Updates from July, 2007 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • dbinkowski 2:49 am on July 26, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Strike two for Debbie Weil? 

    I’m not going to make a big deal out of this because, in all fairness, it may have been out of necessity. And while I grew up in metro Detroit with access to CBC, I don’t know the inner workings of the Canadian media — so it’s possible that they have different rules for disclosure or don’t care, but should Debbie have disclosed to the media and her readers that there might be a conflict of interest in suggesting Richard Edelman as someone to speak to BNN considering they paid for her to go to China?

    Again, it might not be a huge issue, but I would think that if BNN wanted to talk to a CEO who’s blogging they might be able to find a CEO who’s not too busy to comment and not an SVP from a PR firm.

    And contrary to his opinion given in this clip, Steve Jobs should be blogging. Steve Jobs is a fucking rock star. People pay top dollar to have dinner with the guy and would give their first born to talk to him. Hell, why do you think the Fake Steve Jobs blog does so well? Sure, it’s well written but ultimately there’s a hugely curious fascination with the man and people want to know what goes on in the head of Steve Jobs – even if it is fake.

    Takeaway for all the n00bs out there: Full disclosure is never a bad thing. And blogging is not about being on the defensive or feeling misunderstood.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/business_finance/Strike_two_for_Debbie_Weil’;

     
  • dbinkowski 10:22 pm on July 20, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Edelman’s Social Media Top 30 = F*ck the Long Tail 

    The social media explosion, especially to those of us who belong to communities and participate, has shown that people with credibility and a channel have just as much power as those with multi-million dollar ad campaigns. Which is why the recent Edelman Top 30 Social Media Index needs some serious rethinking.

    If you count the blatant pissing on the Long Tail, my second issue with it is that it doesn’t include several popular sites or communities, like, oh, MySpace?!?!?! You might want to add that one in there for starters. What it really sounds like is that we’re discounting what communities think and saying that there are only 30 people who are influential. And if that’s the case then you’re saying that the internet and communities aren’t what matter, so why bother creating or working with them.

    Furthermore, the public decides which of the tools listed (MySpace, Blogging, Flickr, etc) is useful based on joining, using it and telling a friend. The fact that Steve’s blog is ranked number one shows you can manipulate the system into a #1 ranking.

    Mike, you need to post more photos on Flickr and you’ll shoot up their charts. Jeremy, stop going to conferences and jack up your LinkedIn numbers, because that’s what wins you the #1 ranking. Oh, did I mention that Twitter is actually weighted almost as heavily as blogs? LMAO.

    Ever hear of message boards? You’d think that based on recent news the Yahoo Finance boards, hell any message boards would be factored in. Yes, people still hang out on them, and yes, they are still influential. A lot more than a lousy Twitter post.

    Let’s call a spade a spade, folks – this is a cute effort but it’s bunk. Influence related to who or what? The blogging circle jerk that Jeremy refers to? Sure, that works if you’re willing to preface it to clients. But what does that really amount to? Shel, Robert and Steve can team up and have a menage a trois over an app or website but to imply they will make or break whether or not the public catches on to it is ludicrous. Fuck the Long Tail, indeed.

    What I’d love to see is something tangible like what percent of social media web sites were adopted by the greater public as a result of this “Top 30”. Take out the manipulatable, meaningless “Most photos on Flickr” crap and make it about driving opinions, and even better, purchases.

    Let’s take this thing where it needs to be – out of the hands of a PR company and into one that lives and breathes web metrics. Get measurement companies that can tie popularity, e-commerce, and other meaningful metrics into the mix to create a real barometer, not one based on high school popularity.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/business_finance/Edelman_s_Social_Media_Top_30_F_ck_the_Long_Tail’;

     
  • dbinkowski 10:22 pm on July 20, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Edelman’s Social Media Top 30 = F*ck the Long Tail 

    The social media explosion, especially to those of us who belong to communities and participate, has shown that people with credibility and a channel have just as much power as those with multi-million dollar ad campaigns. Which is why the recent Edelman Top 30 Social Media Index needs some serious rethinking.

    If you count the blatant pissing on the Long Tail, my second issue with it is that it doesn’t include several popular sites or communities, like, oh, MySpace?!?!?! You might want to add that one in there for starters. What it really sounds like is that we’re discounting what communities think and saying that there are only 30 people who are influential. And if that’s the case then you’re saying that the internet and communities aren’t what matter, so why bother creating or working with them.

    Furthermore, the public decides which of the tools listed (MySpace, Blogging, Flickr, etc) is useful based on joining, using it and telling a friend. The fact that Steve’s blog is ranked number one shows you can manipulate the system into a #1 ranking.

    Mike, you need to post more photos on Flickr and you’ll shoot up their charts. Jeremy, stop going to conferences and jack up your LinkedIn numbers, because that’s what wins you the #1 ranking. Oh, did I mention that Twitter is actually weighted almost as heavily as blogs? LMAO.

    Ever hear of message boards? You’d think that based on recent news the Yahoo Finance boards, hell any message boards would be factored in. Yes, people still hang out on them, and yes, they are still influential. A lot more than a lousy Twitter post.

    Let’s call a spade a spade, folks – this is a cute effort but it’s bunk. Influence related to who or what? The blogging circle jerk that Jeremy refers to? Sure, that works if you’re willing to preface it to clients. But what does that really amount to? Shel, Robert and Steve can team up and have a menage a trois over an app or website but to imply they will make or break whether or not the public catches on to it is ludicrous. Fuck the Long Tail, indeed.

    What I’d love to see is something tangible like what percent of social media web sites were adopted by the greater public as a result of this “Top 30”. Take out the manipulatable, meaningless “Most photos on Flickr” crap and make it about driving opinions, and even better, purchases.

    Let’s take this thing where it needs to be – out of the hands of a PR company and into one that lives and breathes web metrics. Get measurement companies that can tie popularity, e-commerce, and other meaningful metrics into the mix to create a real barometer, not one based on high school popularity.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/business_finance/Edelman_s_Social_Media_Top_30_F_ck_the_Long_Tail’;

     
    • Jeremy 1:02 am on July 21, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      I know – I wish I could stop working, and just Twitter and Pownce and Facebook and LinkedIn all day. Plus, blog.

      The problem with the study is that it does not take into account the low self-esteem factor, that we see with, oh, take a guess. There are people that will add every “friend” they get in LinkedIn and Facebook, without understanding the real value of those networks. They’re wannabe friends, who do not get real influence.

      It’s influence versus “influence”.

    • Mike 2:43 am on July 21, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      This confused the hell out of me. We need a special Techdirt Flickr account? I mean most of the folks at Techdirt have their own Flickr accounts, but because we don’t have an official Techdirt one we have no influence?

      Ah, whatever….

    • David Binkowski 2:57 am on July 21, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      I’m nowhere in your sphere, Mike, but Technorati still sees my redirected URL and Blogspot accounts as 2 separate sites.

      Maybe they’ll make an exception but it might affect Steve’s #1 ranking. 😛

  • dbinkowski 11:13 pm on April 21, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Twitter causes you to start drinking 

    Steve Twittered something that he regrets and has offered an apology. Two things I don’t believe about it: 1. Unlike the Twitter post, it’s a late, calculated response, and 2. Unless he’s trying to emulate his CEO, Steve doesn’t drink. Now I’m no PR guy, but common sense would tell you that it’s probably not a great move for a public figure at a global PR firm to crap on a major publisher. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve taken shots at the local rags from time to time, mostly because of their inferior web site design and usability — but there’s a difference — I’m not a PR guy. And, validating my criticisms, they’ve redesigned or are in the process of redesigning their websites.

    Additionally, I actually do visit their websites to see what’s happenin’ in the D – so consider it constructive criticism vs. dismissing their editorial content. Does my opinion mean less? Depends on who you ask. At times I barely crack the top 100k on Technorati, even though companies I’ve blogged about have read my snarky-ass remarks.

    And yes, if any of them wanted to meet for a drink I would gladly accept. 😉

     
  • dbinkowski 7:54 pm on January 2, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    Blog ethics aren’t a one way street 

    I’ve been reading the recent uproar re: the recent Microsoft Vista blogger outreach campaign and wanted to ask a simple question – why aren’t bloggers being outed for their participation or lack of disclosure, and why is it that those who are coming clean are being given a free pass?

    I can (and do) tell a client “If a blogger lies or fails to disclose they will lose readers”, but is the reality that people are still going to read these blogs? Are they “ruined”? I’ve yet to see that happen. So where’s the accountability on their end? Should they fold up shop and quit blogging, as Strumpette et al have demanded of Steve?

    Chris Abraham goes on to rip WOMMA, of which I am not only a member (but also a client?) but also helped co-create the 10 Simple Rules for ethical blogger relations. So obviously I have a real problem that only one side is being singled out here.

     
    • Chris Abraham 10:05 pm on January 3, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      It comes from love and respect, not hate, not hate.

  • dbinkowski 4:49 pm on December 20, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Will "Hosted Conversations" be anything more than selective shilling? 

    I’ve emailed Steve and Clickz author Kate Kaye about the new offering from Edelman and Newsgator called Hosted Conversations and am concerned about what I’ve heard (or in this case yet to hear).

    The concept is simple – show blog posts about advertisers products and services when users hover over a paid advertisement. I get it, however I’ve yet to get a solid response as to which blog posts will be displayed.

    Kate said she was told the conversations will be evaluated based on “advertiser criteria”. I’ve yet to receive a response from Steve.

    I’d like this to be a discussion, as other bloggers would as well, about the product itself and the standards that are in place for determining what conversations are shown and which aren’t.

    , , ,

     
  • dbinkowski 4:49 pm on December 20, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Will “Hosted Conversations” be anything more than selective shilling? 

    I’ve emailed Steve and Clickz author Kate Kaye about the new offering from Edelman and Newsgator called Hosted Conversations and am concerned about what I’ve heard (or in this case yet to hear).

    The concept is simple – show blog posts about advertisers products and services when users hover over a paid advertisement. I get it, however I’ve yet to get a solid response as to which blog posts will be displayed.

    Kate said she was told the conversations will be evaluated based on “advertiser criteria”. I’ve yet to receive a response from Steve.

    I’d like this to be a discussion, as other bloggers would as well, about the product itself and the standards that are in place for determining what conversations are shown and which aren’t.

    , , ,

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel