Why you need to be .co dependent

I urge you to .co-operate on this.

Right after you finish reading this blog entry, go to your domain host and purchase your company's URL ‘.co’ domain.

As of today, you can register .co just as you have .com, .net, or .org, and other more obscure ones, such as .me or .name

It will cost you under $30/year but save you headaches. I predict .co will be a popular domain because: a, outside the US, web users already are used to typing .co prior to their country code (eg, .co.uk, for the Brits, .co.nz for the Kiwis); b, it’s a letter short of .com, which is great for typo trolling sites, and of course, c, in the states, it is a suffix for legal companies.

Yes, I might be wrong about the eventual land rush for the .co domain. If so, you’re out $30. If I’m right, you could pay thousands later. I say that’s pretty good insurance.

That’s it. Just this timely advice. No snarky comments, no opinion, no sermonizing. Mostly because I can't, off hand, come up with a good pun using '.co'. If you have one, post it in the comments (the .co mments).

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dot .CO Domains Are Hot (mwd.com)

Nowhere to hide

So we found out this week that the Texas Rangers' Josh Hamilton fell off the wagon last January. And from the photos (note there is no link attached to that word, at least from this blog - I'll get to that in a moment) he landed hard. The married Hamilton, offered a second chance at baseball after falling into drugs while a young ballplayer convalescing an injury, was photographed drinking, carousing, and essentially behaving like a fratboy at his first kegger. Unfortunate, but not unexpected. Experts say relapses in recovery are common. Fortunately for Hamilton, he told his family and team the very next day so this story is old news now, some eight months later - at least to those who matter.

Olympic phenom Michael Phelps was photographed months ago taking a bong hit at a college party. (I blogged on the topic here.) He lost some major endorsements, apologized, and hopefully learned an important lesson. Whether that lesson is "Just Say No" or "make sure you can trust the people you party with" is unknown, but truth is, both are valid lessons.

I'm not linking to or reposting any of these related images, and I'm not going to comment with some false air of indignation about the behavior of these athletes. I actually tend to take the position of SNL comic Seth Meyer in this outstanding SNL rant. ("If you're at a party and you see Michael Phelps smoking a bong and your first thought isn't "Wow, I get to party with Michael Phelps" and instead you take a picture and sell it to a tabloid, you should take a long look in the mirror...") It isn't in my nature to build people up just for the thrill of tearing them down - as if accomplished, public people were nothing more wooden blocks stacked by some sugar-ravaged five year old. In my experience, most tend to punish themselves just fine on their own.

My marketing mind however pauses and recognizes that each of us, our companies, and our values are subject to the whims of small minded people and rabid opponents who are using the tools of the Internet and social media to gain even the most morally tenuous ground or simply force their way onto the 15 minute stage with a sensational bit of useless gossip. Therefore, it is critical that people and organizations not ignore these new communication tools, but engage them to monitor and proactively defend their brand - whether corporate, product, or personal. As social media consultant Shama Kabani stated in a recent presentation to CEO Netweavers, "...whether or not you want (photos and personal information) out there, its out there. The point is to build up a credible persona in person and online to counter any negative consequence."

Fortunately for Hamilton and Phelps, they've handled their scandals well, offering quick acknowledgment and heartfelt apologies. In the end, the best revenge is their stellar athletic performances since. In the few days since the Hamilton story became public, he's been hitting .360, and for his part, last week Phelps once again set a new world record, this time in the 100m fly. Sometimes the best response is continue to do what you do best.

Or in other words, in a world where all the hiding places are mic'd, let the world know that you are still trying to be the people our dogs think we are.

The Internet, in dog years

This is not your teenager's Internet.

The latest news from the Pew Internet and American Life Project will not surprise a colleague who has a 90+ year old father who regularly "Tweets" his family.

Older Americans are going online more than ever before.

According to the study, in the past three years the 'hockey stick' in Internet adoption has been in the 70+ demographic. 70+, folks. God love 'em, these are the same folks that still re-use aluminum foil. Growth in Internet use among people ages 70 to 74 increased by 19% and for those above 75 (b.1924!) growth clocked in at 10%.

Other studies concur that older demographic groups spend more time online than their younger counterparts and while many go online to get health information and visit government Websites, the growth actually stems from use of the Internet for activities such as games, watch movies, use social networking sites or read blogs.

The assumptions and biases that the Internet, social networking and digital media are all tools to reach younger demographics needs to be readdressed by marketers as in this economy particularly, no opportunity to reach out to prospective customers should go unexplored.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Old Fogies Taking Over Social Networks? (socialmediatoday.com)

Marshall McLuhan and Social Media

Skype, Facebook, MySpace, Match.com, Vonage, eBay, YouTube, Craigslist… the connection between them is the connection between us, and all rely upon the Internet – or IP protocol – to operate.

It occurs to me that a few years ago the promise of the Internet was in the democratization of content and the free exchange of ideas. So today I'm not certain the cause of the hand-wringing over the growth of Social Media. Cynically I could suggest that our collective hand-wringing is simply in the fact that we don't accept Social Media as a valid tool (or proper use of our time) because we haven't yet monetized it properly. (44% of all web visits are to Social Media sites but only 5% of all revenue from the internet is driven from them.) All things, it seems, are accepted in time as we learn to make money with them.

While I understand the concerns regarding the lack of privacy of our youth's postings and the banality of photos posted by exuberant parents, it seems to me that Social Media – and similar applications of the medium – are simply the latest stop on the train to Marshall McLuhan's Global Village. It is, after all, the goal of an increasing number of projects such as One Laptop Per Child to bring the information and interactivity of the global web to remote, more impoverished parts of the world.

A JPMorgan survey from last November revealed that half of online social networkers were there to connect with old friends, while still more were there to interact with their current friends, sharing music and photos. There is a big time-waste with Social Media, say the critics – yet it is important to note that it is at least an interactive medium, unlike television.

The ultimate realization of the promise of the internet will be in its social aspects – connecting, sharing, even buying and selling. Whether in twenty years it will look like Facebook or appear more as holographic avatars in a room of mirrors is incidental. The thing that matters is that we all continue to communicate, regardless of the media.

Now if you excuse me, I need to research how to make money with Twitter…

Related articles by Zemanta

• 20 Ways Facebook Can Make Billions (allfacebook.com)

If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be?

If your company or product were a fictional character, who would it be? It's one of the questions I ask when trying to determine the intended brand perception for a client. And I get more than my share of rolled eyes from the engineers in the room.

But consider your own response to this question: If you were thirsty, where would you likely find an ice-cold Obama? Next to the Dr. Pepper or nearer the energy drinks?

If you called your friend, would you expect to pick up and dial the McCain or are you more likely to just go online and 'poke' them on Obamabook? Maybe you'd discuss the McCain supertanker that is caught in a storm off the gulf coast, or the latest music player from iObama.

You can think about this when you pick up a snack of some organic dried fruit at Obama Foods for your flight to Chicago on McCain Airways.

Okay, the whole thing is silly. But now reverse that:

If you were thirsty, where would you likely find an ice-cold McCain? Next to the Dr. Pepper or nearer the energy drinks?

If you called your friend, would you expect to pick up and dial the Obama or are you more likely to just go online and 'poke' them on McCainbook? Maybe you'd discuss the Obama supertanker that is caught in a storm off the gulf coast, or the latest music player from iMcCain.

You can think about this when you pick up a snack of some organic dried fruit at McCain Foods for your flight to Chicago on Obama Airways.

Relatively speaking, the former made more sense, didn't it? And it proves out the power of branding on not only our perceptions of products, but perceptions of our leaders, our friends, and ourselves.

This important article was sent to me by a designer with whom I do much of Strategy180's branding work. It underscores the power of branding and how it may not only impact the can of soup we put in our grocery basket, but the future leadership of the world's last great superpower.

Perhaps now you might want to budget for that branding study, yes?

The (Burger) King of Online Advertising

While Outdoor advertising is mostly ugly, television ads universally inane, and radio advertising has arguably the worst creative (few creatives are experienced enough to use the medium well or have the budgets to maintain high production values) it is actually online advertising that I find the most annoying. However, as a nascent medium, the approaches used continue to evolve and banners, particularly flash banners, have continued to progress from the aggravatingly distracting (think lowermybills.com and their dancing video clips) to the growing movement toward branded entertainment. Google itself has created an entire department within their AdWords franchise to develop the concept.

Branded entertainment takes an established business model and moves it to the web. New content is being developed with the goal to entertain, not distract the user. The result is more and more engaged viewers, and a more positive brand association between the user and the sponsor. The latest 'name' to develop this type of material is Seth McFarland of Fox Television's "No Way I'm Letting My Kid Watch That" er, "The Family Guy". He is creating unique "webisodes" that will be syndicated through AdSense to sites targeting 18-34 year old men. The first ones from the Family Guy creator are sponsored by Burger King, which places an animated ad (also by McFarland) featuring the BK king mascot runs before the animated short plays. The content is ostensibly unrelated to Burger King or its products.

MacFarlane indicates that creating the webisodes frees him from the constraints of television (Really? It's Fox, its thirty minutes, not thirty seconds, and I don't find The Family Guy particularly restrained!) So McFarlane gets another creative outlet, Burger King gets access to prospective burger eaters, and those burger eaters are entertained instead of merely distracted.

Online advertising is quickly becoming the Cinderella of advertisers. Once only favored by media buyers, agency and other creatives are also now seeing the potential of building a brand online by entertaining and engaging customers online, not annoying them into submission.

Of Babies and Bathwater

This blog post, ‘Fire Your PR Agency’ by Jason Calacanis, founder and CEO of Mahalo, was sent to me by a client and I thought it’d blog well, so I’ve taken what was to be my email response and posted it here.

I agree that you can, conceivably, do PR yourself. But I think the value in the article is more useful if titled “How to support your PR firm’s efforts”. Better to keep the baby and change the bathwater, as it were. Jason is a natural press agent himself even if he doesn’t own up to it - so PR comes easily, naturally to him… and what he is suggesting requires a completely different set of skills than most entrepreneurs have and therefore they do require the support of a quality PR outfit.

I know plenty of PR firms, however, that can do more harm than good. In fact, I can provide a list. I’ve hired and fired several. Often because my colleagues and I were their lone source of ideas, which flies in the face of what Jason is suggesting, as he thinks this is a good plan. I don’t. While I appreciated the recognition that I was, in fact, brilliant, I’d have liked to have other ideas heard as well. It gets lonely when the only voice you hear is your own. This is not the same as providing your PR firm with information, resources, and access, which is critical and as this blog goes on to recommend. It is a partnership between client and agency.

Still, although I believe his premise – that you can do this yourself – is flawed, he makes some excellent points:

1. Be the Brand: It is easy for Jason to say this, he is his brand. This is useful if the leadership is savvy, well-spoken and political, or at least enthusiastic. Not every CEO is, and in fact, it is sometimes dangerous for firms to become too attached to their founder as it limits later growth, flexibility and potential M&A activity.

2. Be everywhere: This is simply blocking and tackling for start-ups. Too many engineer types think their better mousetrap will drive people to their door. Well, for that I have one word: Betamax.

3. Always pick up the check: The most important point Jason makes in the entire blog post is here: “If you're not a social person, learn to be, because it's your job if you're at a startup company.” See my comment above, #1.

4. Pitching as Jason uses it here is a euphemism for selling. The best PR opportunities aren’t ‘sold’, just like few of the best products are actually ‘sold’. That’s just PR 101. But I know that too few PR types have graduated that class, and others, while aware of it, are pressured by their clients or bosses to do just that. Sell, sell, sell. Ink, ink, ink. I once had a PR agency drop a couple of three ring binders on the conference table to indicate the amount of press they generated for a similar firm. Leafing through it, it amounted to page after page of one paragraph reprints of press releases. And this was a nationally recognized PR firm. Oddly, scrolling to the end of his post, Jason comments to measure press by the pound. Bullsh*t. You can’t blog about targeting appropriately and suggest measuring success by the pound in the same post. That’s oxymoronic.

5. The critical comment in point #5? “Spend just 30 minutes researching the journalist you're pitching.” PR folks can be lazy. Hire ones who aren’t.

6. His point #6 essentially states to make certain the client, not the agency, has the journalist relationship. Actually, both is important, but once again, good common sense is so rare it bears repeating.

7. Number 7’s key takeaway: “Your job as a subject is to say things concisely and with few words.” Not a reason to fire a PR agency. A good reason to have one, even if they only act as editors.

8. Invite people to "swing by" your office. Of course. Journalists are supposed to become your friends. Invite your friends for a visit. Remember what we learned in Kindergarten: To have a friend, be a friend.

9. Attach your brand to a movement - absolutely. But this works only if the environment allows for it. Generally good business advice, but certainly not a reason to fire a PR firm. A good PR firm can find opportunities to do just that.

10. Embrace small media outlets. Again, PR 101.

Further, don’t mistake media relations (making certain you are visible, acting as a resource for reporters, etceteras) for public relations. The former is easier and often used by weak PR firms as an indication of progress. It isn’t. Media relations is a tool, not an objective. Also, regarding hiring PR firms: The key is in the evaluation, and in the evaluation, the key is the people. Make certain it isn’t the A team selling the agency and the B team doing the work. Know who is on the account and their backgrounds, and hold them to their commitments. They need to be savvy, connected, creative, inventive. This needs to be determined upfront, because success or failure in PR can only be measured on the back end.

An Old School Measurement Discounts the Internet

In my salad days selling radio, one of the compelling reasons for radio was its influence on individuals at the point closest to the point of sale – that is, in the car on their way to go shopping. It intimated radio’s conversion - the power of radio to convert listeners to buyers. A recent survey took a similar notion – influence on the consumer’s buying decision – and it doesn’t look good for new media.

Regarding electronics, "The Internet and Consumer Choice” study from the Pew Internet & American Life Project found that just 27% of mobile phone sales were significantly impacted by the web. The figure was only 23% for real estate, and surprisingly (to me, anyway) only 17% for music choices. (I’m a big fan of Pandora.com and its ability to introduce new artists, so perhaps I’m a bit of an early adopter there.)

Still, the role of the internet in researching purchases has not changed – 90% of respondents indicated that they still use the web for product research. For marketers, that means that on the web, content is still king – and that market awareness, visibility, credibility and brand building are critical on product websites. Conversion, however, appears to remain elusive.

Think radio. My former employers would love me for that plug.