people - it’s safe to say that you can’t be every where you want to be. Using these tools should help keep you informed and improve your overall experience.

Another way to maximize your time at NAB is to get some insider knowledge. In fact, last week, I helped organize a Webinar that provided an “Insider’s” view of this year’s show, including perspectives from Chris Brown, NAB’s Executive VP of Conventions and Business Operations, Peggy Miles, President of Intervox, and also Gary Arlen, President of Arlen Communications and author of many books on digital media. Even though the Show is currently underway, I highly recommend you take a few moments when you have some down-time to view the Webinar and see what our expert panel recommends (http://www.bia.com/webinars). Of course, exactly how much down-time you will end up having in Las Vegas is probably pretty minimal, but it is worth a shot, right?

The other idea (and less time consuming) is that you can refer to Rick Ducey’s blog entry at BIA’s blog, Perspectives (click here to read). Rick is not only the Chief Strategy Officer for BIA, but he also has been named an official NAB Show blogger. In his post, Rick outlines his Top 5 things to get out of NAB.

Lastly, BIA has it’s own Twitter feed that allows you to receive updates from NAB, Peggy Miles, and BIA’s Rick Ducey, Mark O’Brien and Ed Czarnecki - all of whom are tweeting and blogging from the Show. The feed can be pulled into an RSS reader, if you want. The main url is: http://twitter.com/BIAfn.

I’ll post more about the Show as word trickles back to me. However, given the rapidly changing environment of the broadcast media industry, NAB is certainly stepping up and using social networks to its marketing advantage.

We’ve known for some time that the number of people viewing online video is on the rise. With the expansion of broadband and high speed internet access, more people finally have the bandwidth to support video downloads. But where do we really stand?

In 2006, the number of Americans between the ages of 12 and 64 that viewed online video content every day was 9 percent. This year however, that number has grown to 14 percent and could end up being higher. Frequency of viewing online video also is on the rise. Last year, 44 percent of 12 to 64 year-olds watched video online at least once a week. This year – that number is up to 52 percent.

YouTube is driving much of the rise in online video consumption with 20 million or more viewers per month watching over 100 million video clips per day (Let’s just not forget there are numerous providers of video content, including Yahoo!). Though YouTube and others provide some news content, they traditionally reach audiences interested in viewing comedy and what some may call “fringe” or alternative content (like Garth Marenghi’s Darkplace, which has reemerged as a cult favorite online), as well as those posting personalized content as opposed to news and special interest stories – a backbone of most television programming.

In point of fact, research demonstrates that the most popular video downloads on the Internet are news and special interest stories, with comedy, television programming, movie clips / previews, and weather the next most popular selections.

This means that the interests of Americans who view video online plays directly into the strengths of television stations, which have access to video content that they produce, as well as the ability to offer network and audience produced content that may not normally be aired in regular programming cycles.

Another facet to the trend of people viewing video online includes the growth of people who are online while they watch television. According to a study conducted by the Solutions Research Group (highlighted in a recent Time magazine article), 37 percent of the US population over the age of 12 use their computers while they watch television. This means that close to 100 million Americans are multitasking – shifting between watching television and online computer use. Other research shows that the longer people use the Internet (in numbers of years they have been online), the more their television viewing decreased. Though the time spent online per day remains less than total time watching television, such a trend represents viewers lost from television stations’ over the air service, but in fact they could be recaptured with on-demand and download Internet based services delivered to the computer.

One way to both maximize the trend towards online video viewership and combat declining market share and audience is to implement a desktop application or widget to deliver video and other programming directly to the computer desktop. Desktop applications and widgets are particularly effective in driving viewers to a station’s website, because they offer one click access to any portion of a website. Desktop applications reside on the computer desktop of a specific viewer giving a television station the ability to stream video and audio content directly to the desktop, as well as alert messages, RSS feeds, weather, and other forms of content. This has the effect of creating a communication bridge between the station and the viewer whenever the viewer is online.Once the communication bridge has been established, a desktop application or widget can then drive viewers back to a station’s website for additional breaking news, severe weather bulletins, school closings, community updates or contest and promotional information.

Given the growth of online video consumption by Americans, the growing trend of multitasking between television and online viewership, and the possible decline in television viewing in favor of Internet use, television stations have the opportunity to enhance their online presence by delivering interactive content through desktop applications that also help to funnel these viewers back to their websites. This is where ActiveAccess and BIA can be a tremendous help.

As a member of the first generation of kids who really grew up with a computer in the home to my present-day work as a marketing professional, I have seen and experienced the changes of the online experience first hand.

From the lonely, late night and early morning hours on my CoCo 3, prowling local and regional BBS boards (trying like a madman to download Duke Nukem), to watching Darkplace and presidential debates on YouTube and CNN this year, what it means to be online or “on the web” continues to evolve… and quickly.

To say that the web has been reborn sounds a bit stale. I know that. The truth of the matter is - being online (whether via the pre-Internet days or not) has always been a social experience some way or another. And since the web has grown so much over the years, its rebirth or evolution has been a constant.

However, I believe one of the differences between then and now is the level with which we can interact and engage one another is greater than anytime in history. The last couple of years have seen the growth of social networks, advancements in digital and mobile technology, greater personalized content, rapid adoption of RSS, and the explosion of Twitter and similar communications solutions. Spurring all of these things along has been the growth of broadband and wireless technology, which has enabled more and more people high-speed access and grown the web substantially.

Of course, not only is the technology available and accessible, but people are using it and using it for many purposes. People are watching video online, listening to the radio online, getting their news online, meeting people and cultivating relationships online, more than at any time in history. We can bridge the gap of distance and communicate through Skype, follow the latest developments at a trade show (for example, see the NAB Twitter feed by clicking here), or join social and political causes all instantly and for free. And if we want, we can beam video of ourselves all over the world, purchase food and clothing, and, of course, complain.

What this brings me to - in a loose and rather unscientific blog posting - is that the web has emerged to become everyone’s social portal (well, almost everyone). If you want to reach people - you need to reach them online.

This holds especially true for marketing. In fact, I think we as marketing professionals have the most difficult job in the crazy life-cycle of business. Our job is to keep track of all of these portals, networks and communities, and devise ways to use everything the web is creating as a means to get our message to our target audience. The rebirth of the web as a social portal has come to mean that successful marketing is social marketing, and social marketing is only a success when you establish a relationship - preferably a positive one.

The purpose of this website and Hack Blog is to address the unique dynamics of social marketing, and to offer insight into how social marketing can and should be used. Another component of this site to connect you, the reader, with the skilled and talented people I work with on a daily basis at BIA Financial Network, intelligent PR professionals like Geoff Livingston, and others who can help you and your company or organization make the right marketing decisions.

I was asked late last year to present some thoughts at the Internet Advocacy Roundtable regarding widgets and how they relate to advocacy.

I was told the audience is expected to be largely from internet advocacy groups, non-profits / associations, and possibly a few tech companies. The goal is to give a brief presentation and spend a bulk of the time in Q&A, sharing thoughts about what constitutes a widget (this discussion includes widgets - both in and out of social networks, RIAs and desktop applications), how can they be used for advocacy, what circumstances are they effective or perhaps ineffective, and more.

So, I first set out and completed some initial research, which I later shared at the Roundtable and will share through this blog (I know, it was December… I’m running behind).

One aspect of my research that I found interesting (and I’ll take the time to share now) was how integrated, robust (I think a “robust” social network includes multiple web application offerings) and populated social networks can be the more area they cover, whereas social networks tend to be less integrated (within other aspects of one’s daily life), robust and populated in smaller communities or more niche environments.

Clearly, I am basing this statement on some initial evidence and more research will need to be done to verify this theory. Assuming the facts support the theory, the question then becomes: How is the effectiveness of social networks relevant to the discussion on widgets?

Quite simply, I think the dynamic of online participation in social networks and utilizing web applications (widgets) that are largely viral, possess a large degree of overlap. After all, at the most basic levels they both need to exist, require some measure of community acceptance, and the user needs to initiate their involvement. At another level, they exist to create a bridge of information and contact between a person and a larger community. And they often coexist - with widgets in social networks.

This brings me to the state / local elections in Virginia in 2007 (I’ll get into the current election cycle in my follow-up piece).

Where were the social networks and widgets? What happened to internet-based advocacy?

Ted McLaughlan, a Senior Solution Architect at Blackstone, noted to me in a LinkedIn email exchange that despite the presence of high-octane issues such as transportation, growth, education and the Board of Supervisors elections and Sheriff’s race (each of which were driven with charges of corruption and dirty politics), these events barely registered in social networks, campaigns did not utilize widgets, and SEO was nonexistent.

Despite the PPC ads from “Campaign for Loudoun’s Future” and the Loudoun Independent’s video interviews, search engines, McLaughlan wrote, were not tracking advocacy groups in Loudoun during the recent election cycle.

Of course, while search engines are not perfect, they can, more often than not, indicate the online presence of issue / advocacy groups… or the lack thereof. Being in the neighborhood and on the ground, I certainly can attest to the lack of online advocacy in Loudoun County, and the reliance to traditional media. I think the SEO information provides a decent proof point.

In summing up some of my thoughts - it may just be that the bridge virtual social networks and widgets provide across larger areas does not translate at the local level. There may just be some issues where the ROI or the impact is just not noticeable - that people make their local connections more physical.

It also could be that because local activists are not investing in building or participating in social networks, deploying widgets, and maximizing their SEO / SEM, that people who execute searches to locate information and do not find it and just move on. If that is indeed the case, local organizations could be missing on that 5% or more of people, who receive some key information, seek to act on it, but then move on because they cannot locate the information quickly. That’s a missed opportunity that could mean the difference between funding an initiative and passing a referendum or not.

MORE THOUGHTS TO FOLLOW ON THIS SUBJECT… Stay tuned…

What New Technology Has Done

We all marvel at how the post-industrial, new technology age continues to bring us all closer together, both virtually and in reality. New technology enhances our productivity, improves different aspects of our daily communication, and bridges the information divide. The ripple effect spreads out and across all elements of society and touches everything we do.

As these waves, which emanate from technological advancement, spread outwards, we can see the new models rising from the old. Our traditional methods of thinking, though not abandoned instantaneously, are gradually beginning to wither away. New methods and new ideologies are surfacing. And as a result, our behaviors and responses to things are starting to change.

The Internet is a component of this change - as it itself has migrated from a large, centrally governed and limited entity (by limited I mean that the Internet was initially limited in its number of participants as well as the amount of information and types/format of information available) into a demassified network - decentralized and unlimited.

Increasingly, we are all demanding more personalization of information, services and products, while at the same time, realizing that our concept of what is “personal” or “private” is also changing.

I remember in the retail world, not more than 7 or 8 years ago, a debate raged among many of the discounters or mass merchants over how to best handle online promotions, emails and distributing offers and content to customers - “opt in” vs “opt out”. The retail industry preferred “opt-out” for obvious reasons, including customer convenience and reduced burden on the retailer.

However, what was an initial convenience to the customer soon became a hassle due to two simple words: information overload. To be more precise, it was not just information overload, but an overload of irrelevant information. What was once a valuable service soon became a flood of impersonal content that was uninspiring and created a backlash within the customer. The customer was starting to step away.

In a simple explanation, this change forced retailers to adapt to the “opt-in” methodology. But that was not enough. The customer’s desire for the information, while important, was not as critical as identifying the needs of the customer and then meeting those needs.

On the surface, this appears to be marketing at its most basic. However, it was not all that long ago where salesmen went door-to-door selling vacuum cleaners whether or not you needed one or not. Cars were mass-produced with limited options or customer feedback. To be politically risky for a moment I’ll suggest that we still mass-produce things through our educational system - namely our kids. Students are sent to schools that resemble factories, each with uniform and mandated curriculums, and little flexibility for personalization.

Personalization Is Key

So, how does this all connect to what your company or organization is doing today?

It is easy to say that personalization is the key, but what does it really mean and what is it the key to?

The first step to understanding this dynamic rests in the model outlined above at the start of this column: that waves of change emanate from advancements in technology.

Let’s take the growth of social networking. The growth of social networks has been enabled through new technology platforms (the most successful of which were developed and later opened for developers) and applications that connect your virtual world with your real world. People are now building bridges between themselves and other people that are truly global.

My wife has over 500 friends on Facebook. Three years ago - her life revolved around her Palm Pilot. Now her life revolves around Facebook (sorry honey, but it’s true).

Why?

Because she updates Facebook through her mobile device, online from her laptop, and elsewhere (this may or may not be interpreted to include the office). Technology has advanced in such a way to allow for this level of connection.

The second step to understanding personalization rests in a subset or result of technology - namely, Facebook is easy to use, integrated, and encourages people like my wife to stay involved because the Facebook applications she selects enhance her connection with her friends, family and business colleagues in a way that a phone call cannot or in a way that buying a $700 roundtrip ticket to Colombia cannot.

So, offering a personalized environment is a key provided that it offers: ease of use, integration to other devices / environments, and encourages use through relevant tools or applications.

But what does this personalization deliver?

Well, in my wife’s case, it means she is on Facebook and not MySpace, hi5, Bebo and other networks.

This leads us into the next phases of our discussion - competition and later… technology and information filters.

MORE THOUGHTS TO FOLLOW ON THIS SUBJECT… Stay tuned…