DISQUS

Your first sentence says it all, friend - although if you had stopped there you would have had a tweet instead of a post. Mobile marketing should never never never (did I say "never"?) actually be about marketing. It should always be about utility.

I haven't tried this app - and I'm not even a huge Dunkin fan (oh, and I work from home so coffee runs are probably out of the question) - but it seems like they've built a win/win/win here: the gang hoping for coffee wins, the person making the run wins (I love my coffee with two squirts of applesauce) and of course the company wins anytime it makes it easier for people to buy (in bulk no less, in the case of this app.)

Nice find.

"For me this works because Social Media Marketing is at the end of the day about engaging the 'influencers' by feeding them good, relevant, and unique content that they will want to share and distribute for us (not least because it raises their profile in the blogosphere)."

Well said Lee - and that was a key piece of our approach. The other key piece - as outlined by Steve, one of our participants - is that we didn't stipulate the "what." We wanted Panasonic's guests to document and share their experiences and we wanted them to use the provided Panasonic gear to the extent feasible (to see CES through a Panasonic lens, so to speak) - but to be clear, we saw Panasonic as the enabler of the conversation rather than the topic of it.

So to circle back to Robin's original point (that this isn't "advertorial"), it isnt... Not sure why Brian chose that word in particular but if you look at the content created, it becomes quite clear that the bloggers words are their own and, at times, not "on message" for Panasonic. Both Steve and Brogan published mixed (but fair) reviews of the gear. Steve's best content had NOTHING AT ALL to do with Panasonic - although he used their cameras to shoot it. You'd hardly call mixed reviews or videos about another company's scuba mask "advertorial," would you?

But these things are exactly what we wanted. Good content, authentic experiences, documented in meaningful ways. More important than the content though is the fact that by providing our guests with a great time and great gear, we laid the ground work for what we hope will be long, fruitful relationships with some of the savviest people in the social mediasphere (whether you call them influencers or not...)

I'll echo Joe's sentiment and add a dose of healthy dismay that you've once again found a way to incorporate that weird picture of my into a post. :-)

Looking forward to spending some time with you in Vegas. For your readers interested in the tweet up, it's actually on Thursday (we shifted it so as not to conflict with some other blogger events happening at the show.) And of course, everyone's invited - we'll share the details once we're ironed them out.

Good times,
G

Oy - not a lot of fans, huh? Oops. I blogged about the launch (neutral cuz I kinda know some of the guys involved with the site and I'm not *that* big a bastard) and asked some of my favorite members of the 'digital generation' to chime in. You want reviews, you can't get much more pointed than the comments they left.

Check it: http://tinyurl.com/honeyshed

Greg

Nice post, Matt. I like the graphic and the schema you're using - although I wonder if the top circle is 'socially created content' or 'consumer generated content' (to me socially created implies collaboration, which might be there in wikis but not necessarily in an individual blog) or something more along the lines of 'socially shared content' per Doug's suggestion (created by individuals but shared with, for and by the commmunity). I think your notion of 'socially highlighted' content is key - I talk about the importance of curation as an engine that makes the social mediasphere hum and be useful to a broader audience (don't show me everything, help me find the best, most relevant stuff for me - that's where something like digg or stumbleupon or even linkrolls really come in.)

As for Wikipedia's official definition - I use it all the time, but actually think it focused to much on the whats (social media is blogs, networks, podcasts, wikis, etc) and not enough on the whys (because people want to connect with other people.) You've done a nice job of capturing that important distinction.

Rock on,
G

Lots of great blogs on this list. Thanks for including mine, Jack!

Greg Verdino's last blog post..Let's caucus: My ooVoo Day... Political Edition

To further complicate matters, it seems like T'rati goes through cycles during which they just flat out don't reflect new links in certain blogs' authority numbers. Two weeks ago, I was adding links and gaining "authority" - this week I'm still adding links but my authority number and ranking both seem to be on the decline (e.g., T'rati is dropping off my old links without adding in the new, or so it would seem.)

There is no way to even predict how Technorati will behave anymore - but like you, I still keep an eye on the numbers. Old habits die hard.

G

Congratulations - keep the posts coming. :-)

Glad you finally gave in. :-) Remember that Mac is still pre-general release. My ooVoo ID is gregverdino.

Rockin' video, dude. Thanks for sharing it. TED Thursdays are a killer idea.

Putting aside whether aquisition might benefit Twitter, I think the bigger question is whether ANY social media acquisition is likely to have a positive impact on Yahoo.

Groups is plenty good and Finance is more than a "hidden gem" it is one of most highly trafficked (and hence most profitable sections.)

But Yahoo has a history of buying and then failing to integrate otherwise great social media tools - cases in point: Flickr, del.icio.us, Jumpcut (which for my money was and IS one of the better video sharing/editing tools available on the web.) With these assets (at least one of which - Flickr - is WIDELY used) it is almost criminal that Yahoo hasn't already evolved its business beyond Portal 1.0 toward really kick-ass integrated social media hub.

Twitter needs help. But buying Twitter isn't likely to help Yahoo if they don't get their act together in a big way. :-)

Thanks for the link love Matt.

But the sad thing is that it probably IS Billy Joel. :-)

Ah - it was a sad moment in the history of my blog when I lost my #1 ranking. How good did it feel to be #1 today? :-)

Thanks for the link, Douglas. G