Archive for April, 2008
By Kyle
The first accurate usage numbers for Twitter are beginning to come into focus. They aren’t exactly Facebook-esque. Yesterday, Michael Arrington of TechCrunch broke the important statistics for judging Twitter’s reach:
The key measure of Twitter usage is total users, total active users and total messages sent. And according to a source close to the company, these are the current Twitter usage stats.
March 2008
Total Users: 1+ million
Total Active Users: 200,000 per week
Total Twitter Messages: 3 million/day
Silicon Alley Insider’s Peter Kaftka follows up with his own numbers from his source this morning:
“Our own source close to Twitter tells us that as of three weeks ago, the service was up to 1.3 million users, with nearly 4 million “connections” — Twitterers following each other. It’s that second stat that speaks volume about Twitters’ appeal to its users.”
He’s right in the second number speaking volumes. It also speaks volumes to marketers who must realize that a large amount of their customer base may have “connections” with folks like Arrington and are likely “following” his every move on Twitter. As much as I laughed it away in the beginning and belittled its appeal, I am taking notice now (Even got my twitter feed up in my bio).
kyledaustin2440
Twitter still doesn’t have that mainstream appeal (Heck, even David Kirkpatrick noted to me that Facebook status updates have more appeal to him), but it has a high appeal to most technology bloggers and thought leaders with cult like followings. This makes monitoring Twitter a necessary part of the daily routine for marketing and communications executives – especially those working with products and companies in the technology space.
Look no further then Sarah Lacey’s bomb of an interview with Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg blowing up through the Twitter audience at SXSW and Michael Arrington rallying the “instamob,” as Jeff Jarvis described, against Comcast when his internet service went down in early April. Consumer revolts now start through Twitter and extend through the web and mobile internet faster then the rumors and innuendo that spread through the blogosphere.
More importantly, the conversations are often starting on Twitter before appearing in mainstream blogs. For brand managers, marketers and communications executives it is easy enough to monitor for potential corporate firestorms and stay ahead of them on Twitter, as Arrington originally noted in dealing with his Comcast dilemma:
“It’s trivially easy to do a brand search on Tweetscan and create a feed for any new postings. Whether you join in the conversation directly or reach out to aggrieved customers is up to you.”
Comcast proved its communications and customer support savvy and turned a potential nightmare into a fairly positive story. One can only hope that Marvel and the next brand to find itself confronted with a Twitter “instamob” will do the same.
April 30th, 2008
By Ben
What’s better then going green? How about going clear.
Xerox is currently developing a new type of paper and printer that would allow someone to print a document, only to have the ink fade away after 16 to 24 hours, so that the paper can be reused.
Cnet reports that users don’t have to wait for the paper to fade either. By running it through the special printer made for this paper, the printer will erase the old image before putting the new one on.
How is this possible? The paper is coated with photosensitive chemicals that turn dark when hit with UV light, and according to Xerox’s tests, the paper can be used hundreds of times.
Imagine printing out a meeting agenda, only to realize that one item was left off. Instead of having to re-print an agenda for everyone at the meeting, the same paper can be ‘cleared’ and re-printed on, cutting down on waste. The only problem people could run into is if something important is printed – only to have it disappear the next day or week once you really need the information.
April 29th, 2008
By George
Has the tipping point for newspapers finally arrived — again?
Trees in Wisconsin are breathing a sigh of relief and the newspaper industry is holding its collective breathe as the Madison, Wisconsin daily paper – The Capital Times – abandons its print edition and goes completely digital.
Readers in the Madison region will no longer hear the thump of a hard-copy land on their porches, driveways, and flower gardens. From now on, the only way to get the local news from the 90-year-old Capital Times will be with a Web connection.
This is from the Capital Times editorial that explains the all-digital move:
“Instead of printing on paper for distribution each afternoon, we will produce a Web-based daily newspaper that will be accessed for free on the Internet at www.captimes.com. Additionally, we will produce a weekly journal of news and opinion that will be available free of charge and more broadly than the current paper.”
The newspaper concludes: “We will keep on giving the people the truth and the freedom to discuss it, and all will be well.”
The opinion from readers on the switch seems to be mixed.
The newspaper industry continues to be one of no growth and losses. Lay-offs have been ripping through the industry. In fact, the Capital Times fired 20 employees as part of the move online. Closer to home, the Boston Globe recently let about 25 reporters go (avoiding lay-offs with buy-outs). The big newspaper chains have been reporting revenue losses so far this year.
Newspapers need to embrace their online identities more aggressively if they hope to succeed. The industry continues to mourn the loss of readers, wring its hands at the fate of their print editions, and pine for the good-old days. This isn’t a recipe for winning.
Newspapers need to deal with a startling fact: the print edition isn’t the product. It’s a channel for news delivery. Once they realize that the product is the news – and start delivering it the way people want it (online, mobile, video, audio, text, RSS, etc.) the better off newspapers will be. They can win the news delivery wars – but only if they stop with the defeatist attitudes.
In the past, RaceTalk has offered some suggestions on how newspapers can start becoming more aggressive and more relevant online.
And, of course, we wish the Capital Times the best of luck as it truly enters the Internet age.
April 28th, 2008
By Kyle
This week’s headlines once again reiterated that Rupert Murdoch is in the midst of writing a remarkable closing chapter in his memoir on creating a tyrannical media empire.
On Tuesday, Wall Street Journal managing editor Marcus Brauchli confirmed rumors that he was being marked for exile to Siberia (i.e. a News Corp consulting role) when he issued his letter of resignation.
By Wednesday, Murdoch had the media solely focused on his new bid and handshake agreement with Tribune Co. mogul Sam Zell to purchase Newsday – aligning a distinguishing “Murdoch Newspaper Monopoly” on New York City and its surrounding area.
Is any of this unexpected? Quite frankly, no, as Fortune’s Richard Siklos points out:
“The news from News this week is hardly unexpected, because you never know what to expect from Murdoch. Where the Journal is concerned, the game plan (for now) is to make the paper livelier and expand its political and general news coverage to compete more squarely with the New York Times, which Murdoch feels has held too much sway over setting America’s news agenda.”
This strategy of making the paper livelier (”How long till we have page six girls?” - as a colleague of mine muttered this week?) and more mainstream is a strategy that is very familiar to the changes that Murdoch drove at the New York Post and Times of London.
However, as Siklos also notes – He is taking over a frontrunner in the Wall Street Journal - a very new territory for him:
“But the Journal already outsells the New York Times on weekdays (nearly 2 to 1), so Murdoch is attempting both to keep the Journal’s core business readers and lure the Times’ high-end readership who might otherwise not give a pure business paper a look. If a jazzed-up Journal can get just 5 or 10% of Times readers to switch over, the idea is that more high-end advertisers will follow. There is, of course, a huge online component to this too, not to mention the longer-term promise of melding Journal content with other TV and print assets around the world.”
The true value of the Journal, as it currently stands, is in its deep knowledge in the corporate and business world. In addition, the resulting clout it holds with the business, investor and analyst community. During the transition to Murdoch’s jazzed-up Journal it will be imperative that he doesn’t dilute this clout.
To everyday readers like my self the change is already noticeable and in my mind that isn’t a good thing. It would behoove Murdoch and News Corp. to make the changes more subtle and keep business top-of-line on page 1 and work to gradually implement the growing political and mainstream news into the rest of the paper. However, Murdoch seems nearly obsessed with becoming the “paper of record” over the Times, neglecting one of the core rules of being a publisher – never alienate your core readers.
Where’s the focus on coming to a concise strategy with online operations and free/paid online content? Let alone, re-shaping the interface of the online site that sorely lacks behind the interactive features and blog following that the Times’ website has created. Where is the focus on working on the loophole in the exclusive WSJ agreement with CNBC, so that he can “allow” the Journal’s writers to save his teetering Fox Business Network?
We haven’t seen them and yet he remains focused on making changes to the print edition of the Journal. Michael Learmonth over at Silicon Alley Insider fully illustrates just how much the Journal has already transformed since Rupert’s take over in pointing to a very interesting report from the Project on Excellence in Journalism:
“Business coverage is down 50% on the front page (of the WSJ), while political and foreign news are way up. Since Dec. 13, the Journal has devoted almost as much front-page real estate to politics (18%) as the New York Times (26.5%). A complete study of the transformation is available at journalism.org, but here’s a handy pre- and post-Murdoch synopsis (chart).”
There are no doubts that change is underway and expect more of the same to follow. However, Rupert will have to walk a tight line if he wants his mainstream approach to pay dividends with the WSJ. A watered down Journal isn’t exactly what its daily readers are asking for and if Murdoch fails to bring in the readers that are currently favoring the “Old Gray Lady,” he and the Journal will be the ones left truly looking gray. Gambling a religious business readership -with deep pockets - is a lot to risk when you’re the market leader.
April 25th, 2008
By Ben
Earlier this month Israel put restrictions on what soldiers were allowed to post online. At the time, the Associated Press reported that soldiers inadvertently revealed sensitive information on Facebook, and that they are not allowed to disclose certain classified information.
Over the past few weeks the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) has been working tirelessly to remove hundreds of pictures, messages, and other materials from Facebook in order to enhance Israel’s security and privacy. It has been reported that some Israeli solders posted pictures of advanced weapons training, interiors and exteriors of bases - including the equipment inside them - and troop exercises and locations.
The Jerusalem Post reported this week that an Israeli solder was sentenced to 19 days in prison for uploading a certain picture on their Facebook profile:
The IDF would not comment on the exact nature of the photograph, but said the punishment was in proportion to the committed offense.
Sources said the soldier in question would be punished for taking pictures on a military base without permission. The incident marks the first time that a soldier has been tried and sentenced for this kind of offense.
The BBC added that the soldier was serving with an elite intelligence unit of the IDF.
This incident provides a stern warning for other soldiers who are thinking about posting photos – not just in Israel, but around the world. As internet features like Facebook and Google Earth evolve privacy is becoming more and more important – not just for the military, but everyone.
In fact, earlier this month a couple in Western Pennsylvania sued Google because they said images of their home (see below) available through ‘Google Street View’ violated their privacy and devalued their property.
Are you worried about your online privacy?
April 25th, 2008
By Ginger
Last week, Segway launched a social network – Segway Social. This decision was made following a recent survey, in which 82 percent of users said they wanted to connect with other Segway customers. In this Web 2.0 community, people can share tips, inform fellow members about their personal experiences using a Segway personal transporter (PT), locate a “glide” (fun route to use a PT) in their area, and find out how much money they are saving by going green and riding the Segway wave.
This is a perfect example of the ways that companies are gradually adopting social media in order to improve customer satisfaction, allow users to establish a sense of connection with the brand, engage with new audiences, and drive sales. What was once merely a tool for security guards and police officers on patrol is now evolving into the “new bike” for eco-enthusiasts and commuters alike, through the power of peer-to-peer marketing.
What’s more is Segway’s strategy for promoting their company messaging and green goals through their blog. Segway is establishing itself as a thought leader in the green transportation industry by getting involved in the ongoing conversation and commenting on news, trends and events such as Earth Day.
What will be interesting to see is whether these social media marketing tactics prove fruitful and drive sales, as each basic PT runs at a cool $5100 or more. Although social networks like Social Segway are doing a great job demonstrating that it’s worth the green to go green, the ever-rising price of gas pretty much speaks for itself. I’d say PTs are A-OK.
April 24th, 2008
By Ben
Earth Day version 2008 gave us an opportunity to see businesses from all over declare their support for the environment.
Planting a tree or learning about how recycling can help the earth used to be the main focus of Earth Day – but that was way back before Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth and being ‘green’ became the cool thing to do.
Today, every day is an old fashioned Earth Day, with grocery stores encouraging shoppers to bring in reusable bags, and everyone from Coke to Marriott trying to paint on a green image. Green is no longer just the cool thing to do – it’s a competitive advantage.
Earth Day 2008 seemed like no better time for many companies to announce new initiatives. The Red Sox donned special uniforms for their game yesterday, which had a green recycle sign around the logo. Circuit City created a new Web site that shows consumers five simple ways to go green. Of course, all of these suggestions end in giving your credit card information to Circuit City. Google couldn’t wait for Earth Day to come, while WIRED offered seven suggestions for a greener life, and AdvertisingAge also shared how people and businesses can be more earth friendly.
Betsy Mckay and Suzanne Vranica of The Wall Street Journal reported that just about everyone is feeling green these days:
So many eco-friendly marketing messages are piling up that it no longer is clear whether companies jumping on the environmental bandwagon get much advantage for doing so, marketing experts say. Instead, a green marketing campaign now is standard operating procedure for big companies.
Anheuser-Busch is just one of these companies, and is airing four new television and print ads that feature employees discussing the company’s commitment to the environment. You can see the videos on the green page of their Web site, which even includes a sentimental story:
Today, many companies are “going green.” But at Anheuser-Busch, we’re proud to say our tradition of environmental stewardship dates back to our founder, Adolphus Busch. In the late 1800s, he began recycling leftover grain from the brewing process, using it for cattle feed, a practice that continues today.
Deborah Zabarenko of Reuters took a more political approach to Earth Day, and reported that even President Bush planted a tree – there’s nothing like a great photo opportunity!
In the midst of all this ‘green’ love, Jeffery Ball of The Wall Street Journal writes that Earth Day might not be that great after all:
The world has never seemed more focused on the environment than it is this Earth Day — and that worries many environmentalists.
Launched in 1970 as a protest against corporate environmental misconduct, Earth Day has become a planet-hugging marketing frenzy for companies themselves. Makers of everything from snack chips to sport-utility vehicles now use April 22 to boast about their efforts to help save the planet. Pitching energy-efficient products, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., once criticized for being environmentally unfriendly, isn’t content with a mere Earth Day. In a national marketing campaign, the retailer is declaring April “Earth Month.”
It’s clear that Earth Day is well on its way to becoming a consumer holiday like Valentine’s Day. The only question is whether or not the good that comes from this awareness can be substantial in helping the environment.
What do you think?
April 23rd, 2008
By Kyle
There have been musical chairs between bureaus, reports of changing style and a scheduled change of address.
However, all of the above fail in comparison to Mr. Murdoch’s latest WSJ move. Marcus W. Brauchli, the top editor at the Wall Street Journal, officially resigned on Tuesday after reports surfaced on Monday via Time.com that he would be handing in his resignation letter by Thursday.
That may or may not have led to an accelerated appointment today with the newly formed committee overseeing editorial integrity of the paper - post Rupert purchase – and the formal handing over of his resignation letter that followed.
Brauchli confirmed his departure through a statement on Tuesday:
“I am proud to have been part of this exceptionally talented team,” Brauchli said in his resignation letter. “But now that the ownership transition has taken place, I have come to believe the new owners should have a managing editor of their choosing.”
Brauchli, maybe somewhat surprisingly, has agreed to stay on as a consultant to News Group. Although the move is certainly a headline catcher, the writing has seemingly been on the wall for Brauchli, since former Times of London Editor Robert Thomson made the move to the WSJ as publisher at the beginning of last year. According to insiders, Thompson had taken over the publisher role along with seemingly overseeing the editorial side of things since joining the executive staff.
Not surprisingly then - Thompson will step into the interim role as managing editor – which some certainly believe will become his permanent position in the rather near future.
April 22nd, 2008
By Blaise
From energy efficiency to reuse, recycling and sustainability, green is an emotive issue. The subject is covered by the media and bloggers with differing levels of accuracy and relevance. RaceTalk took the opportunity to speak with James Murray, editor at Business Green.
James is one of the UK’s most respected specialists on green issues. Here, RaceTalk gets his insights:
RaceTalk: Hi James, many thanks for taking some time out to talk to us today. Have you been surprised by the growth in volume of communications on green issues?
James: Not really, it’s been one of the longest running but slowest burning issues of the last 10 years! I think the impact Al Gore made was a big kick-off point for the most recent movement - that’s almost two years ago now, so it’s taken quite a while for the majority of companies to get their houses in order.
RaceTalk: In terms of the volumes of PR communication on green issues - have you been seen a dramatic rise in that in the last 6-12 months?
James: Yeah, absolutely, that’s really come through. It took a year for companies to get their heads around green issues and decide whether they wanted to do something.
Now we’re moving into the second year and they are all trying to communicate and push the green message - it’s really taken off. However, while it’s approaching the mainstream, it’s still not completely mainstream and a large proportion of companies have yet to adopt a green strategy so the potential for it to expand is enormous.
RaceTalk: Given the rapid growth of green communications, how would you rank the quality?
James: It varies enormously. It depends on the maturity of the PRs and the companies they represent. What I will say is there’s an awful lot of rubbish out there - PRs just cobbling together a survey saying that: “businesses now care about green issues” or “90% of businesses are starting to worry about energy costs.” It’s so passé and it’s been done to death, but then at the same time you are getting a lot of organisations that have a good solid handle on how to adopt green practices and communicate them. These are the ones that have good stories to tell and products that actually meet green standards. Communication with these guys doesn’t come across as marketing fluff.
RaceTalk: Obviously, you are a specialist in this area and you know the issues inside out. How would you rank mainstream media’s coverage of green issues?
James: From a business perspective that’s part of the reason we launched. The environmental coverage particularly across the mainstream media tends to lean towards ‘tree-hugging’. There is an assumption that all businesses are raping and pillaging the planet.
The business press meanwhile has struggled to get their collective heads round this whole new sphere. It’s there for them to worry about, but they haven’t really got in-depth understanding of environmental issues and legislation to be able to report on it adequately.
RaceTalk: Do you think procurement departments are updating their buying and due diligence approaches by incorporating environmental considerations?
James: Certainly. It’s slow progress but it is happening. All Government departments are legally obliged to do so and now more than ever, you can see multinationals doing it. In fact, a good example is Walmart. They’re actually dropping suppliers that don’t meet required standards now on the environment. On the technology side, HP has a big outreach programme to all it’s suppliers to try and train to improve environmental impact. The importance of the issue is gradually filtering through to mass business and consumer consciousness.
RaceTalk: Does any organisation stand out as excellent communicators in this field?
James: It’s a very difficult one. In terms of the big names it’s hard to fault companies like M&S and HSBC – they’re not perfect but they have communicated their initiatives well. Aside from the big boys, some of the younger, less ‘sophisticated’ companies like Ecotricity, Innocent smoothies have grown quickly from a solid environmentally conscious base - ultimately, they find it a lot easier to communicate because they don’t have skeletons in the closets.
The consumer technology industry is a mixed bag. Most are doing it quite well and the majority are open about the fact that they have got major issues within the industry.
One thing I will say is that there’s a large and growing element of Greenwashing going on. It must be tempting to say that the latest model is green when in fact, more often than not, the greenest thing is for users not to replace the previous product! There is also the tendency towards communicating the benefits of energy efficient devices, but at the same time a lot of nasty chemicals are inside the product or being used in the manufacturing process.
There has been a degree of honesty I think from the IT industry that they’ve got problems, and the level of R&D investments from the big members in improving energy efficient has been pretty impressive so I’m hopeful that in the next 5 years we really will see progress.
Ultimately, the question in the back of our minds is whether the tech companies back away from green issues and revert to pushing as much kit as possible, regardless of environmental concerns, or whether they are genuinely serious about this.
April 22nd, 2008
By Ben
So there is a list of reasons why Coke is bad for your health (even though Coke wouldn’t have you believe any of them) – but at least they’re committed to helping the environment.
Coca-Cola is serious about making a difference, and they’re not just talking the talk – they’re walking the walk. Their new initiative moves beyond a traditional bottle recycling campaign to take aim at vending machines.
Marc Gunther wrote an article for this week’s issue of Fortune on Coke’s initiative to make vending machines more environmentally-friendly:
Vending machines and commercial coolers that keep drinks cold run around-the-clock, rely on inefficient compressors and, worst of all, use HFCs, a potent greenhouse gas. So when Greenpeace challenged the Coca-Cola Co. to get rid of conventional vending machines and coolers, the world’s largest beverage company promised to develop replacements that are 40 to 50% more efficient and HFC-free.
Since then, Coke has invested $40 million in research and testing, published a 900-page technical study and organized a coalition of companies that sell cold drinks and ice cream, including Unilever, McDonald’s and (gasp!) PepsiCo., to attack the problem. Last year, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Coke declared victory: E. Neville Isdell, the company’s chairman and CEO, and Gerd Leipold, who leads Greenpeace, unveiled a new, HFC-free, super-efficient vending machine. About 8,000 of the climate-friendly machines have been deployed, most to high-profile venues like Davos and the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing.
Marc later wrote in his blog that he’s become an admirer of Coke as he’s learned about the company’s sustainability work.
It’s great to see a company investing money to make real change, because although recycling bottles helps, that along is not nearly significant enough to spur wide-spread results.
This is explained in a video that BusinessWeek’s Heather Green wrote about yesterday called The Story of Stuff. The video goes into detail about our production and consumption patterns, and exposes the connections between a huge number of environmental and social issues. It’s 20 minutes long, but worth every minute.
The bottom line: Coke’s actions are admirable, but we need a lot more businesses and our government to take action in order to make significant changes.
April 18th, 2008
Previous Posts
