The Affari Edge Blog

“I would rather watch WWF than Criss Angel…they’re both fake but at least wrestlers bleed.”

“Criss Angel stole an hour of my life.”

“Chris Angel sucks.”

These were three of the new status updates I noticed when I checked up on some of my facebook friends this morning. If you aren’t familiar with status updates, they’re open ended sentences that users update to let others know what they’re doing/thinking. I awoke to a list of anti-Criss (sometimes “Chris”) Angel propaganda on the web this morning. Away messages, IMs and even more status updates raged about their disappointment with last night’s much-hyped stunt.

If somehow you missed it, Criss Angel ’starred’ in a live, hour-long special on A&E last night performing his newest stunt: escaping from a locked building in less than four minutes. Cameras were placed throughout the hotel to give viewers an inside look. The cameras showed Angel race through the building, but when the timer hit zero he was still inside. The building imploded and there was no trace of Angel. Miraculously, Angel walked from the rubble and great the crowd - not scratched, not bruised, not broken.

Right. It took the crowd I was with about three seconds to debunk the ‘illusion’. The popular belief is that Angel never actually ran through the building. That he escaped while viewers watched prerecorded B-roll footage of him running around a building. I found it insulting that Angel and all involved in the ‘trick’ (which felt more like a cop-out) actually believed Americans were stupid enough to believe he actually survived the explosion. In fact, yesterday’s TBT had an article that predicted this very outcome! Kudos.

In my opinion, the biggest story here is no the magic stunt, but the publicity stunt. This story was everywhere yesterday (especially here in Tampa since the stunt was performed across the bay in Clearwater). People gathered to watch the stunt, even though everybody knew the chances of Criss Angel being killed on live television were right next to impossible. I speculate that ratings were up - especially for A&E - and it’s safe to say that Criss Angel’s awareness level among the public has been elevated. The ultimate question, though, is: Is this publicity good publicity?

Sure, there are many who believe the old saying “any publicity is good publicity”, but, is that really true?. Is the negative reaction to this stunt supposed to help Angel sell more tickets in Vegas? Sure, because of yesterday I know that Angel has a 10 year, multi-million dollar deal to perform in Vegas, but at the same time I know there is no way I’ll pay to see him. I am more aware of Criss Angel (In fact, I know that his name is spelled “Criss” rather than “Chris”) now than ever before, but I am also more aware that I find him less credible as a magician.

This morning I heard a radio personality claim he wouldn’t be surprised if this stunt would discredit Criss Angel as a magician and ruin his career. Many message board posts that I read this morning were filled with disgruntled messages calling Angel “a cheat”, “a fake” and even ” coward”. A poll on tbo.com asked “How Did Criss Angel Do It?” with 75% of respondents selecting “He was never in the building. The guy in the building was a movie, like on ‘Scooby Doo’”.

Time will tell. The stunt definitely got people watching, talking, and yes, blogging. Despite a rather negative reaction, awareness and Criss Angel talk/banter is high. I just see the stunt as a missed opportunity. The reaction to the the stunt could have been the exact opposite had it been more believable and mystifying. They promised viewers gold and gave them a fancy ‘coin behind the ear’ trick. A quality act would have won many more fans and much more positive feedback. I’m curious to see what happens to his career from this point forward. For his sake, I hope his fans don’t pull a magic trick of their own and disappear. [ohhh burn]

You’ve heard me preach time and again about the need for customer service. Take a moment to read this interesting take from Gerry McGovern’s blog. You can link to his site at the bottom of this page. To me, if we aren’t careful, it seems like it would be really easy to have a chicken-egg situation.

IS THE ORGANIZATION THE ENEMY OF THE CUSTOMER?

What is good for the organization and what is good for the
customer are not always the same thing.

Organizations are used to saying to customers: “Here’s what we
have. If you like it, you’re going to have to adapt to how we do
business.” But on the Web, the customer has much more control.
The customer is saying to the organization: “Here’s what I want.
If you have it, great, but adapt to me.”

The organization needs the customer. The customer needs the
organization. So, shouldn’t that lead to a perfect marriage? No.

What’s at play is complexity and change. Most people and most
organizations are inherently conservative. We resist complexity
and change.

This world is a swirl of ever-increasing complexity and change.
So, the questions become: Who changes? Who takes on the
complexity?

I was with an organization recently that will not accept email
enquiries from the public. It is a long-established organization
and it simply has not been able (or willing) to initiate the
internal changes required to allow email enquires.

It can deal with customers coming into its offices. It can deal
with customers ringing up. It can deal with customers sending in
letters. But it can’t (won’t) deal with its customers sending in
emails.

It is cheaper and often more efficient to deal with an enquiry
or support question by email (not to mention by online chat). So
why doesn’t the organization do this? Because this is a large
organization and changing to a situation where email enquiries
can be received will cause it a lot of hassle and complexity.

Intranets are notorious places for organizational complexity,
departmental chest-thumping, and vanity publishing. Without
proper management, they become a peacock’s paradise and an
acronym and jargon jamboree. It would seem that internally, the
department and the division is the enemy of the organization.

It’s a complex world. And there is a choice. Will the
organization take on this complexity so as to make things
simpler for the customer? Or will the customer take on the
complexity thus making life easier for the organization?

In a rigid authoritarian society, customers and citizens have no
choice. They have to fill out long forms, stand in line, adhere
to archaic rules, and bow to inflexible bureaucracy.

But in a modern and open society, the shoe of complexity is on
the other foot. It is the organization that must bend and be
flexible. It is the organization that must wear out leather as
it rushes around trying to simplify the world for the
customer.

This need for flexibility is equally necessary within the
organization. Staff are no longer thankful for jobs for life,
because there are no jobs for life. They are no longer as
willing to learn and adapt to badly designed internal
processes.

The old organization must give way to a new, much more flexible
model. The organization can no longer easily say: adapt to us.

Organization is not an end in itself. The end is to achieve an
objective. What is the objective? Serve the customer. In a
complex world, serving means making simple.

Here’s the link to read more:
http://giraffeforum.com/wordpress/2008/02/03/is-the-organization-the-enemy-of-the-customer/#respond

Recently, Sam Leccima, a regional host of A&E’s popular show Flip This House was accused of fraud following a story by Atlanta television station WAGA.

In the story, Leccima is accused of “fixing up” houses on the program with shoddy or temporary repairs that looked good on camera but didn’t actually make the house any nicer or safer. The bigger issue though is how Leccima allegedly had his friends or family members pose as potential buyers to the “flipped” house, then “sold” the house to the buyer even though he didn’t own the house. The reaction from A&E was fast and predictable: all reruns of the program featuring Leccima were pulled and any references of him on the network’s website were removed. What’s interesting though is what Leccima claims A&E, and the production company Departure Films, knew about the scam he was pulling. In short, he claims they knew exactly what he was up to.

In an Associated Press report on the allegations, Leccima claims, “Ask anybody who works in television how a reality show is made and you’ll find that ours was a very typical approach.” Leccima is right in this assessment, and it once again exposes one of the pitfalls of reality programming: it’s not always as real as it seems. Fudging the truth for the sake of entertainment (and larger ratings) is no secret in the reality TV world. Whether it was “re-doing” contest scenes in Survivor or cleverly editing audio on any of the popular dating shows to make a suitor seem nicer or bitchier, production companies and networks know that 100% truth does not stream from the final product. The networks and production companies also shouldn’t expect that to change as a poll by TIME magazine in 2006 showed more than half of the respondents weren’t looking for honesty in their favorite shows anyways. In fact, only 25% of the respondents thought reality shows were almost entirely or completely fake.

But this story has an interesting twist, far more alarming than “did so-and-so do such-and-such behind the bushes in that one episode”. Leccima claimed in the program he was a successful Atlanta-area real estate investor. Problem is, he wasn’t licensed. In fact, his license was revoked by the Georgia Real Estate Commission in 2005, a full year before his episodes were aired. The reason for the revocation: he “does not bear a good reputation for honesty, trustworthiness, integrity, and competence.” These claims were made after several complaints were filed from investors who said Leccima stole their money. After Leccima’s episodes aired on A&E, his phone allegedly rang off the hook from potential investors who wanted to give money to a man who apparently could fix up anything. Basically, this program became an infomercial for an alleged crook.

That’s the biggest problem in this whole mess. Nevermind the smoke and mirrors Leccima allegedly pulled out for his shows, but look at the greater picture of how everyone turned a blind eye to this guy’s past for the sake of a network’s highly-rated program. Networks keep pumping out reality programming because it’s cheap to produce, often featuring “every day people” or unheard of hosts who are cheap to work with. There’s rarely an expensive set or pricey actors to deal with, so the network makes money hand over fist with high ad rates for the most popular programs.

But when the network can’t see the forest through the trees, and can’t do its diligent homework on who they’re showcasing on their network, the reality of promoting a con artist is too real and all too possible.

With the world of sports marketing growing with each new season, we see more and more endorsement deals making millionaire athletes richer. If you have been following over the years, you probably are familiar with the infamous $90 million deal that Lebron James has with Nike. I love the guy to death, but a $90 million endorsement is insane. Sure, you get the face of the NBA and arguably the most entertaining player in the league to wear your brand, but it’s this very spending that is inflating shoe costs.

Athletic marketing and branding throughout all sports are driving prices. Huge endorsement deals are what make the new Lebron James Nikes over $100. The particular demographic that Nike is reaching doesn’t necessarily have the expendable income to buy such over-priced shoes. But not to fear - there is a hero coming to rescue the inflated shoe market.

Stephan Marbury is your average player on your (barely) average team. Stephan is getting national recognition for his recent endeavor to give-back to communities nation-wide. He isn’t giving back in the form of a huge check or community beautification campaign. He is giving back in a way that will inspire America’s youth to pursue their dreams on the basketball court.

Introducing the ‘Starburry’. The new shoe endorsed by Stephan Marbury with a suggested retail price of $14.95. At about 1/10 of the price of new Nike shoes, these sneakers are hip and affordable. To prove that they are for real - he actually wears them every game.

I personally believe that this campaign is great. It is about time someone took a stand against some of the ridiculous pricing in the basketball shoe marketplace. This shows what a company can do when it REALLY cares about the consumer. I wish Marbury the best, and hope that this campaign is the first of many that will inspire companies to take a step back and appreciate the consumer.

NOTE: This cloumn was originally written and posted by Matt Sammon at the Tampa Bay Devil Rays fansite, draysbay.com on April 1, 2007. It has been republished with the permission of draysbay.com. Matt is a regular contributor to draysbay.com, and is a part-time employee of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays. His views and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the Tampa Bay Devil Rays’ ownership, management, players, coaches, or other employees.

Believe it or not, all 30 teams in Major League Baseball already know how they are going to do this season. How do they know? It’s all in the marketing my friend. And now, if you don’t mind, let’s step away from the insanity of no lefties in the Rays’ bullpen and Jorge Cantu wants to be traded as we look at how the other teams are selling themselves.

This is has become an annual tradition of mine. Come opening day, I cruise around other MLB sites and see what the big sales pitch is. Some season slogans are creative, others are dull, while quite a few are just plain dumb. In a column I wrote on February 16th, I said I really liked the Rays slogan for 2007, “More than just a game.” I liked it most for its honesty– with a team relatively unchanged from last season a postseason berth probably isn’t in the cards this season. So, let’s pump up the fact that going to a Rays game is fun, even if the outcome of the game isn’t.

You’ll notice if you bounce around the other 29 MLB websites, the teams that aren’t guaranteed a playoff spot or long lines wrapping around the box office have to come up with a slogan. The world champion Cardinals, Yankees, and Red Sox don’t need an ad campaign with razzle and dazzle. As long as there is an open keg of Old Style in Wrigley Field, the Cubs don’t need a campaign. As long as Cubs fans live in Milwaukee, the Brewers won’t need a campaign. As long as Peter Angelos remains a cheap bastard, the Orioles won’t have a campaign.

So the other teams in MLB can’t just roll up the blinds at the ticket window and expect the gates to be stormed by people hungering for baseball, especially if the team may have to luck its way into the postseason. These teams then have to spend thousands of dollars on marketing groups headed up by people who never picked up a baseball bat, and thus the silly slogan is born.

Before we look at this season’s attempts to stuff a few more people in the stadium, a quick reminder of my picks for dumbest ad campaign in MLB the past two seasons:

2005– Pittsburgh’s “Come Hungry” campaign
2006– Detroit’s “Who’s Your Tiger?” campaign

* First the nominees for “winning = ticket sales” ad campaigns: The Padres, A’s, Yankees, and Cardinals have slapped some kind of postseason success logo up and that’s good enough for them. Must be nice.

* The “It worked well enough last year” group includes the Twins, Giants, Angels, Tigers and Pirates.

The Twins claim their “This is Twins Territory” campaign was so successful, they brought it back by popular demand. As long as notorious penny pincher Carl Pohlad owns this team though, I’ll always believe he just didn’t want to invest in something new.

The Giants again go with “Your SF Giants”, apparently still trying to alert people in the other city by the bay that the Giants are not moving to Tampa Bay.

The Tigers return with their silly “Who’s Your Tiger?” campaign from last season. I guess the eight-year-old who came up with that still works for little or no money.

Speaking of cheap, the Pirates again go with “We Will”. We will win? We will lose? We will, we will, rock you? Chances are “we will” precedes “miss the playoffs again for the 15th consecutive season.”

The Angels again roll with “The A-Team!” Knowing Mr. T’s financial situation, I’m sure there’s some kind of kickback here.

* Alright, let’s now go top to bottom, alphabetically, up to my selection for dumbest ad campaign of the season:

The Houston Astros proudly proclaim this season is “the return of the good guys”. I don’t know if this is saying the Astros will be good again like they were in 2005, or if Andy Pettitte and Aubrey Huff were assholes and the team is glad they’re gone.

The Blue Jays get aggressive this year with, “It’s always game time”. Great, just another reason why the Jays will be loaded with injuries again. Game time is all the time and these kids just can’t get any down time.

The Braves are suddenly coming up with slogans, and this year they try, “Welcome to the bigs”. One look at the Braves’ depth chart and those words have probably been uttered to most of the 25 active players recently. Less veterans, more kids still having to prove something, and probably a fourth-place finish in the NL East.

The Diamondbacks scream, “Are you ready?!?” For another ho-hum season in the desert? Not really, but at least the new unis look nice.

The Dodgers slogan isn’t flashy (It’s Time for Dodger Baseball!) but the way they write it is. Written in a 1954-esque style script, it appears somebody gave the marketing keys to Vin Scully. Either that, or the Dodgers are willing to bring Duke Snider back so he can earn an honest living and not evade the IRS again.

I like the Rays’ honesty in their ad campaign, but the Indians may have beaten the Rays in the honesty department this season. Ya ready for this? “Indians ‘07″ Yep… they’re the Indians and it’s 2007. Or is it 1907? The 1907 Indians also finished in fourth place, so there may not be much of a difference between now and then.

You have to look hard for the Mariners‘ campaign, but I found it and it sucks; “Mariners baseball… my oh my”. Well, I’ve heard different, more obscene descriptions of Mariners baseball recently, so I guess this is kid-tested and mother-approved.

The Marlins have the hysterical, “You Gotta Be Here!” campaign this season. Well I guess you gotta be there, because judging by the attendance figures you haven’t been there recently. It is a step up from, “Oh please, oh please just show up!”

The Mets have an equally goofy campaign, proclaiming, “Your Season Has Come”. Wow… after failing to do anything in two seasons of winter little league baseball, and playing nothing but beer-league softball (even that was six years ago), I’ve finally earned a season with the Mets! Baseball HAS been beddy beddy good to me!

The Nationals actually have a great and clever campaign. “Pledge Your Allegiance” is topical considering where the team plays, and is also a slight dig at the Orioles who continue to lose fans every day. Still, considering how painful of a rebuilding process the Beltway will see in the next few years, fans may be pledging their allegiance to masochism.

The Reds go with, “C You There!” Get it? There’s a “C” on their hats. Ummm… yeah.

In January the Rockies rolled out a “R You In?” slogan, but it hasn’t been back up as the team sticks with their previous “Gen-R-ation” campaign. Apparently their marketing genius really likes instant messaging, since he or she can’t spell a damn thing right.

Think your job sucks? Ever thought of selling tickets for the Royals? There, doesn’t that put everything in perspective? The Royals have to be the most creative, and this year they came up with “True Blue Tradition”. Sadly, that’s all the Royals have… true royal blue tradition from George Brett, Bret Saberhagen, Dan Quisenberry, and the greatness that is Buddy Biancalana. KC is still looking back at 1985, and owner David Glass is still counting every dollar in his pocket.

The White Sox don’t have the advantage of selling world champion t-shirts this season, so the south siders had to create the odd campaign of, “Back to the Grind”. True, the Sox have to get back to the style of play that got them a championship in 2005, but that approach just seems so depressing. You almost want to bring a gun to U.S. Cellular Field to off yourself. If you talk yourself out of the suicide, you can then protect yourself from the late night hoodlums in that part of town.

* The runner-up for dumbest ad campaign in 2007 is… the Texas Rangers notable attempt at selling tickets; “You Could Use Some Baseball”. Let’s do the math kids– 35 seasons, three playoff appearances (none since 1999), and zero championships. Yes, the people of Arlington, Texas, sure could use some baseball, and not the crap the Rangers will serve up this season.

* Finally, the winner of the dumbest ad campaign in 2007 goes to our brothers in the city of brotherly love. The Phillies dare to ask, “Goosebumps– What Will They Do For You?” No really, that is their big-money ad campaign this season. Granted the Phils may finally put together a postseason run for the first time since 1993, but goosebumps? What about Ryan Howard, or Jimmy Rollins, or Chase Utley, or Pat Burrell, or the incredible changes Pat Gillick has brought to Philly during the past few months? GOOSEBUMPS?!? I haven’t gotten those from watching the Phillies since Tug McGraw threw his arms up in the air when he recorded the final out against the Royals in 1980. If the Phillies get that far this year, other side effects could include nausea, vomiting, and listening to Philly fans all offseason long bragging about their team. Please consult a doctor.

So there you have it, a look at how the other teams honestly think how they’ll fare this season. With 22 teams not making the playoffs this season, I can guarantee at least 22 more crazy, lame, or just plain dumb ad campaigns in 2008.

Constantin Basturea, Director of New Media Strategies at Converseon and author of PR Meets the WWW, one of the blogs in my feed, has a significant compilation of public relations and communicaitons blogs, containing674 feeds.  I don’t read all 674 of them, but I read quite a few on a daily basis.  I have found them helpful as I further develop my public relations skills, and informative about what is going on in the PR industry.

However, public relations is not the only industry with a significant number of blogs.

No matter what industry you are in, there are going to be bloggers writing about it.  Some of these blogs could even be your competitors! Use sites like Technorati to search for blogs on your industry and make a habit of reading them.  Even if you aren’t blogging yourself, or your company has not started doing it, you will find your industry blogs as important as reading trade publications or business periodicals.

Throughout the Public Relations Blogosphere, and the blogosphere in general, there has been a lot of criticism for the concept of paid blogging. I’m not sure the criticism is entirely fair. After all, many companies hire outside representation or consultants to help with all forms of corporate communication. Why not hire people to help with a blog?

In this case, there are two kinds of paid bloggers. The first, and generally acceptable kind are bloggers who are paid to post a positive message about a company’s products or services. This has been done for years in other forms of media: in the 1950’s stars of live television programs would actually do the commercials for show sponsors; in radio, disc jockeys often record paid endorsements for companies. Marketing professionals understand that having trusted spokespeople can have an impact.

In the blogosphere, a number of companies have sprung up that pay bloggers to post about their companies, including PayPerPost, ReviewMe, Blogsvertise, CREAMaid, SponsoredReviews, and LoudLaunch.

While some bloggers have issues with this kind of paid blogging, it is growing in acceptance.

However, there seems to be an unwritten rule that hiring a “blogging consultant” to work with a corporate blog is virtually taboo. This second form of paid blogging is drawing some harsher criticism. For example, when a company called Forgetablogit started recently, the PR blog from PRWorks a satirical approach:

Introducing Blogco’s Blog-O-Matic: you tell us, we blog it for ya.

That’s right. Why bother with all that pesky thinking? Who needs all that painful typing? With Blogco’s Blog-O-Matic you simply let our team of bloggers do all the work for you, in half the time with a fraction of the credibility.

However, a more pointed discussion took place on the Social Media Group blog:

I don’t mean to rain on anyone’s parade - but the whole notion of ghostwriting a blog pretty much completely destroys the purpose of creating a company blog in the first place (which is, mostly, to open up an authentic dialogue with your consumers for various reasons, with extreme emphasis on the word authentic).

Maybe because I work for a PR firm my view is tainted, but why is it perfectly acceptable to outsource every other form of corporate communication - but when outsourcing a blog, it’s a bad idea? Draft a press release = ok; draft a blog post = not ok. Create advertising copy = ok; create blog copy = not ok. Hire an outside spokesman = ok; hire an outside blogger = not ok.

I’m not quite sure I follow that logic. To be sure, any form of communication is better when coming from an actual employee of the company. But if the communications world has accepted the outsourcing of traditional communications, it will have to accept the outsourcing of new media communications.

What do you think?

Earlier on this blog, we wrote about Publix in the blogosphere. You may recall the crux of that post:

After searching their site, and not finding any obvious links to a blog (and the search for the word ‘blog’ on their site returned zero results), I made a call to Maria Brous, Director of Media & Community Relations. She explained that Publix does not have the current resources to devote to a public-facing blog. Rather, they are dedicated to serving their customers through direct interaction in the stores with friendly, knowledgeable associates and management, as well as a dedicated Consumer Relations Line with both telephone and email interaction. She did indicate that Publix can not monitor the blogosphere simply because of the volume of bloggers out there — a Technorati search on Publix found more than 31,000 entries and 13 blogs - mostly on MySpace. However, Publix customers themselves keep the company informed about what is being said about Publix.

This may be true at the corporate offices in Lakeland, but it does appear that local store managers do get involved in the blogosphere - especially with hyperlocal blogs. Earlier this month, the manager of the Seminole Heights store posted on the Hampton Terrace blog, which was re-printed on the Seminole Heights blog:

Hello all. Two Publix notes I hope you will find of interest…..

#1 We will be receiving a shipment of shopping carts tomorrow, so hopefully we will always have a cart available when you come shopping. Keep letting me know when you see them out in the neighborhood, as I will still get them. (update - 38 additional carts were requested and received)

#2 I have been doing a soft opening time of 7:30 a.m. each day to see how business would be. No sign on the door, just opening them up. If you are running to work/school and need something, walk on it. We are open. I am still running numbers to see if this makes sense to do. The more you come in and buy, the closer it will be to a reality. Remember, the time on the door will still say 8, but doors are open at 7:30.

Sincerely,

Chuck Kaelin
Your Neighborhood Publix Manager

This is how every business should approach the blogosphere - as another way to communicate with their shoppers. To be sure, when large companies let their lower level (even management) employees into the blogosphere, they have a significant issue with control. But the smart company will provide easy-to-follow guidelines and training on what is appropriate.

This is something that not even a local newspaper would print, because of just how hyperlocal the issue is. However, for the loyal customers in that neighborhood, this information can be quite important. There may not be a need for a single Publix store to write a blog, but if the company policy is for each manager to find and monitor local issues, they could develop an even better relationship with their customers in ways that no call center could ever do.

A lot has been written in the political blogosphere about this video on YouTube. The MSM picked up on the controversy because it was posted anonymously. And it’s obvious that the person who created, Phil de Vellis, it would have preferred to remain anonymous. Huffington Post was able to get the scoop (take that mainstream media!). He subsequently quit his job and posted his reasons on HuffPost.Ah, but it won’t stop there. Consider this from a Wired article:

The video’s success has fired up a new round of debate about the impact of federal regulators’ decision a year ago to exclude unpaid online political activity from the detailed disclosure requirements that apply to political advertising in traditional media.

…

At the time, the decision was widely hailed by editorial writers and bloggers as a free speech victory for the lone digital pamphleteer. But some longtime politicos worried that the ruling would carve open a loophole through which large donors could fund stealth guerrilla campaigns to deceptively influence people.

But online political attacks are only a part of a much larger issue. In the future, it won’t be just politicians who are attacked. Companies could see attacks in much the same way. Jim Horton at Online Public Relations thinks so:

Corporations are next. It doesn’t take a great effort anymore to produce a video. The person who did this Anti-Hillary ad claimed that he finished it on a weekend at home. If that is the case, what is to stop any group from attacking a corporation and its leadership for their environmental policies or wages or health care? It is a matter of time before it happens.

The anti-Hillary video was viewed a million times before its creator confessed to producing it. He could have remained silent and continued on with his business. I suspect that more will do that so they don’t get fired from their jobs. Corporations in the news should monitor YouTube as a matter of course along with news and blog scans.

Some of these attacks are already out there. One attack on Sony’s Play Station 3 - “How Your Killed Your Brand” - is a great example of this. JetBlueHostage.com is another. There are countless more.

Some companies are trying to be proactive. Seth Godin pointed out that makers of Splenda were registering hundreds of domains that could be used as attack sites (such as SplendaKills.com or VictimsOfSplenda.com). But it’s not always enough.

Consider this post by Sterling Hager at AgencyNext:

This is the main website homepage of a company called Royal Dutch Shell, plc. Note the url: http://www.shell.com/. Note, too, there are no apparent blog offerings at this site.

Now here’s a blog entitled Royal Dutch Shell plc. which can be found at http://royaldutchshell.com/. Is this a Shell corporate blog? Not hardly. Click on that picture of a distinguished looking Mr. Alfred Donovan at the top of his blog and you’re taken to a June, 2005, Wall Street Journal piece which describes the then-88-year-old Mr. Donovan and his long-standing beef with Shell.

Imagine if Mr. Donovan were, instead, a large organization such a Greenpeace or National Resources Defense Council. The next form of “protest” will very well take place on line. And companies will be hard pressed to stop it from happening.

Is there a way out?

It might be flip to say “if you can’t beat ‘em join ‘em.” But that might be one possible avenue. Cleary Shell will never be able to pay Alfred Donovan for the rights to his domain. They might have a chance at CyberSquatting - but only because of existing provisions with most countries and ICANN.

But what happens when they can’t find their next attacker? Anonymity is cheap and easy these days. Lawyers can’t sue someone they can’t find.

Perhaps the only way to control the online dialogue is to be a very active player. Counteract protesters and attackers by being their first, with more information. Be candid about their attacks, provide transparency whenever possible (without divulging trade secrets, for example). The general public understands that some protesters can be wind bags… but if the only thing they are hearing are the attackers - they won’t know the whole story.

The iceberg’s tip has been seen. Just how big is this one?

As noted throughout the blogosphere, the Project for Excellence in Journalism has released the State of the News Media 2007 report.  It is a comprehensive look at news - newspapers and magazines; local, cable, and national broadcast television; radio; and online.

As part of the online news analysis, the project looks at Citizen Media.  There are a number of salient points to be gleaned from the report:

“In the midst of these developments, the earlier form of citizen voice — blogs — began to grow in ways that raised question about whether it was becoming less a part of the grass roots and more a part of the establishment.“  In short, blogs have arrived.  You’re reading one now, aren’t you?  The Project found that 8% of online American adults author a blog or online journal.

The growth in the blogosphere has reached mainstream media.  We all know that even the venerated New York Times has started blogging.  USA Today has taken this a step further, building interactive components with their articles into a larger social networking ability.  The Orlando Sentinel is bringing in community members to do hyperlocal blogs for Central Florida communities.

The project found that the typical blogger has not changed much in the past year.  “In previous years of the annual report, we reported that bloggers tend to be younger, wealthier, and more tech-savvy than the general online population. The most recent data suggest this is still largely true.“  A majority of bloggers are less than 30 years old and almost all blogger (95%) read news online.

And it’s not just the production of  blogs that is growing.  The study found that 39% - 2 out of 5 - of online adult users have ever read a blog, a total of 57 million Americans. Consider that just 51 million Americans subscribe to a newspaper, and you can easily see how mainstream blogs have become.

Finally, the project looked at how bloggers make money - or if they do.  Only 8% of bloggers generate income from thier blogs, mostly by selling items or advertising.   The Project noted that the ad market for blogers is only $50 to $100 million, out of a $16 billion online ad market.  But then, bloggers don’t really do it for money.  The biggest reason was a chance for creative expression.

The project’s conclusion on Citizen Media is particularly telling:

A few years ago, many media critics offered varying degrees of skepticism toward the fanfare that surrounded the emergence of blogs. And a minority even questioned how long they would be around.

Heading into 2007, some of that skepticism — shared by much of the public as well —remains. How much can one trust the accuracy of news and information posted on blogs? How can blogs survive without a reliable revenue stream?

It may be a case of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Much of the talk a few years ago — that blogs would supplant traditional media — seems antiquated now. The relationship between blogs and traditional media, in the end, may be more complementary, even synergistic, as time moves on. Citizen journalism, and the interactivity it promises in Web 2.0, increasingly seems to offer the potential of enriching traditional journalism (by enriching citizens), not threatening it.

We belive the same can be said for “traditional marketing” and “traditional public relations.”  A corporate blog should never replace these avenues of communication; instead, a blog should be a part of an overall business communications strategy.

NOTE: All statistics quoted in this post were obtained from the State of the News Media report.