JohnBlog

Lend me your mind's ear — communications and portals

Posts Tagged ‘target audience

The unifying theory of communications: Sustain us

leave a comment »

unifying theoryWhen less is simply less 

Look at Earth, hanging in space, alone in darkness. After you’re done admiring the beauty of what you see, you can’t help but think, on some level:

Will we be able to sustain such a hurtling jewel?

What if we looked at communications in that context?

Sometimes communications are used in less-than-best practice.

Infographics are great. They convey information quickly. They’re on everybody’s lips.

But infographics can mislead. When infographics are over-tasked with carrying the thrust of a message alone, they fail.

Communications is about integration: a unification of channels. It’s about sustaining brilliance, about sustaining best practice.

Shaping a story

Some creatives can do graphics with great impact and shape a great story. It depends on the strategy behind the message. Infographics are brilliant tools, but success is in how infographics are used.

Words have built empires. There is no escaping our need for information. As we move into any subject, we want deeper information.

We live in a world where our communications race forward into space. Connectivity. Speed. Data blasting forward. It’s all tough to process.

Infographics are everywhere. They provide snapshots of almost anything you can imagine. Done well, they are useful, but …

How deep are some really?

The shallow end: Don’t use audiences when using data

Go out and search. You will doubtless find an infographic on what you’re looking for. Now, look for the source.

Where did the information come from?

Some infographics don’t reference where the research for the data comes from. They tell a story, but if the story’s fiction, consider its value.

Organizations have objectives. If data and infographics are used to mislead, you risk credibility.

In our race to process information, to relay information, to demonstrate concepts to people more easily, more accessibly, without demanding too much of the beleaguered audience or public, we sometimes forget to look into where the research for the data comes from.

Who did the research? If we don’t know … Are we setting up our audience, and so, ourselves for disappointment?

In these days of content curation, we still have to be conscious of where data comes from, and its interpretation. That can be difficult. Speed is of the essence.

Even the research process itself has come under repeated analysis. There have been a number of papers criticizing peer review. Often, the conclusion is, peer review may be imperfect, but it’s still the best thing we’ve got.

Questions, questions: Ask some questions

At the very least, we should ask questions about what research seems to demonstrate. We live in a time of rapid change.

Since Einstein, and beyond, we’ve learned that things are relative. We may like slow cooking, but we still have priorities related to “getting things done”. In a historical context, Einstein did pretty well without all the technology we have at our disposal today.

Take research on phones. As one of the largest manufacturers of phones used to advise us: Think different. A recent study suggested a few things about different phone manufacturers. One idea was that the wealthy / intelligent buy a certain model of phone.

What’s being suggested here? That the phone makes you wealthy or intelligent?

Let’s ask some questions: What types of phones are we talking about? Does one brand sell a greater variety of phones across a broader spectrum within a broader price range? (For example, if wealth determines intelligence, then obviously Warren Buffett and Bill Gates are smarter than Steve Jobs was.)

Which company focuses on the high-end? If a product costs more, it doesn’t take Einstein to figure out that the wealthy might buy that product.

Sheep or deep?

Questions can start to reveal bias or data manipulation. There’s a difference between interpretation and distortion of data. Insights have to be as deep as the data.

None of us are perfect, but If we use data with less-than-best-practice, doesn’t it reflect our opinion of our target audience? Our publics?

Is there an element of danger in such a strategy? How do people feel when there’s a massive pullback in a company’s stock? When IPOs and exchanges are held up as parlayers of bad practice?

Researching media reports after such errors in judgement – more often labelled as “debacles” in the media – provide clear evidence. No management team wants to see its name lit up in a reputational example of bad practice.

Need more evidence? Take a look at questions asked about the U.S. government’s reputation following the Merkel phone-tapping.

The complications involved in communicating, and various organizational debacles, are bound to affect brand and reputation. Do consumers want to know we’re burying poor references to our brands in cyberspace, or, that:

  • We’re addressing issues from stakeholders
  • Opening a channel of dialogue
  • Working hard to improve our organizations

and,

  • Willing to listen to feedback that provides insight?

Daniel Libeskind and David Chipperfield discuss why architecture is collaborative and is a form of communication. Any new building is bound to cause controversy like any great new idea. The discussion is the thing.

Flip the agenda on its head

Some believe that in a world where our communications burn across media at a faster and faster pace, the potential for backlash is vastly accelerated. But isn’t it important to consider that people are also getting more discerning? Aren’t people looking for something to believe in?

Aren’t we building a form of architecture when we reach out to talk to publics and audiences? Aren’t we better off building a foundation that lasts?

Isn’t there opportunity here? And if you’re not involved in the discussion, not seated at the table, digitally, with your publics, then, who is?

If you’re not dealing with stakeholders’ trust issues, then who is?

Won’t integrity stand out?

Peter Lynch and Warren Buffett have been cited for discussing how a company’s focus on how to spend its money (read: not spending outlandish amounts on offices, furniture, etc.) shows a competitive edge in these companies, especially for the shareholder. Does this frugality on the part of management mean that the managements of these companies aren’t intelligent?

Warren Buffett still lives in a modest house. Is he less intelligent for doing this?

Meanwhile, some companies spend a great deal on their employees including training and R&D to help stimulate creativity, engagement and innovation.

Is there more than one way to get to an outcome? In fact, is the construction of outcomes liquid? In constant flux?

A river flows out to the sea, but the way the water gets to the sea is epic. It’s a story of flow, of perpetual change. It’s the story of nature’s architecture.

A discerning audience is able to deconstruct what it sees. New York has taken steps to protect consumers from fake reviews. Is it really sound to imagine that there are no customers that have ever considered that these kinds of bad practices are going on?

Smart competitors will create smart campaigns centred around companies’ branding. Clever advertising is full of examples of a brand’s position being reframed – even if you’re reframing the idea that consumers of that brand are “creative”.

If an infographic misleads, does it take your audience where you want to go ultimately?

Information in infographics absent best practice, can mislead. What can it do to a brand?

Data can be used in a self-perpetuating, self-aggrandizing way to rationalize, what? That a product makes us look smarter? Makes us superior to others because we spend more on it?

Publics are going to change as fast as the media that bombard them. Appealing to customers will be an act of ultimate creativity. Some will do it brilliantly. Others are going to be remembered for compromising their ethics.

Customers, more than ever, want organizations that walk the talk.

Even if an organization mounts a comeback related to a major stumble, followed by negative media coverage, wouldn’t it have been better to follow a sustainable path of best practice in the first place? Wouldn’t it have been better not to suffer the reputational damage – to have more consistent growth?

Isn’t this why business schools hold ethics classes? Why reputation and trust factor large in polls? Why the Warren Buffetts of the world focus on the long-term rather than the short-term?

Are we telling stakeholders that all of this is mere lip service? Do we want to build our communications architecture like a house of cards?

Consider smartphone advertising, public relations and marketing. Just this sector is full of (depending on your opinion and metrics) winners, winners who became losers, organizational wrestling with public perception of privacy issues, the rapid pace of technological change, intense competition, shrinking margins, hype, hubris and successes that are hard to maintain.

Looking for a bullet-proof suit? It exists in best practice. The structure that sustains is the structure than can be built on.

Privacy, hacktivists and change giving birth to change

What of privacy? How much are people willing to give away? With social media, many of us are more visible, willingly, but there’s still constant debate about what amount of social media exposure is healthy. We do that regarding television, and electronics generally, too.

Hacktivists seem to be playing a major role in our public perception of networks, our personal, societal and corporate treatment of information.

Doubtless, security plays in the minds of our publics even as they increasingly give more of their information away. Security issues could impact dramatically on collaboration and information exchange, but innovation depends on such exchange.

Multiple security issues can change perception about services. New perceptions create new realities.

Many in the media and related professions and organizations are trying to appeal to their audiences. We could go on and on asking questions: The pace of change is making us move from what we are, are becoming and will be. It’s a never-ending cycle of change.

Change begets change.

Audiences and publics are undergoing ferocious transformation, and they will undergo all manner of metamorphoses as they absorb their new universes.

The portals are everywhere

In our hands. In our pockets. On our desks.

Portals. Everywhere.

Our world has become worlds. Some of us are spending as much time in virtual worlds as in real ones. Since the advent of screens and all their permutations, we’ve gained new devices offering  portable portals.

Some won’t care. Others will constantly jump on the “new”, but the reality is, sustainability of anything, idea, product, service, depends on growth. But what kind of growth?

Integration and ethics: The song that remains, sustains

Infographics work best in an integrated communications plan. They are a great tool when used wisely. Today, the way you reach out has to have a long-term focus. There may be short-term tactics, but they have to rationalize with a long-term vision. Content is everywhere, so, creators of content need to work together to move mountains.

Eventually, you have to bring people somewhere where they access deep, meaningful research or information. While short pieces are the rage for grabbing views, leading audiences to deep information increases credibility. That, in itself, is the message.

Fluff eventually blows away. Substance is permanent. A well-built foundation upholds a structure.

Unethical manipulation of public trust, of audiences, can only end badly. Look at the U.S. and world stock markets as an example. It’s only this year that retail investors have come back.  If people hold great and enduring mistrust against the stock markets, what will the impact be on innovation, societal development and wealth creation?

The great thing about asking questions is it can help you formulate long-term strategy. In a world where you want to be aware of weaknesses and threats against your organization, your society on a small and large scale, you have to focus on ways to create opportunity that resonate for the long-term. (This should be in our DNA. It’s the double helix of a virtual spiral.)

We’ve all heard pop songs that are one-hit wonders, but there are some songs that sustain us, and in turn, we sustain them.  Quality endures. We make sure of it.

In a world of change, where there are so many one-hit wonders, songs that remain sustain.

Image source: Flickr/Ted Kendell

Follow me on Twitter, by RSS or sign up to receive posts via email, top sidebar to the right.

Follow @JohnRondina

Want to contact me? Go here.

N.B.: When it comes to integrated communications, here are three excellent key messages:

canada digital in sync

creative-commons.png

This work and all work on this blog is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Images: Flickr, Daily Dividend.

eMarketer.com

Advertisements

Silos, silly season, social: Inflating or informing the target audience?

leave a comment »

Open, honest, sustainable communications in multiple universes

The target audience is expanding as fast as the digital universe.

In one and two posts, I touched on how the target audience is vast and how writing and strategizing for those audiences is changing.

Abandon good journalistic practices and you’re bound to upset someone: Even just stating an opinion.

What’s your strategy? How many groups do you want to appeal to?

Beware someone doesn’t put a new frame around the picture you’re trying to paint

But how will you stop them? Better yet, you shouldn’t be trying to stop them. You should be encouraging the discussion by representing your organization, company, etc., yet you have to consider that those voices are really allies. The target audiences that don’t agree with your philosophy aren’t enemies. They are the best feedback money can buy. Together, you’ll communicate better.

Listen. Learn. Offer your messages.

In a recent post, I blogged about how Kelly Heinrich reframed and tactically subverted Apple’s Siri ads to advance her own cause. Fair game. She’s speaking for her organization and about a tool she uses, and how she feels about what may have gone into that tool.

In the post-Facebook IPO era, best practices are more important than ever. When you read media that gush with nothing but too-good-to-be-true positives, you might wonder:

Now, what inspired this piece?

Don’t do the disservice of thinking of your target audience as if they were “sheeple”. They’re not.

Audiences are alternate and expanding universes in themselves. Ever-changing. Ever-moving. They are chaos-out-of-order and order-out-of-chaos. The ultimate shape shifters … and I mean this in a complimentary way.

When audiences start feeling suspicious about what they’re reading or hearing, damage ensues.

The iSky’s the limit

Right now, there is rampant speculation on how many iPhones Apple will sell first week despite a delay in availability. The avalanche of information is often highly speculative. There’s a fair share of Apple criticism going on, too — especially, at the time of writing, on Google+, much of it centring on innovation, litigation and old-fashioned satire.

The media’s full of talk. But there’s less talk about how many hedge fund managers are in and out of Apple stock and other variables. The momentum may continue. Then again, now that my dog has an iPhone, you have to wonder how many bones the market can bare.

Humour aside … (I have no dog).

When we are heavily vested in something, does it make our thought processes clearer? The momentum may continue.

But for how long? How many stories do you remember that never end? The markets can be a collection of short stories.  What everyone aspires to is the collection of stories, or the novel that can sustain the reader (investor, stakeholder).

Ask Warren Buffett. When it comes to long-term track records, long-term thinking and valuation, very few can trade demonstrated philosophies with Buffett.

More suprising? … Buffett wonders why more don’t live his own philosophy.

The short-term hype machine and the damage done

When you talk about the kind of hype Facebook and Apple (have) generate(ed) at times, you really have to think about the variety of audiences, how that hype might be interpreted in the future, how some audiences might take issue.

How some audiences might become active.

Amongst all the noise, are critics starting to look more interesting and is Apple itself looking less interesting?

When hype gets to a volume so loud that there’s barely room to hear all the different voices pushing positive news, some begin to wonder if the creative thought process has died. Never make a promise you can’t keep. The problem is, as hype sets in, sometimes those you wanted to recruit as influencers will make the promises you can’t keep for you.

Promise something to the digital universe and you better deliver.

Deal with the world the way it is, not the way you wish it was.

— John Chambers

Silos, silly season and social continued:

The hydra upon you: Hype and its dangers for public relations and marketing

Siri, What’s “sustainability”?

with 6 comments

“Man is the creator of change in this world.” — Steve Jobs

How will Apple speak to its growing audiences, sustainability issues and public perception?

Just sustain it

Define “change”.

Admit it.

Sometimes, you just scan the headlines, right? And they impact on you, right?

Take a look at this one:

Siri, Do You Use Slaves?

Would you want this headline related to your product? Even if you are the biggest company in the world by market cap — or maybe, especially because you are.

Heinrich’s headline (it’s a link) made very clever use of John Stewart and The Daily Show. As Apple’s market cap has grown, so has the target placed on its brand.

And why not? Didn’t Apple make its marketing focus Microsoft (the market cap leader at the time) for years? When you become the biggest company by market cap in history right now (see below article), you have to expect this.

(By the way, The Daily Show’s taken on Apple before.)

Heinrich understood how to reframe Apple advertising well. She used a guerrilla headline to attract attention to her cause.

Expanding. Digital. Universe. There are a lot of target audiences out there.

Apple’s stepped away from greening its brand. It’s supply chain has been held up as wanting.

It doesn’t matter if Apple’s competitors are using the same supply chain (some aren’t and others are paying a lot more attention to sustainability issues.) As concerns over its closed system, sustainability, patents, etc., increase regarding the Apple brand, it’s likely we’ll see more media stories, more anti-Apple posts, challenging, satirizing or taking a negative position on Apple.

Right now, it’s hype season. The iPhone 5’s coming out. Biggest market cap in history a few days ago — ok, so that wasn’t correct, but …

When you become the biggest corporation, you’d better consider the competitive threats. Big market cap means big target audiences. Audiences have opinions.

Remember BP? Remember “Beyond Petroleum”?

When BP CEO Tony Hayward began massive cost-cutting at BP, it’s focus on sustainability went out the window. What happened in 2010 with the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill will go down in history as one of the greatest of environmental disasters.

The disaster is now synonymous with the BP brand and a 50 per cent drop in stock price. It could have been avoided with proper risk mitigation. Sustainability leads to risk mitigation.

While Apple doesn’t face the same obvious dangers to its business that the oil industry does, it’s decision-making processes regarding sustainability may be moving in the same direction as BP. They’ve both spent a lot of time and resources in court.

Is innovation better done in the lab or in court?

Above image sent out on Twitter in response to Apple v. Samsung

iPhones have supply chain and waste issues, don’t they?

The big time: Siri, What’s “market cap”?

Audiences have opinions. Apple worked a philosophy that countered Microsoft’s, but Apple’s history isn’t going to fade away. It’s going to be subverted and used against the Apple brand. Apple doesn’t exist in a vacuum.

It’s made the big time.

Apple is awash in cash. It’s sheer size makes the company’s margins and business seem unsustainable. Doesn’t it make sense that Apple would move more toward sustainability? That it would want to improve its image from a sustainability/CSR perspective?

Isn’t that what leaders do?

Or do they litigate endlessly?

Sent by user on Twitter under #boycottApple

How does such litigation reflect on brand?

Apple has almost $117 billion in cash. Exactly the reason why people like John Stewart are taking on Apple. It’s not the “little guy”.

It’s a behemoth.

Like it or not, when you’re the biggest company in the world, stakeholders expect accountability. They expect a leader. Not just in innovation. Not just the “cool” of the product you’re creating.

But a leader in best practices, too. Across the board.

And “browning” your brand isn’t that cool. Especially when you spend cash litigating aggressively.

Stakeholders want what’s open and honest.

While Apple v. Samsung wasn’t related to Apple’s de-greening, it shows how aggressive audiences embrace issues and attack a brand accusing it of “brandwashing”.

What of a company’s own employees?

… organizations should maintain their commitments to
customers, the environment, human rights and
communities or risk significant decreases in
employees’ perceptions of their organization’s CSR
commitment …

Leaders?

Business leaders ranked the top three benefits of investing in or pursuing socially and environmentally responsible
practices as follows:

  • Positive organizational reputation;
  • Higher or sustained employee engagement; and
  • Eliminate/reduce impact on the environment.

Does momentum last forever for the largest company by market cap? Not usually.

Global research conducted by Hewitt revealed that organizations with high engagement generated total shareholder returns that were 29% above average.

Above quotations from:

CSR as a Driver of Employee Engagement — Hewitt

As Costco CFO Richard Galanti has said about CSR:

It’s not about applying to the ‘beauty contest’.

Sure it’s about great products and profits, but it’s also about a corporate vision of a sustainable future — a sticky, feel-good sensation that stands for something beyond profit. It’s about who you are as a corporate citizen. About what your vision is for humankind.

After all, isn’t “man the creator of change in this world”?

With great power comes great responsibility.

— Stan Lee (creator of Spiderman)

Related articles and links

Brave new reputation: What CEOs need to know

leave a comment »

The new boss sings the stakeholder electric

Reputation is turning into a harder asset in the highly digitized corporate world we find ourselves in. This trend will only increase as technology rockets us forward.

Do you know where your reputation is?

Companies need to think of themselves through their stakeholders. Clients, customers, employees, the general public, shareholders, strategic alliances — just some of the important relationships in a world of informational digital milliseconds.

Just as corporations depend on consumers to buy their products, companies depend on customers to consume their brand.

After they’ve digested that brand, what do they feel, think and say?

In You’ve got to do something about your reputation: Why CEOs need to pay attention to reputation management, I looked at reputation.

Let’s dig deeper.

Fombrun, business leaders and reputation management

What are reputations worth?

Plenty.

Fombrun outlines three ways reputation adds value.

  • First, “reputation affects operating performance” resulting in increased profits
  • Second, “profitability affects market perceptions of the company’s future prospects – and so, increases demand for the company’s shares.”
  • Third, “the company’s operating activities … contribute to building ‘reputational capital’”

The shadow knows

In fact, the shadow consumes. In traditional and digital ways, it contains, or will contain, everything about an organization.

The perception of that information will depend, largely, on how a corporation prioritizes reputation, Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), sustainability and related issues into its operational activities.

Fombrun says, “reputational capital” is a “shadow asset”, invisible but effective:

Intangible equity that humbly works behind the scenes in a company’s product brands or corporate brands — these days, often in zeroes and ones, expanding into the digital universe.

Bharawadj did a study of 125 manufacturing businesses. The study found “reputation and brand equity of the business … to be the best predictors of variation in business unit performance”.

Another study looked at a group of 435 companies rated in Fortune’s most admired companies. From 1984 to 1995, these organizations were better able “to sustain superior operating performance over time.” They were also better able “to improve operating performance over time.”

Bottom line? There are lessons to be learned from the financial crisis: Companies focused on sustainability outperformed peers by 15 per cent.

Fombrun provides substance for reputation building reputation. In effect, reputation gathers strength from itself.

So, the shadow is its own shadow asset.

Reputation. Stock price. Ownership.

In a study by Gregory on “brand power,” during extreme stock volatility from October 27-28, 1997, the research team discovered while all stocks fell on the 27th, the strongest brands regained almost all losses by the 28th.

A benign shadow supports brand

Less strong brands continued to founder. These brands did not have mighty reputations to deliver them from stock price purgatory.

While accountants feel operational activities like public relations, corporate philanthropy and advertising are best treated as direct business costs, Fombrun makes a thought-provoking point:

… it’s certainly ironic that accountants have been so conservative in their treatment of all reputation-building activities yet so willing to facilitate the capitalization of unearned income that enabled Enron, WorldCom and Xerox to claim inflated returns for so long …

In a post-Enron world, wise public relations practitioners and business leaders might note that brand-building and reputation-building sound concrete compared to the manufacturing of imaginary returns.

There is a difference between the invisible and the imaginary.

The financial value of reputation

Hanging a shadow on a signpost (or shadow valuation)

What if you could hang your company’s name out on a signpost and lease it?

Interbrand did just that. In 2002, at sales of $20 billion, assuming a higher royalty rate of 14 per cent (a royalty rate of 8-14 per cent of projected sales is common), Coca-Cola could realize a potential (royalty) rate on their brand of $2.4 billion.

Over 20 years, the Interbrand research team estimated this value of the Coke brand to be worth $69.9 billion.

Today, Coke is digital, social, focused on sowing reputational seeds in a new world of information.

Deep within its brand is everything stakeholders perceive Coke to be. Coke’s shadow delivers reputational capital.

If $70 billion doesn’t catch a CEO’s attention, what will? The shadow is changing rapidly. Move with the shadow or be outcast.

The figure isn’t perfect, but it reveals reputation has financial value despite its unseen nature.

Catch RQ during bull: The Shadow Quotient

Maybe the most valuable jewel in the cache of information Fombrun reveals is the development of the Reputation Quotient (RQ).

RQ focus groups revealed why people have high regard for some companies. They felt emotional appeal, products and services, financial performance, vision and leadership, workplace environment and social responsibility were the most important qualities affecting RQ.

Fombrun points out:

“Being well regarded is closely associated with a company’s earnings, liquidity, cash flow and growth — it’s operating results. Consumer ratings are therefore tied to familiar indicators that a company is well-managed.”

But being well-regarded pays off more in bull markets when the company’s stock price is on the rise than it does in bear markets when the opposite is true.

Companies gain when their stock price increases.

Spend some time with Fame and Fortune. Extrapolate Fombrun’s ideas to this new, digital paradigm. Demystify the unknown, difficult to measure, world of corporate reputation.

Reputation is in the cyber-ether. It permeates corporate space and the expanding online universe of stakeholder perception.

Any CEO who does not understand how reputation affects the bottom line, will, after reading Fombrun.

Business leaders and their companies will also benefit when they understand how to make exceptional reputations a reality in this brave new digital world.

Keystrokes? Swipes? Maybe simply gestures. Your brand and your repuation’s out there.

What is it saying?

Social media for dummies: The Twitterforce

with 2 comments

Still in doubt about the nascent power of social media?

I don’t think Chris Dodd is.

After the firestorm unleashed when Dodd made his MPAA statement, after Twitter’s tweet reckoning, it’s hard to ignore the explosive immediacy of social tools. This digital wave moves like a tsunami.

Woe unto he (or she) who doesn’t understand its potential.

Behold the social media army at work

You can watch it come at you, too late. Dodd and the MPAA did. Helpless, MPAA brass could only blink as Twitter users reloaded and fired off salvo after salvo, millions of tweets into a universe that decided Dodd’s language ignored too much, and that the freedoms associated with the Internet were sacred cows worth fighting for.

If you’ve followed this story, does any of the MPAA’s messaging resonate with you? Where’s the conversation demonstrating the validity of the MPAA’s opinion?

If good research defending the MPAA’s cause exists, why don’t we know about it? The anti-SOPA forces got their message out in a timely, effective way, and the conversation they initiated was believable and became important to stakeholders within minutes.

The MPAA’s press is more about its “blunderstatement” in a very new year than it is about persuading, informing or influencing.

And what of some of the important stakeholders that were ignored?

SOPA is dead. Long live SOPA.

SOPA may have expired through the ire of digital revolutionaries who know how to get their message heard, but there’s sure to be a Son of SOPA. Dear MPAA: Take greater stock of all stakeholders and address audiences in their own language instead of insulting stakeholders with a confused, paternal rant.

I mean, “corporate pawns”? Really?

Who came out looking unfocused and ill-prepared, hanging on a pseudo-“fight the power” statement? The MPAA was playing in the court of the digitized, where “alternate” and “alternative” are fairly normal lifestyles.

Did the MPAA consider the different levels of its audience at all? Did it forget about secondary or tertiary audiences?

It was the old world meeting the new world. No contest. The MPAA scolded everyone. It looked like the representative of a defunct business model. Not good.

Was Dodd trying to prove critics of the entertainment industry correct?

Writers have been criticizing entertainment industry decisions since Napster rose like Godzilla from the sea. Did no one at the MPAA consider that their statement might blast through cyberspace reinforcing what critics have been saying about the old business model?

The MPAA obviously didn’t know the extent of or the attitudes of a large segment of its audience. That audience just reacted with one, big techno-slap.

2.4 million tweets in a day. That’s a big chunk of your target audience to miss.

As they used to say in the Batman episodes:

Zowie!

TwitterForce: The ability to send a salvo of millions of messages in the space of a day. Quite a message.

We live in interesting times.

Don’t touch that dial!

%d bloggers like this: