2012 Is [Definitely] the Year of Video

It’s all over the Internet, stuffed into every eNewsletter, offered up on any website that works, glowing LED at every click. It’s marketing VIDEO. By the end of 2012, we’re going to be seeing so much of it people will begin to ask [all over again] whether “this is the death of print.”

Examples? How about the following three videos, all of which landed on my desk in a single morning (December 1).

Square2Marketing has its “Video Marketing Minute.”


Direct Marketing IQ [Target Marketing Group] has DMIQTV.

Production Solutions features Package Formats that will get your attention.

None of these videos are fancy-schmancy. They feature real people talking about -- and demonstrating -- marketing expertise. The films are short, sweet, and targeted.

There’s plenty more where this came from, so if video isn’t on your 2012 calendar (yet), you still have two weeks to put it there. Happy New Year!

p.s. In its Who's Mailing What archive report, DirectMarketingIQ.com reported a big crash (33% decline) in B2B direct mail in 2011. Please note that all of the above videos are B2B efforts.

p.s.s. When this post appeared on The Digital Nirvana blog to which I contribute, one commenter defended direct mail's role in acquisition marketing and wrongly assumed I was echoing the oft-repeated "direct mail is dead" mantra. Not so. Direct mail remains an effective — even essential — part of acquisition marketing. DMIQ’s “Who’s Mailing What” analysis led to their conclusion that B2B marketers had been doing far less direct mail in the first six months of 2011, compared to 2010. Meanwhile, I, too, have seen an explosion of B2B marketing video, not necessarily for acquisition, but certainly as a substitute for textual "content marketing." I stand by the prediction that 2012 will be the year video becomes commonplace on websites, in emails, in eNewletters, and in landing pages. A case in point? HubSpot's brilliant use of a "What is HubSpot" video on its download landing page for a free eBook.

--scrubbed by MarketingBrillo

What Can Home Invasion News Teach Us About Content Marketing? These Eight Realities.

Three months ago I conceived homeinvasionnews.com. The content strategy was three-fold:
1) demonstrate my ability to create content for any topic, including one with which I had no experience;
2) demonstrate the added value of content displayed in a dynamic format;
3) demonstrate the various formats in which content can be presented.

I was able to take Home Invasion News from concept to launch in 30 days. Since launch, I have been maintaining the site, adding new content daily. I will launch a PR push in the next few weeks, but the site is already ranking on page one of Google in a variety of home invasion related topics: news, statistics, safeguards, laws, etc.

Here's are eight realities that confirm the validity of the original three-point strategy:

1. Content development is about intelligent content curation. If you have a body of knowledge at your disposal, content will come. If you don't -- but if you know how to research on the Internet -- you will find all the content you need: statistics, expertise, opinion, case studies, definitions, and controversy for any topic, any project.

2. The best content adds something extra: A viewpoint, a sense of humor, a different take, an unusual way of presenting. In short, the best content starts with dry information and adds YOU.

3. How you present content makes all the difference. Give the reader/browser something extra to look at, chew on, think about. At Home Invasion News, this something extra would be the active layout of the homepage and the editorial point of view.

4. Specialized infographics can play a key role. The top menu bar of the site features "Faces of Home Invasion." That link jumps to an interactive graphic used to publicize the site through press releases.

5. Video has a place. In the case of HIN, limitless video is free for the asking and we embed it everywhere. Most any topic you can think of has related video somewhere on the Internet. Most of it is free and easy. Figure out how to use it and do so.

6. RSS feeds are good -- both for content curation and for readers' viewing pleasure. HIN features a feed based on the term "home invasion." The feed is continuous and it creates great fodder for daily consumption, as well as background for the "top story" weekly blog post.

7. Content curation sites like Scoop-It help track national stories. For some sites (like HIN), linking to your Scoop-It site on a separate page makes for solid, in-the-moment content. [Tip: You can set up Scoop-It to make sure your own site is first on this feed.]

8. Understanding the various e-media possibilities -- video, slideshows, webinars. etc. -- helps guide content development. For example, we recognize that -- as resources grow -- interviews and podcasts are a natural progression in the Home Invasion News effort.

A final thought: Sites like WriterAccess aggregate a pool of writers looking for content development projects. The last time I checked, WriterAccess had 3,800 writers signed on. Perhaps this model creates work for journalists closed out in the newspaper shrinkage. I certainly hope so. In any event, WriterAccess is a huge step up from content sweatshops I wrote about awhile back. On the other hand, lining up with 3,800 other writers feels a bit like trying to land a job -- or locate a Chief Marketing Officer -- on MONSTER (not that there's anything wrong with that :-)

-- scrubbed by MarketingBrillo

Today’s “Show Me” Website Is A Content Marketer’s Dream

A content marketer’s job is to share what an organization knows. We can do that piecemeal in blogs, videos, slideshows, whitepapers, articles, and so on. But nothing puts it all out there like a “show-me” website.

I just finished writing a short ebook (free for the asking) that describes how to launch a show-me website in 30 days, from concept to launch – and that’s starting with zero content and no background in the topic area.

To demonstrate this could be done, starting on May 17 with only a topic in mind, I developed enough original content for Home Invasion News to go live on June 17. When I searched the generic term “home invasion news” on Google this morning, the site had moved up from seventh place, to fifth and sixth positions on page one, just behind recent TV news reports. We’re also ranking on the first page for “home statistics,” and “FBI home invasion statistics.”

Is this some sort of extraordinary achievement? I don’t think so. If you are still reading this article, I am absolutely certain you can do the same.

But why bother? I mean, why is launching this sort of a website so important right now? Ho-hum websites without color and a profusion of choices for the visitor are worse than ineffective. They are a detriment to the content itself.

Information consumers today are used to splash and dash. They don’t want to think about how to find and navigate content. That part should be easy. The show-me website is the architecture content marketers need to make their work shine and succeed.

To clarify, the following list presents a quick run-down of ways a show-me website makes content marketing so much more effective.

1. Offers Instant Choices. At first glance, a show-me website offers a visitor many, many intriguing content choices.

2. Creates Information Categories. Navigation of a show-me website is intuitive because information is so beautifully organized.

3. Ignites the Imagination. The visuals on a show-me website are dynamic, shifting, changing, sliding, and colorful. The user gets excited deciding to what to look at first.

4. Dances As a Unit. On a show-me website, all content marketing options harmonize. Rather than appearing to be separate “chunks” of information, video, slideshows, podcasts, images, articles, and stories create a tight symphony.

5. Facilitates Natural Advertising. Show-me websites can be constructed to make ads a seamless part of the presentation.

6. Encourages Play. We may be used to information delivered in static columns when we’re reading, but when we’re playing on the Internet, we want a dynamic grid that’s more like a movie than a book.

7. Invites Infographics. Infographics as content are growing in popularity. Show-me websites incorporate options for presenting and cycling through multiple samples of these popular visuals.

8. Makes the Content All About the Visitor. Because of the way a show-me website organizes and displays content – by content category – the focus remains on what the visitor is looking for, not what the organization is selling.

9. Matches Contemporary Information Delivery. The show-me website breaks the typical Internet website static-column gird. The show-me website helps content marketers emulate the information presentation tactics employed by leading magazines and newspapers.

Finally, if you’re wondering what a show-me website looks like, the book gives 30 examples, including these: GQ Magazine, Atlantic Monthly, and National Geographic. You’ll notice right away that these and so many other amazing show-me websites are loaded with content, delivered within a framework that makes information pop.

If you’d like a copy of the ebook “How To Launch Your Own Show-Me Website in 30 Days,” please send a request using the button on the right.

-- scrubbed by MarketingBrillo

The Faceless Interview Pens A New Chapter in Content Aggregation

I follow Laura Dodd (@digthisgig) on Twitter, but I don’t know her personally. Still her simple Tweet caught my eye. It read, “My new book is in stores tomorrow! http://fb.me/UrS53jWK”

I clicked through, of course, and found a video featuring a twenty-something (her description, not mine) telling how she had aggregated content for her new book, Dig This Gig. The self-help manual is designed to show first-timers what’s actually going on in the job market they’re entering: what do titles really mean, what are employers really looking for, etc. etc.

Dodd says the process that ended in her book grew organically, beginning in conversations with her twenty-something friends already in the marketplace. As such online conversations are wont to do, the process webbed outward via social media to an ever larger group from whom she drew material. In other words, she gathered empirical evidence -- commentary, opinion, and “sharing” -- from friends and friends-of-friends online.

This is quite a contemporary approach to expertise, but one that the twenty-somethings reportedly trust more than information from distant “experts.” To this cohort, somebody you don’t know definitely needs to know somebody you do know ... or somebody you know who knows somebody.

The empirical road to book publishing isn’t anything new, or course. Helen Gurley Brown took this approach all the way to the bank when she wrote Sex and the Single Girl in 1962. Still, Laura Dodd’s book – which may or may not be successful – exemplifies a growing (and likely permanent) trend in content aggregation: the faceless, joined-at-the-web interview.

So, business execs everywhere: Add social media aggregation to your content development strategy. Perhaps, over time, we’ll have less respect for this “friends” approach to expertise. But for now, I give kudos to Laura Dodd. Like all success stories she’s got the first step down – she’s early to market. I wish her the best.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Hey, I'm a "brand journalist." Who knew?

I'm happy to be myself, but I avoid talking about myself on this blog. Forgive me. I'm a little excited right now. This morning, I attended Ann Handley's seminar dedicated to the notion that Content Rules. This morning I learned a new name for what I do.

I am a "brand journalist."

This is a term Ann threw out during the Q&A, when somebody asked how a small organization can possibly "do it all" -- website, blog, social media, content curation and management, etc. Ann's answer was to hire a "brand journalist." Why? Because this is the person who has the skills specific to the accelerating demand for corporate and nonprofit content.

The specific skills of a brand journalist blend marketing, PR, and journalism and include the following attributes:

1. The ability to analyze and identify the needs of the audience for whom content is created.

2. A skill for writing fresh, authoritative, but also conversational, friendly, and approachable stories.

3. A penchant for show-don't-tell writing that's easy to read and accessible to many reader segments.

4. An understanding of and experience with all the ways to present content: blogging, articles, video, podcasting, slidesharing, etc.

5. Knowing how to "reimagine" content, which means, perceiving how to rethink, recreate, and rewrite current material to meet multiple cross-platform needs.

6. A writing style that builds momentum and can take the reader along to the next step or action.

Several weeks ago, I set up a new blog titled Brands That Share, so Ann's word choice was an exciting moment for me. I heard the new role of brand journalism defined exactly as I have been envisioning it.

My next blog will share other takeaways from this seminar. But, for now, I just need to say it: I'm a brand journalist!

And thank you for listening!

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Brilliant Zinio, Breathtaking Magazines

We may not have direct mail sweepstakes from Publishers' Clearinghouse, but we do have email from digital/interactive publisher Zinio. Last year, I regularly received marketing emails from Zinio and I didn’t mind. Most of the time I deleted, but every now and then I’d open and be amazed what a great marketing tool these “free magazine articles” were.

Last summer, for example, the Zinio Daily Spotlight focused on “Water,” followed by a few thirst-inducing statistics:

• 100 gallons – amount of water the average American uses per day, enough to fill 1,600 glasses
• $600 – amount the average home spends annually on energy to heat water.

What did these striking statistics come from? I had to find out, so I clicked “read it.” That’s when I learned that all these tips were in the “Green Home Guide” issue of Popular Science. I realized I don’t know much about science, popular or otherwise. I should. Why don’t I?

Zinio did this to me often. In myriad ways, this digital company reminded me of the value and expertise found in magazines, whose editors and writers know oodles about their topic areas. Besides, most any magazine is just plain joyous to look it.

Zinio seems to be marketing differently now. I don't get any more Daily Spotlights or "read it" emails. (Okay, I didn't subscribe to anything, so that's fair enough.) Also, on Zinio's website, I notice that much of their advertising today is aimed at iPad, iPhone, iPod touch, and other mobile readers. If digital downloads will save magazines, that’s a good thing, though I, personally, would miss the feel of glossy paper, the vibrant color, and the whoosh scent of a printed magazine.

Meanwhile, it's fun to cruise around Zinio’s website and peek inside contemporary publications like SPIN and T3, if for no other reason than to check the hip graphics and page layouts. It’s even a treat to sift through the titles of magazines still in print.

Long live magazines!

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

2011: "Brands That Share" Are Shaking the Zeitgeist

First a short story:

Even before he had heard the terms "content marketing" or "content curation," a colleague of mine intuited the value of “brand as expert.”

My friend went to a client for whom he had provided highly successful PR for years and urged them to stop generating profit for trade media. “Why not replace your PR investment with content hosted on your own site?” he suggested. “It really makes no sense to pay to have all these articles written and placed in for-profit publishing enterprises. They get paid by advertisers who want to wrap their message in your company's expertise.” The client agreed and a daily blog launched. Shortly thereafter, the project was handed off to the website developer as fodder for SEO.

I’ve urged my colleague to get a better handle on Brands That Share™ and I'd advise any marketer to do the same. To begin:

a) Read Ann Handley and C.C. Chapman’s new book Content Rules: How to Create Killer Blogs, Podcasts, Videos, Ebooks, Webinars (and More) That Engage Customers and Ignite Your Business. Ann is editor at the highly successful MarketingProfs and C.C. is one of social media’s earliest adopters.

b) Check out this article. Published in July by Steve Rosenbaum, founder and CEO of Magnify.Net. This article says, “We're standing at the end of an era. ‘Mass Media' -- the ability to reach large segments of the population with a single message -- is essentially over. For advertisers, the need to find content in context, and to have that context be appropriate for their message and their brand is critical. So, Curation replaces Creation as the coin of the realm for advertiser-safe environments. No longer can advertisers simply default to big destination sites. The audience is too diffuse and the need to filter and organize quality crowd-created content is too critical.”

c) To further grasp the role of content in marketing, read this blog by C.C. about Zappos, a company that everyone pretty much agrees "gets it." In short, C.C. says Zappos is FULL of Content.

d) Consider this blog from Media Post discussing how people are engaging with brands via social media, namely (and I quote): The last couple months have brought a wave of data suggesting that a substantial proportion of online social network members use their profiles to engage with brands in some way -- including recommending or criticizing a product or service to other people, and engaging with the brand itself for customer service issues. In addition to confirming many of these earlier findings, the latest study, sponsored by Performics and performed by ROI Research, also found that a good number of social net users want more online offers and information from brands.” [Emphasis added]

e) Get familiar with Rohit Bhargava's Influential Marketing Blog, including posts like this on content curation (and don't pass up the comments).

Right now, the zeitgeist is chattering and the evidence is growing on multiple fronts: content marketing, content curation.....bzzzzzzzz..

p.s. Ian Greenleigh makes a plausible case against content curation .. well, at least against yakking about it. He's got a point. Better to tinker more, talk less. Thanks, Ian.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

How the Heck Did Dingus Become News Anyway?

Once upon a day – back when men were men and so were editors – the patriarch of the newspaper decided whether an event or happening was worthy news. He selected, based in part, on whether or not his readers “needed to know.”

Sure, it was a somewhat subjective call, but that was the basic tenet -- the “need to know,” as defined by the editor. Not the desire to know, not the itch to know… the need to know.

Remember when your parents refused to tell you something because they said you didn’t “need to know that”? Same principle. Oh sure, newspapers carried opinion and entertainment stuff, too – right on the op-ed page and across from the comics page so everybody could differentiate entertainment from news. Not so today.

In the new century, stuff gets into the newspaper only if – and always when -- it will get repeated by some other paper or reap some broader attention. It doesn’t matter whether we, the readers, need to know it or not. We’re just the lab rats for “information.”

The Dingus case in point:

I mean, seriously…. "Does any reader NEED to know that some Dingus in Florida with 50 other Dingi in attendance is going to torch a certain book? Does anybody need to know that? Not unless they live next door [or dangerously close] to the Dingus in question. Seriously, folks.

And yet … over the past so-many weeks, what “news” organizations have been asking if their readers/listeners need to know this? En Oh En Ee. NONE. Every media voice – TV, radio, newspaper, online news, bloggers, etc. – jumped in to ride this Dingle Baby for all it was worth.

And what was it worth? The construction of faux catastrophe, with a possibility of widespsread mayhem , death, and increasing violence.

That’s the idea, of course, since today “news” isn’t about news at all. It’s about getting “eyeballs,” about pumping up readership, about not being “left out” of the spin, and, most of all, about pandering for money, pure and simple.

Not that I’m blaming editors, mind you. Geneva Overholser puts it well in her piece on the State of the American Newspaper. “Most of the foregoing litany boils down to money. America became obsessed with business, and newspapers did, too. John Carroll, editor of Baltimore's Sun, sees the larger changes when he looks back, past his 35-year newspaper career, to his alma mater, Haverford College. ‘Business is ascendant in this society to a degree it has not been in my lifetime,’ he says. ‘The best and the brightest from my college are all becoming investment bankers. When I went there, I'd never heard the term 'investment banker.' People all wanted to be journalists or doctors or college professors. But now--a lot of publishers and CEOs want an editor who talks about leveraging assets.’”

And that is how and why the Dingus became an international celebrity.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

But It’s In Newsweek. It Must Be True!

An article in July 19 Newsweek cites seven dos and don’ts for creativity, all under the title "Forget Brainstorming."

Authors Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman point to a 1958 study by Yale researchers, which, reportedly, found that “brainstorming in a group… actually reduced a team’s creative output.”

Jonathan Vehar, president and cofounder of New & Improved, is having none of it. The day Newsweek published, Vehar blogged a convincing rebuttal explaining that the Yale project only evaluated whether it is better to brainstorm alone or in a group. No indictment of brainstorming there. [FWIW, sometimes it’s better in a group, sometimes it’s better alone.]

Moving right along… the Newsweek article also reported on research by University of Oklahoma Professor Michael Mumford who, according to the authors, condemned available creativity training, calling it "garbage." Maybe Mumford did say that, but I couldn't verify it. On the other hand, Marty Baker, who blogs at Creativity Central, is convinced that “Newsweek got it wrong.”

“’[The article] is a manifestation of what’s wrong with media summaries," Marty declares. "It is a titillating and provocative sidebar that readers will remember without context ... It doesn’t say what Mumford identifies as commercially available creativity training. It does not give particulars about the Yale study back in 1958 -- over a half a century ago.”

True, I noticed all that. And yet... Bronson and Merryman cite a ton more research supporting their seven creative musts. “Don’t tell someone to be creative [Mark Runco, University of Georgia]; “Follow a passion” [Rena Subotnik, American Psychological Association]; “Explore other cultures” [Adam Galinsky, Northwestern]. Etc. Etc.

So where's the truth? I guess I could track down and verify every one of the citations .. and every one of the inevitable disclaimers to the citations. But even having done that, how sure would I be that anybody understands anything about creativity?

Beats the heck outta me. I’m just gonna get out my crayons and see what happens.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Machine generated content Is Here. Big Whoop. Real writers are safe.

A provocative little article appeared in the April 29 issue of Businessweek. The magazine was reporting on Narrative Science, a five-month-old company in Evanston, IL, that specializes in “machine-generated content.” Businessweek challenged readers to decide which of three sentences was written by the Narrative Science computer, and which were written by a human being.

At first glance I couldn’t tell whether I was reading man or machine. The pertinent information and facts appeared in all three versions. Even the verbs were snappy, like the copy a sports writer might produce (sports writers are some of the most brilliant practitioners of the art). Still, I felt confident that -- if I thought about the content of what I was reading -- I could make the right pick. I did.

The giveaway? This machine can write competently, but it can't pull in the little "extras" that characterize what a writer brings to the story. Sports Hal doesn't understand that Iowa "dropped the finale." He has no idea that Ray Fisher Stadium is "historic." In short, Sports Hal can string facts together, but he has no idea how to contribute thoughtful observations or place facts into a larger context (at least not yet). Narrative Science is "just the facts, ma'am."

Don't misunderstand, please. I admire, applaud, and pay due respect to Narrative Science. In fact, this company surely is amazing. But as a writer, I came away from the test relieved and reminded once again what real writers do, namely: think, entertain, clarify, provoke, and link us into something larger.

Alexander A. Pyles, sports writer, points to the perfect example in his reaction to sports-by-computer when he says, “Ever read Hunter S. Thompson’s account of the 1970 Kentucky Derby? It’s widely considered some of the best sports writing in American history and includes nary a mention of the race itself. Think a computer could do something like that?”

Surprisingly, I found precious little on the Internet about Narrative Science. Their website lands on a “contact” page and only a few references to the company show up on Google.

Chris Biondi, manager of newsroom development at GateHouse News Service, uncovered a bit more in his post, most particularly a peek at the “full story, not bylined, but “Powered by Narrative Science.” Biondi concurs with Pyle in saying, “You can read a lot into a story like this and imagine how it may affect our industry. But the answer to Businessweek's compelling headline - "Are Sportswriters Really Necessary?" - is clearly, yes, as are writers who cover crime, health and business.”

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Saying Things JUST So Is SO Worth the Effort

Lately, I find myself laboring over significant emails... like the one I wrote to my niece about graduating from college, or the one I wrote to my realtor about listing a house ... or the one I sent a client prior to a strategy meeting.

I don't mean laboring in a bad way. I mean honoring my need to examine, think through, and clearly express myself.

These emails take a long time to craft, but I find writing is my only option for clear communication. I don't want to communicate on the phone (unless there is plenty of time to hash it out "just so.") I could do it face to face, but very few have time for that anymore.

In writing, I can question -- and edit -- my own thinking process. I can check my own prejudices. I can examine my own emotions. Do I really feel that way? Do I want to disclose that feeling? Or is it more accurate that I feel this other way? Am I being respectful enough? Honest enough? Diplomatic enough? This process is very useful in a hurried society.

Eureka!

My obsession with careful expression is founded on the conviction that sloppy words equal sloppy thought. In this day of tweeting and texting, that realization leads to a huge question mark about the future of humanity (not that there's anything wrong with that....)

To support the premise that words have deep significance ... to exemplify the notion that words disclose thoughts we never knew we had ... to plead for greater appreciation of formulated human utterance, consider this:

1. I realized several years ago that when people describe their dreams, they always use -- without realizing it -- key words with double meanings. They'll say things like, "I got lost. I tried to make a phone call, but I didn't have the right change." (Okay, somebody old enough to remember pay phones said this, but ... ) Think about that: "the right change." So many meanings, so many insights. Give this a shot: Pay very close attention the next time somebody describes a dream. You'll hear the clues, too. Even better, listen to your own dream descriptions. (Hmmm...I guess that's what psychiatrists do -- wait for the patient to hear their own "true words.")

2. When I watch reality t.v. (and, yes, I do watch it), I see people screaming and yelling. That's bad enough, but usually everybody will yell at the same time. This fascinates me -- I gaze in wonder, watching human beings bellow, with no idea how to communicate the very thing about which they feel so passionate, and with zero understanding of the precious exchange inherent in a well-chosen word. I never stop being amazed.

3. The six months I spent in daily blogging are responsible for this revelation. I found that blogging took hours... not because I can't write fast, but because I wanted what I said to be precisely what I meant. And I wanted it to be thorough and well-researched, too. Whether I failed or succeeded is up to my readers to decide. But, for me, the effort confirmed that saying what you mean, means thinking about what you say.

That says a whole lot, right there, don't you think?

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Video Snacking Will Starve the Mind. Long Live the Knowledge Center.

Lucy Kellaway's article -- "When Too Much Information Harms the Office" -- was published in the U.K.’s Financial Times in late November. Kellaway wrapped up a story that’s been obsessing Marketing Brillo for months, to wit: What are people actually doing about information overload? Answer: Stuffing the ears, closing the blinds, shutting down.

Kellaway offers anecdotal feedback that workers aren’t reading anything. “The first comes from a friend who works in communications for a large organisation. She has noticed that her staff are responding to the information overload not by digesting too much of it, but by stopping to digest anything at all. She tells me that, in her company, the written word has lost almost all its power. No one reads e-mails any more - with the exception of those from the boss. Messages from anyone else are either deleted unread or given a cursory glance and then ignored.”

Counter-offensive #2 also is pretty shocking. Kellaway reports that companies are dealing with too much information by closing down their libraries and knowledge centers. “In one big consultancy, all the people who used to sort information into usable chunks have just been fired, and consultants have been told that they will have to 'self-service their knowledge needs'."

The buzz that prompted Kellaway’s article came from Carol Bartz, president and CEO of Yahoo, who contributes to The Economists’s “the World in 2010.” Bartz notes that -- in the free flowing information waterfall -- managers are losing control of employees. “That’s why the greatest mandate for leadership in business is the ability to cut through the information clutter and make clear decisions without apology. More than at any time, employees need—in fact, desperately want—unequivocal direction.” As for Yahoo itself, Bartz talks about video “snacks,” calling video the “cornerstone” of Yahoo’s strategy.

That's confusing. Where does a a preferred diet of light weight video snacks square with a CEO's mandate to lead, manage information overload, and make unapologetic, unequivocal decisions?

Snack video may be able to effortlessly quell hunger pangs for "vital information," but factoids have little to do with thought and judgment, and not a whit to do with leadership. Marketing Brillo sincerely hopes that CEOs will remotivate employees to consume a full-course of considered, well-written, prudent content, no matter how long it takes to serve it. Long live the knowledge center.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

So Far, No Information Model Beats Print Because ...

A really excellent blog post by Bruce Hendrickson addressed the certain death of print publications – trade magazines, specifically.

No denying Bruce is right, and he hit upon something that’s been troubling Marketing Brillo for some time. With print evaporating into the ether, what will become of information communications generally, and business communications specifically?

At this point, major newspapers are the only business communicators who seem to be “getting it right.” Perhaps that's because communicators like The New York Times, The Washington Post, the LA Times are on-screen replicas of their print selves (only better). How so?

At major online newspaper sites, information presentation features the layout readers love. Like their print counterparts, the information is categorized under easy-to-find tabs and indices. Articles have bylines and terse headlines; they are carefully researched and full of facts, parsed interviews, and background references. Articles are beautifully written and as long as they need to be. Best of all, articles proceed from an understandable point A, to a conclusive Point B. Truly .. can we yet say the same for most electronic publications?

Reality is, electronic newsletters and publications, generally, are still climbing all over themselves to figure out what they should look like. Should they be one short email with two-sentence headers, linked to a longer article? Should they offer the first paragraph, and then link? Should they have photos or no photos? Should they include “read more” jumps or not? Nobody knows for sure, because nobody agrees.

In addition to going electronic, some organizations are eschewing editorial totally, and switching to video to communicate with readers. Have you ever watched the stuff some of these videophiles are putting out? For one thing – unlike journalists who make it their living to write well -- the people featured in videos are generally amateurs in front of a camera... which means their thinking may be fuzzy and the content may not get to the point quickly enough. Moreover, from the title and the intro (which is usually infused with upfront advertising), you don’t have any idea whether the content will be good, bad, or horrible. In fact, until you’ve already invested time, there’s no gauging the value of what’s “in there” at all. Not so, with The New York Times. In fact, not so with any print publication. These you can evaluate in a glance.

I hope I’m not one of the ‘monkey-fisted” folks Bruce was talking about in his article. I know he's right about the future of high-overhead print: It’s the old architecture and it’s going to crumble.

What I am saying is that nobody -- yet -- has certainty what the new architecture should look like. In figuring that out, I hope we analyze carefully the underlying value that most information seekers find in print.

Stats do report that people, generally, are watching more video every day. But, when people want informed opinion, apparently, they still are reading gray matter like Wikipedia and online newspapers and blogs – especially blogs. They also are searching out hefty online articles and white papers—the stuff that’s not necessarily pretty, or short, or entertaining … but IS where the content meets the seeker.

Personally, Marketing Brillo loves the “thumbability” of print. For busy people, that must surely be a key feature of any new information architecture. Digital magazines are very good at allowing readers to quickly flip through content, so perhaps there's a model there.

Entertainment is a whole different subject, of course. But, if information and analysis are the point, well, the easy-digest that’s trending now may not work so well in the long-term. As we adopt the new architecture, I'm betting (hoping) we'll figure out how to include some elements of the 550-plus-year old print model.

p.s. In the meantime, check out what print can still do to knock off your socks.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Early Whys and Wherefores of Twitter Lists

I don’t know where I was the week Twitter “lists” hit the net [October 15-ish] because I’m just getting hip to what is going on. To understand the Twitter List Hooplah, John Haydon's explanation here is as good as any, better than most.

Bottom line: Depending on your purpose, the Twitter “list” scenario mimics your file cabinet, your Rolodex, the snooty books you display on the shelf behind your desk, or a team of research assistants.

The File Cabinet Scenario
In perhaps its most popular use (so far), the Twitter list – which you must create yourself by picking, choosing, and categorizing the people you follow – becomes a sort of digital file cabinet, with your various “who’s who" compartmentalized in separate folders. The purpose of the File Cabinet is to help you keep track of people according to the group/tribe/philosophy/psychosis to which you assign them.

The Rolodex Scenario
The ubiquitous Robert Scoble is trying to keep up with 10,000 people. It used to drive him crazy, but now he has stuff streaming in by groups. The system works so well that, within days of Twitter List release, Scoble says Twitter Lists replaced Google Reader for him. Visit @Scobleizer for a peek at the 40 cognoscentious lists Robert has compiled.

The My List Is Bigger Than Your List Scenario
Like The New York Social Diary -- and depending on who's doing the compiling -- various lists (like those Scoble has put together) can segué to a Very Important List of Very Important People. Todd Zeigler at the Bivings Group thinks Twitter lists will become the bellwether of whom to follow. “I think Twitter Lists will end up helping separate the men from the boys when it comes to influence. In addition to seeing a Twitter user's follower count, we can now see the number of other Twitter users who have added them to lists. I would argue that getting added to a list is a bigger deal than simply getting someone to follow you.” Heaven help us all.

The Research Team Scenario
Kabir Bedi at PromotionWorld has a good article on how to set up and use Twitter lists. For my purposes, the feature that describes how to use Twitter for “Online Journalism” beckons. “Many news organizations and publishers are using Twitter lists to create staff directories, recommending their favorite Twitter people and specific information. This enables them to use Lists for curated real-time streams and to follow events.” Yeah, baby.

The downside to all this is the certain emergence of Twitter Envy, leading to Twitternoia, culminating in Twitter Syndrome. Watch TMZ for reports on desperate tactics related to getting Twillisted.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Move Over Google, The Times Up and Went All "Searchy"

The New York Times has a digital newsletter called @Times. The tagline is “Where the conversation begins.” Since I first got the newsletter awhile back, I’ve been tossing it away. Yesterday, I read it. Maybe you’re as late to the party as I am, so here’s what I learned from my first read.

As ReadWriteWeb reported last May (yes, I'm late to the party), The Times went open source in encouraging software developers to design applications that will find, sort, and visually chart the vast information stored at The Times. What an incredible resource for writers, marketers, and researchers!

Landing at The Art of Times Developer Network page, you find an intro that reads: “You already know that NYTimes.com is an unparalleled source of news and information. But now it's a premier source of data, too — why just read the news when you can hack it?” So, this is hacking ... This is BIG.

The current APIs (application programming interface) facilitate article search, movie reviews, congressional voting records, best sellers, etc. The Tools are super cool. For example, via the Visualization Lab "you [yes, you!] can create visual representations of NYT data using IBM's 'Many Eyes' technology." (The Grey Lady loves Big Blue. Awesome.)

Still wondering what to do with The Times APIs? Drop by the Gallery. "The Arrival of Transparency" will make you drool.

Final note: Media Bistro quoted Marc Frons, The Times' chief technology officer, about possible social media applications. Fons reportedly said, "We don't want to be Facebook. Facebook is Facebook. We'll probably do something a little bit different. We'd like it to be like the email an article [sic], only much more robust than that."

I can't help it. Seeing a newspaper -- because, you know, newspapers are dead -- challenge Google and Social Media all at once? Well, it feels gooooood.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Bloggers Should Expect Press Releases

A colleague of mine recently got a digital spanking from a blogger. Amy (not her real name) had sent him a short news release targeted to the blogger's area of interest (marketing). The release featured a brief profile of and contact information for a client with digital marketing expertise.

Imagine Amy's surprise when she got back an email that began with the words ”Does your expert talk about spamming bloggers, Amy?” The note included a link that sent her to a blog post about spam.

Maybe he was having a bad day, but I think the blogger was as wrong as he was rude.

1) Results of an international Text100 Survey released in June make a clear distinction between professional news releases and spam. The survey confirms that 90 percent of 449 bloggers surveyed say they welcome contact by PR people and email is the preferred form of contact.

2) News releases (electronic or otherwise) shouldn’t require opt-in. Journalists -- by virtue of their chosen career -- have already opted in to receive legitimate information in their interest area.

3) Bloggers who write about corporate activities are arguably journalists. Information is their stock in trade and their tool is writing. Many bloggers can acquire press credentials and the practice is expanding.

4) Some blogging is flat-out business (nothing personal is going on here). Many bloggers accept advertising on their sites. Quite a few have published books. A good number accept speaking engagements.

All our blogger had to say was "take me off your list." No PR professional is going to pursue a journalist OR a blogger who's made that request. So why the attitude?

Thats my thinking and I’d love to hear yours.

-- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Hey, Writer: Here's An Answer to “Whaca gonna do?”

Advertising and news have "decoupled" -- meaning that a lot of cash-strapped newspapers and magazines are getting rid of their professional journalists. So now what?

Writing for Time magazine on June 8, James Poniewozik focused the lively discussion on "If the journalism business fails, who pays for journalism?" This conversation is must reading for everybody in the “information business,” but for writers it’s a road map of frustrations and possibilities.

In his piece, Poniewozik is imagining what sorts of paying jobs journalists might turn to as newspaper and magazine work dries up. He’s touched on such possible sources of money as moonlighting, crowdsourcing, mining and cataloging social media content for clients, reporting for nonprofits, writing for “sponsors,” writing content for corporate websites, creating products like newsletters to attract local advertising, and shifting from being a journalist to becoming the expert “source.”

As interesting as Poniewozik’s article, are the 27 comments (today’s count) from fellow journalists.

• One compared society’s dependence on the “raw material of daily journalism” to Wal-Mart’s reliance on cheap Chinese imports: Without it, we got nothin'.

• Somebody else suggested that when we lose professional journalists, we also lose a) neutrality/impartiality, b) the wherewithal to “dig” for a story, and c) broadcast news itself, which, the commentator argued, is essentially a rebroadcast of newspaper journalists’ work.

• One feisty commentator, suggested journalists grab a job in PR as soon as possible. “Who needs newspapers or the creatures who barely make a living writing for newspapers? Writing for newspapers isn’t a skilled occupation, You can learn it on the job in a week or less.”

There’s a lot more to consider in this piece. As a writer caught in the “decoupling” of money and wordsmithing, I plan to study this article, contemplate the comments, follow the primary and subsequent links, and devise my own strategy for getting paid. More to come …

- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Make Serious Journalism Your Favorite Charity

I don’t read Newsweek, but a friend tells me it’s undergone a dramatic change. Jill is a journalist, so she’s serious about “the story behind the story.” A loyal subscriber for 18 years, Jill says the new Newsweek is too much, even for her. “I want to, but I can’t read all of it. And I really miss the recap of the week’s events. Newsweek has turned into The Economist” ...

... not that there’s anything wrong with that, we both rush to say. We love The Economist.

Jill passionately defends Newsweek’s commitment to quality and depth in reporting … except she can’t really get around to reading it. We both feel sad.

She won't stop subscribing, though, even if she doesn't have time to read Newsweek thoroughly. Hers is a philosophical commitment to the notion of journalism and Truth .. a little like supporting a favorite charity simply because it does good works.

Hey, if charitable support is all we writers and journalists can get for digging and chasing, it's for a worthy cause.

- scrubbed by Marketing Brillo

Citizen Journalism and Other Neuro Waterboarding

In the realm of brain washing and neuro-water boarding, I have felt the deluge of BNO News [yes, I’m late to this and every other pop culture party, but never late to a doctor’s appointment – wait, I never go to the doctor.. oh well …] From BNO, I washed up on the whole damn beach. Waterlogged as I was, I felt an immediate impulse to RSS feed myself with stories nobody else knew, earlier than anybody else knew them. But then I said, “Why,” followed immediately by “How?” I mean how much can a human brain take? [Yes, I keep asking that question. I even joined a Twibe of neuroscientists in hopes of an answer]. In the last 24 hours I’ve uploaded a background image on my Twitter page [to that enterprise I invested 3 hours before I sought to say "why?" and learned that Twitter was malfunctioning-- problem now fixed], I've added tags to my blog dating back to 2008, and am in the process of sitemapping my website. I’m on frontal lobe overload and I haven't had breakfast. Anybody out there with me? If so, Tweet me. Right now, I'm maxed at 140 characters.

And You Can and Will Quote Me On That (Even If I Didn’t Say It)

In October 2008, my team sent selected media an article about using email as part of a cross-media marketing campaign. In January 2009, extractions of that article (a few sentences worth) appeared in Business Strata. The article “quoted” our client (which is very nice, don’t get me wrong) and also “quoted” Marketing Sherpa, apparently based on a press release that I remember receiving from that fine organization. Thus, the Business Strata “story” didn’t really incorporate interviews with people, though it sure looked like it. Instead, the "story" used press releases for the origin of quotes. This happens a lot, I've noticed, and traditional journalists get very upset with this "easy-out" approach. It's not inaccurate, exactly, but it does imply a process that never happened. It also goes to show that, on the Internet, when somebody says they "said" it, maybe they did and maybe they didn’t.. or maybe they just sort of said it, like, well, they would have said it, if you'd asked them.