As anyone reading this blog is aware, News Corp CEO and Chairman Rupert Murdoch is in a bit of hot water. Newspapers that he owns – particularly British tabloid paper News of the World, was caught in a shameful and embarrassing phone hacking scandal, where they hacked into the voice mail messages of a murdered schoolgirl, relatives of deceased British soldiers, and victims of the 7/7 London bombings.
Since this news broke, people from News of the World and News Corp have been blamed, fired, arrested, and even found dead. And to make matters worse for Murdoch, the FBI is now investigating to see if News Corp publications hacked into phones of September 11th victims.
While Murdoch states that this is the most humbling time of his life, it also creates a very difficult time for his 51,000 employees at newspapers, magazines, television stations and online outlets around the world. Quite simply, they are forced to report on the despicable actions that that their company, and potentially their CEO, are responsible for.
Just imagine how uncomfortable it must be to report that the person in charge of your company, and ultimately responsible for your job, could be guilty of illegal and unthinkable actions. In the video below, staff from FOX News makes it clear that the topic is not one they’re enjoying when the topic first breaks.
However, as information around the scandal has developed and hearings have taken place, Murdoch has been at the mercy of the enormous media empire that he himself built. And the reporters that he hired to report the news and share their own opinions and insight into our current events are now looking at him and his gigantic media conglomerate in the most critical light, with no choice but to report the despicable acts that have occurred.
Yesterday VentureBeat announced that Jolie O’Dell has joined the outlet as a technology and business writer. O’Dell is a terrific writer that will allow VentureBeat to cover more areas of technology and businesses, and comes to the publication after a year-long stint at Mashable.
The big question I had whens seeing this news, is why did O’Dell leave Mashable, a blog growing whats seems exponentially every day?
O’Dell wrote a blog post explaining her decision, which complements Mashable and all of the people she worked with there. However, she is very clear about why she decided to leave: too much fluff coverage. Here it is in her own words:
I was beginning to kick against the pricks, so to speak, about some of the directions Mashable was taking. The posts that have made Mashable the powerhouse it is have been by turns in-depth/insightful and popular/timely. Perhaps because I’m a lifelong cultural contrarian (and certainly because I loved the company enough to want to make substantive positive contributions to its overall tone and character) I was becoming more and more cynical about latter category, regardless of the fact that a large portion of Mashable’s audience very much wanted to read those posts — the celebrity news, the infographics, the current events coverage, et cetera.
I’ll be honest, I do enjoy reading Mashable’s infographics and some of the fluff pieces. However, when I see an entire article on something Justin Bieber posted, I wonder if Mashable’s just trying to get those extra page views.
O’Dell’s honesty and openness in explaining her departure is quite fascinating, and it will be interesting to see if other voice their opinions about Mashable’s topics of coverage moving forward.
I have been rattling my brain this morning trying to figure out who is more upset about the early success of the Americanized Spotify. My initial thoughts naturally drifted towards the competition: iTunes and Grooveshark. Music services should be running for the hills, I am told. However I think the company most upset with Spotify at the moment is Google. Google+ was supposed to shower great graces upon the search engine giant throughout the entire summer; the spectacularly wealthy David on a mission to take down the Facebook Goliath. Google+ did have its moment in the sun as the most talked about social media platform, but over the past two days we have seen the center of attention shift, quickly, to Spotify.
I’m going to be honest. I have no idea what Spotify is or how it works. My excitement (hastening towards obsession) is based purely on loving tweets I’ve seen from my friends and celebrity endorsements (who knew that Demi Moore is A. a music fan? and B. still a celebrity?).
From what I gather, again through tweets and the equally nondescript promotional video, Spotify is like iTunes, only more awesome. There seems to be some social aspects, and apparently you can listen to songs you want for free [from @kelleighsimmons: “Spotify is like Grooveshark and iTunes on steroids. Wicked awesome…” (Hey Kelleigh- Go Sox!)]. Take a look at #spotify. You will learn that Spotify plays music better than anything has ever played music in the history of music, and that’s all you’ll learn. Apparently people are completely incapable of delving deeper into description.
I don’t think I have ever wanted a product more, while at the same time having no idea what it is. Keep in mind as an 11 year old all it took was for the cool kid to say the name of a new toy and I wanted it. Why else would anyone buy pogs?
This is the true genius behind Spotify’s promotional campaign for their American launch. It is the model of marketing restraint: They know they have an excellent product and have therefore decided to let customers do their advertising for them, while at the same time keeping the service itself shrouded in mystery. Yeah, I could just go onto Wikipedia and read about how it differs from iTunes or how it incorporates elements of social networks, but I want to remain intrigued. I want to experience it firsthand. You never want to know what you’re getting before you open a present, and like a kid on Christmas Eve I am eagerly awaiting my Spotify invitation.
Being a marketing professional, I often feel like I am above the ploys of other marketers, as if I am impervious to their trickery. Well done Spotify. I like you, I want you, yet I don’t even know you. Somehow, I feel used.
Have you tried Spotify? Tell us what you think (but don’t spoil it).
This is a guest post by Mandy Miller. Follow her on Twitter @amandammiller9.
In case you missed it, Big Brews (not as evil as Big Tobacco) may be trying to ‘buy out’ your area code. Anheuser-Busch has recently applied for 15 trademarks for the following area codes: 314 (St. Louis), 412 (Pittsburgh), 305 (Miami), 619 (San Diego), 202 (Washington, D.C.), 602 (Phoenix), 704 (Charlotte), 702 (Las Vegas), 214 (Dallas), 415 (San Francisco), 216 (Cleveland), 303 (Denver), 713 (Houston), and 215 (Philadelphia).
Why, you ask? Well, recently Anheuser-Busch InBev bought Chicago microbrewer Goose Island, maker of 312 (named for the Chicago area code). This very well could be a means to seize a market opportunity, or it could just be an adorable attempt at a brand extension. The supposed idea behind this is that Anheuser-Busch may try to extend this branding into other area codes, crafting specialty beer(s) for your city.
My thoughts? Smart – kind of. It’s cute, but at the same time, I like the ‘cozy’ and personalized touch that goes into smaller microbrewers. Maybe I just need to have more happy feelings with every Bud Light I have, but Goose Island was located in ‘the 312.’ How is Anhesuer-Busch going to position and craft these beers when they are a mega brewing giant? Shouldn’t a local brewer know best for crafting these? What if you’re in a suburb of Cleveland, Denver, etc. Are you going to feel left out because it just doesn’t taste like your area code?
What are your thoughts? Strategic move or cute attempt? Do you feel this takes away from the specialty crafts of microbrews?
On June 28 Google launched the Google+ Project, which is billed as real life sharing, rethought for the web. Simply put, Google+ is a social network that allows you to easily communicate with various groups of people, each in a specific and decisive way.
Google+ is currently being marketed towards individuals as social destination. Through the videos and content produced by Google, Google+ is marketed as a way to separate your work friends from college buddies, and family from acquaintances. Google+ allows you to communicate with each group of people separately, so that you can feel more comfortable sharing information with the group of people that you want to.
Aside from personal relationships, Google+ is going to have an impact on businesses. But as with every social network, platform or tool, it will have a different type of affect and purpose for each organization. Here are a few things that all businesses can expect:
1. New features for Facebook pages: After Twitter became popular Facebook quickly modified its news feed to include real-time updates from users, and it is no secret that Facebook employees (including Mark Zuckerberg) have been quick to sign up for Google+ and ask people for their feedback. Expect Facebook to soon offer some of the features that Google+ members find most beneficial.
2. Better internal communication: Google+ could become an extremely valuable internal communications platform, especially at large companies. It allows businesses to separate people by department, level and location, and have focused real-time conversations on every topic within those groups. In some ways, it is like a Yammer on steroids. It can also be beneficial if businesses want to conduct real-time meetings via the web, especially if people are in different geographical locations.
3. A new channel for better user relationships: Businesses using Google+ will have the opportunity to directly communicate with circles of users. Using Apple as an example, there could be various set up to communicate directly with Apple users. One can be made up of key enthusiasts, influences and evangelists, one of early adopters, another of general users, and even location-specific Apple customers. Apple can then communicate with each one of these groups differently, in a way that will best engage each audience member.
These three areas address what we should expect to see from Google+. However, it is important to remember that this platform is still very young, and a lot can change depending on how well (and quickly) it can attract and handle users, and how people decide to use the platform.
Also please note that Google+ is currently available by invitation only, and it has been difficult for many people to get on the site. The best thing to do is find someone who is already registered that can send you an invitation, or sign up on the homepage and wait for an email invitation from Google.
