DISQUS

As Sam would say, Boom!
Great article Kai. Good to see you last night.
@iboy

Is no one here even a bit miffed by the fact that Agency.com sold an idea to Skittles that Modernista! created a year ago? Unoriginality. Defined. Agency. Fail.

<following on Armano's comment>... It is hard get an audience and harder still to keep an audience. Ask yourself this: How many people will be following the meerkat in a few months? And how much will they care? And how much will it matter? I wonder.</Armano>

The best I've seen is Jet Blue, which contrary to Amelia's suggestion is using Twitter at a "higher-brand level" ... They use Twitter to provide utility in a straight-forward and useful way. It has character. The people "on duty" are named individuals, and I think that's strong. And they get involved. Posts about bad weather in one place. Answers to a man's question about bringing a special-needs child on board in another.

What Jet Blue is doing takes time, effort, dedication, a relaxing of the way the legal department operates with regards to "official" company content, and obviously, cash. If you're running a brand (or advising one), ask yourself this: Is your organization capable of doing that? If the answer is no, all you'll end up with is a meercat, and I think we can all Be Better than that.

Beyond the conversations (and utility) mentioned above, celebrity, charity, customer relations and command line services make up the remainder of my cheesy, wonderfully alliterative, and incredibly retweetable "5C's on using Twitter for business" which you can find here:
http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2009/02/5c-on-using...

Mateschitz and co. spend a very healthy percentage on their take on marketing, and as they are completely private and charge 2-3X what Coke charges for 1/2 the stuff, it comes as no surprise to me that they're able to treat Shaun to some private vert up in the hills. Working with them was one of the best gigs I ever had.

Spot-on.

As efficient as RSS is, you miss the "personality" of the the blog ... I like seeing what Fred (and others I read) has added. Widgets, redesign, look-and-feel ... It matters. I've been blgging since 2001, and I rarely use a reader.

Standard RSS readers are boring and not entertaining enough to mainstream, in my opinion.

For Twitter, however, it is different ... As it is all about text and links (at least today) you can use "readers" much more easily .. to say nothing of the fact that TweetDeck and other Adobe AIR apps are very slick and cool to use.

Anyway, sorry for going off-topic, Fred. ;-)

~G~

If it doesn't exist, perhaps you should fund it. ;-)

Pet project http://www.blogrolling.com/ has been having some issues, and I'm sure they're smart enough to figure it out. Hmmm.

Anyway, I think it is an interesting idea.

~G~

I'm truly happy about the coverage you're getting (well-deserved!), but I'm wondering if this isn't a case of premature publishing. While you call Biz Stone's post a "clarification" I read it is more of a flat denial, at least for now:
http://blog.twitter.com/2009/02/nothing-to-repo...

But since we're quoting and re-quoting:

I don't think the real value is in charging companies for display ads. It is a conversation, and brands/products want in on it. Not easy, but relegating them to the sidelines as posters is not a very good option. Access to customer information for marketing, on the other hand, is certain to have tremendous appeal. So, on that, I'd say what got mentioned by @RobinGrant in Fiona's article is 50% right, and in this business at this early stage, that ain't bad. :-)

Twitter should offer custom templates and other nice things to make things look good ... You know how marketing directors get when it comes to being "on brand" and all. That'll make 'em a ton of $$$.

Add-ons and extras, premium and pro is the way to go. Brendan Mitchell commented that a FlickrPro type service would be good. I think that's certainly worth looking at.

But Twitter must offer savvy companies more: Make it easy for smart and innovative companies to create and deliver "command line services" like the unofficial ones from the rail and @myflightinfo ... Tons of utility there which is bound to create brand love and bucks.

Biz's post decoded by Boomtown's Kara Swisher:
http://kara.allthingsd.com/20090211/boomtown-tr...

My post on it here:
http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2009/02/does-biz-ha...

Rock on,
~G~

If there was a way to retweet what Faris wrote, I would, but I'd do it, but without the Jerry Yang lowercase. (See what I did there? A Twitter reference in the first sentence. I’m sure I score extra for that.)

I was really happy to see Faris mention ‘control’ as a real issue to contend with. What's still missing here is a debate about the signal-to-noise ratio, as the pile of stuff we have to sift through is getting bigger every day. Invent a good sifter, and you’ll retire early.

In the meantime, let me add to the noise:

One of the fun parts of language (part of being human) is you can call things whatever you want. So, if you want to call something “social media”, for example, that’s just fine with me. The trick is for people to understand what you're saying and for them not think you're a dick for saying it. I'm obviously struggling with that at the moment ...

And Matt, you're right, we should all keep handing out copies of Cluetrain and use it as discussion a guide with clients and colleagues until they get it. FFS, it has been a DECADE!

And since it is late (or early) and I get snarky 'round this time, I thought a bit of multiple choice might be in order ... So here goes … What happens when you put a bunch of adver-mktr-twitr-blogr-planners in a room and ask them to think about human communications? Do they:

a) Google quotes from admen of days gone by and then quote said admen using their first names (as if they knew them, Don Draper style) in order to establish their credibility? (Seriously folks, I'm just kidding.)

b) Happily mix and match human comms theory with marketing manifestos without ever mentioning that brands and products aren't human and people know that.

c) Not come up with anything more interesting to say that hasn’t already been said by the aforementioned admen of days gone by and The Cluetrain Manifesto.

d) alloftheabove

Hint: There are no wrong answers.

So, how’d you do?

Don’t you all think this would be more fun around a table with a few drinks? Robin, many of the folks who have commented here are in London, and if you wanna help organize something the first round is my shout. Twitter: iboy

~G~

I'm loving this. Best of Show ...
http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2009/01/touchscreen...

Fantastic .. and the Swedish ones too!!!

Thanks for these. Very nice.

If this is your upload to YouTube, you should be able to edit/select a different image for the video. Not to tricky. Log in. Select "My Videos". Pick the video. Then, look for this, "The selected still is used to represent your video in search results and other displays. You can choose a different still image by clicking on it. Note: it can take up to 6 hours for your image to be updated."

Nice post.

I believe that the the more we share, the better we will become. But I also think that we need much better and simpler ways to control all this information. Right now, it's like trying to manage a Sky+ HD box with a Zenith Space Command. Surely, this can be better.

More here, if you're interested:
http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2008/11/signal-to-n...

~G~

Hi John,

What are you talking about? I like this blog, but you've got this one horribly wrong.

Hirst disintermediated the galleries, not the auction houses.

The auction was created, ideated, funded ad supported by Sotheby's. Truly, they're one of the innovators in this story.

The irony, of course, is that Jay Jopling from White Cube and a rep from Larry Gagosian (Gagosian Gallery) were both in the room ... and they were bidding and buying.

More here:
http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2008/09/just-like-b...

~G~

Lovely idea. I'll RSVP and see you next week.

Definitely linkbait.

The irony is, of course, that the story is posted on Wired's blog. What's even more ridiculous is that Paul Boutin writes for Valleywag. Essentially, this is a gossip blogger writing about how bad blogging is because there is so much gossip and crap on blogs.

Less flame-like thoughts here:
http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2008/10/paul-boutin...

~G~

Dude, I know you delete things to make yourself look good. ;-)

Glad you had some nice family time.

thanks for getting them back online, fred.

Hey Fred, did you delete all the comments?

What gives?

There was a lot of criticism and commentary that has now vanished ...

If you've invested in the comments company, I'd be worried. ;)

~G~

Fred, don't you think there's a difference between asking people where to get a good coffee in new paltz and creating an original, authentic and individual point of view about the evolution of NYC's web industry?

As a concept, it is cute and catchy ... "See how much things have changed ... I was even able to use social media to do this"

But, it is really your thought in the end, if it has been crowdsourced?

For instance, the fact that you don't like the term "Silicon Alley" is personal, and that's great. But, what do you do if Kevin Ryan (or whoever) chimes in with how he felt it was an important and defining moment when all those people in NYC claimed the term as their own? Sure, I know that's a pithy point, but you see what I mean, right? It isn't about being right or wrong, it is about you.

I think the people who have invited you want your thoughts, not a collective viewpoint. I think the people who will pay to see you will also want your thoughts and not some collective opinion.

So, yes, I think you're being incredibly lazy.

If you're looking for a good yoga teacher in Brazil, try Twitter or Yahoo Answers ... by the way I think this looks good: www.uni-yoga.org.br ... But if you're doing a keynote for the Web 2.0 Expo, pour yourself a glass of wine, go back though your old Eudora folders, review your own blog posts and thoughts, open up Keynote or Powerpoint or a Moleskin and put pen to paper. Then, come back to us with some original thinking ... your original thinking ... and ask the folks who read and respect you (like me), and we'll be happy to share our opinions and help you review/comment on what you've done.

But I won't be doing the first part for you, unless you want me to present it with ya.

~G~

You're right. It would have helped.

Personally, I thought the best idea lost and that poshwhat'shisname never should have been fired ...

Just shows how little Ogilvy values creativity ... Just Sell! Sell! Sell! ... The concept and name of the losing team's work was far better. Much more creative. Imagine that Ogilvy would have voted against Glazer's ads for Sony Bravia as well ... They hardly show the product at all. And what about Cadbury's Gorilla? Same thing. The list is long.

Sad.

People will pay for porn and gambling/gaming online, at least for now. Not sure about all the rest. ;-)

Hi,

I think there is a need for researchers like ICM to ask the right questions ...

Of course people who watch more online video will watch less TV. There are only 24 hours in a day. But, what TV do those folks choose to watch? Are they influenced by what they've seen on the internet? Are they more likely to check out a show that they've seen/previewed online? Do they tell other people about what they've seen.

More here:
http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2006/11/bbc-vs-cbs....

~G~

Pete,

Don't you think there is a need to ask the right questions?

Of course people who watch more online video will watch less TV. There are only 24 hours in a day. But, what TV do those folks choose to watch? Are they influenced by what they've seen on the internet? Are they more likely to check out a show that they've seen/previewed online? Do they tell other people about what they've seen.

More here:
http://www.i-boy.com/weblog/2006/11/bbc-vs-cbs....

~G~