As many news-based organization are now weighing if, or how much, to charge for access to their content, I have seen a recent example of how NOT to make the transition.

I think that most everyone is aware that the media mogul Rupert Murdoch had said a few months ago that he plans on charging for access to his content.  He owns a lot of stuff, and will be, I think, a trendsetter in the 20-year struggle of how to make money from online news.  The advertising model has clearly failed and he is trying to figure out a way to make money by charging for content.

He can do it.  He’s got lots and lots of news properties.

On the other hand, Jack O’Dwyer runs “O’Dwyer PR,” which provides rankings for global public relations firms based upon revenue.  His site also offers  other things like links to blogs and a section for job seekers.

To cut to the chase,  Mr. O’Dwyer recently created a new fee structure for agencies, aside from the $295 per subscription that he was charging:

“The firms we have made this demand to are firms with $2M to $25M and more in fees that give us minimal business.”

So essentially, he set up a fee structure – the more revenues you have, the more you pay.  In fairness, this is how many trade associations operate, the principle being that the more money you make, the bigger stake you have in the industry.  Not so much here.

BUT –  if you are considering charging more, the last thing that you want to do is to take your battle public and get into a pissing match with a client.  Oops.  He did.

Waggner Edstrom dropped their subscription, stating, on their Panorama blog:

Jack O’Dwyer, publisher of O’Dwyer’s annual list of PR agencies, recently made it clear that he will begin charging participants a fee to be included. We at Waggener Edstrom have decided that this arrangement does not support our business objectives. While we have participated in prior years, O’Dwyer’s list has not had a measurable impact on our business efforts for some time.

We are, however, taking part in other industry rankings that do not require payment, and which have proven to deliver as good, or better, results for our business. But because of our decision, O’Dwyer has singled us out for declining to advertise.

In his blog, O’Dwyer regularly calls on agencies to support trade media. The reality is that we do support the industry.

We have advertised with other publications such as PR Week, and we will continue to sponsor events that offer a thoughtful dialogue on emerging industry topics. We are also a member of the Council of PR Firms — another organization that O’Dwyer has taken to task for not financially supporting his business to the extent he deems sufficient.

Ouch.

One would think that a quiet “it’s been nice, but we aren’t going to do business anymore email” would have been more effective.  But Jack apparently didn’t get the memo, responding to Waggener Edstrom:

“Waggener Edstrom, with $119 million in revenues in 2008, 843 employees, and No. 2 on our rankings, has only one web/NL sub at $295. It refuses to pony up a nickel more.

We just don’t fit into their “marketing plan,” a marketing executive told us. Several other large ranked firms have the same attitude.

So we’re booting Wagged and the others off the rankings. They’re not “PR” firms.

Rather than having any sense of community, they only have a sense of what’s in it for them. They don’t like independent media that can challenge them. They don’t live up to the term, “public.”

Why are we forbidden reading material at Wagged? What are they afraid of? PR people should not be afraid of news and information about their own industry.”

I could go on and on at my astonishment of how a veteran of public relations could handle the impact of the loss $590 a year by going public with an online temper tantrum, “booting” them from your list and risking alienating many other large firms, but I am not in the business of providing crisis communications counsel – unless you hire me.

Lists and organizations like this are, in my opinion, a dying breed.  Before unilaterally deciding upon a price increase, no matter how modest, I would advise Mr. O’Dwyer to consult something called “The Laffer Curve.”  This economic model became popular in the Reagan Administration and its basic premise is that there are diminishing returns beyond a certain point of taxation.  If you tax individuals and corporation at 90 percent, you will actually bring in LESS revenue to the government because people will intentionally produce less and businesses will have less money to spend on things like hiring new employees.

It’s the same basic thing here.  If you charge more — and call out a former ally, it is likely that your revenues may actually DECREASE.  Especially if it is handled in this manner.

Mr. O’Dwyer:  here’s some free advice.  If you have a time machine, hop in it, go back and figure out how much more revenue you will gain from your new model and compare it to the firms that you will lose by publicly calling out a firm in what looks to me an act of petulance and desperation.

And for the love of God, as someone who has built a business on developing good relationships with public relations firms (I find irony in the use of “public relations”), don’t get into an online pissing match with a well-regarded $119 million-dollar firm — and risk alienating other firms – over a measly $590.

Take it offline and stop shouting down everyone who disagrees with you.

Mr. O’Dwyer – you are no Rupert Murdoch.

Mark

I have been mulling over this post for some time, but yesterday, crystallized it finally in my mind.  I think there are many who believe that if you are on Twitter, Facebook or [insert social media tool here] that somehow, you live in your Mom’s basement with the curtains drawn and screech like a ferret when someone introduces light into the room. Not true. I am lucky to have integrated social media into my life.  In so many ways.

So I have compiled a list below of how social media, in one form or another, has impacted my life.  Sorry for the long, post, but if you get tired of reading it, you can always click here to read about SEC Interim Temporary Final Rules.

You’re back?  Good. Here’s my list:

Friends Whom I Have Not Yet Met

Ike Pigott really got me thinking a couple of weeks ago when he CALLED me.  How about that?  As usual, Ike is smart and funny, but he has this great idea.  How about, once in a while, we take the online world over to Ma Bell and call each other?  Ike, as usual, you are dead on, so you highlight this list.

Matthew, who, despite being a Yankee fan, you are an ok guy – and responded to a then desperate blog post from me about recurring pneumonia with sound advice about taking some herbal medication.  And in that year or so, I may have had one cold.  What a difference.

Thanks Jonathan, for the wonderful comment you made on my blog last year about my children. Thanks. Julia, you noticed my posts and offered immediately to donate to my little girl’s campaign to raise money for the children of Haiti.  We share a lot in common on parenting, and I can’t wait to meet you one of these years. Tim, we’ve done a Media Bullseye Radio Roundtable together and tweeted, but your posts and tweets and both funny and insightful.  I love reading your stuff. Neville, I feel like I already know you and am certain that in 2010, we’ll finally get to meet in person.  And I am grateful for the opportunity to be whom David Wescott calls “FIR Boy.”  And Shel, in my mind, you literally wrote the book on online public relations and I am so grateful to be part of the FIR community.

Kami, we too have done a Media Bullseye Radio Roundtable together, I feel like I know you and am 100% sure that you are going to kick ass in your new venture with Geoff.

And speaking of Geoff, I can’t leave out our recent Twitter conversation about the fun night you, me, Larissa, Mark and Shel had, celebrating his birthday.  And Mark – it was so awesome catching up between speeches at the PRSA event yesterday.

Friends I Have Met Because of Social Media

Jason, you top this list.  Not only are you smart as hell, you are funny as hell and I am lucky to call you a friend.  So I’ll start with a “BlogWorldExpo 2009 list” and mention how much fun I had connecting with Shauna, Tac, Eric, Shannon, Ed, Jen and many, many others last October.  I think that it was a contact high just meeting each other. I was in the speaker ready room with Guy Kawasaki, for Christ’s sake.  And as I was doing the Garth and Wayne “I’m Not Worthy,” Brian Solis took a few moments to chat – and was funny and down to earth. And Dave – I’ll be getting that speaker proposal in soon.  2009 was one hell of a good time.

Kate, you too are special, not only for the “Keep Austin Weird” person you are, but also for the kindness you displayed when you responded to my daughter’s Haiti drive -and emailed her.

And special shout-out to Doug, who is not only funny and smart, but did the Pan Mass Bike Challenge to raise money for the Dana Farber Institute – and mailed me (old school) a handwritten thank you for my little donation.

Eric – meeting you last week was a blast.  And I am beyond psyched to be working on stuff in the future.

You are a real friend. Shonali, although we are geographically close, we don’t get together enough.  That needs to change in 2010 as well.  You are smart, funny and one hell of a networker.

Academic Mentions

Robert, you have set the academic social media standard for others to follow.  But what is so clear is that you care enough about your students to push them to have REAL LIFE experience with it.  To dare to try while they learn.  PROpenMic is brilliant and I constantly see you pushing for job opportunities for your students.  As an instructor myself, I can tell you that that particular part of teaching is not in your job description;  it’s in your character. Barbara, I am dying to meet you via Skype video or however I can learn more about what you teach.  And (Robert, too) count me in for a guest appearance at computer screen near you.

Really Special Academic Mentions

This is for my Georgetown peeps.  Not only was teaching seriously one of the greatest joys in my life, the fact that so many of you have kept in touch me with me, asking advice (educational of life advice) is just plain flattering – and humbling.  And as we have transitioned from professor/student to friends, I am so grateful to know you, Lill, Megan, Anne, Kristen, Shannon, Jessica, Claudia, Mike, Sunaina, Georgi, Raquel, Laura, Sherice, Jolie, Joe, Shilpika, Alma, Tarun, Anca, Aimee, Becky, Catherine, and Josie (please move back – mid term elections are soon – heh).  A couple of you have moved out of the country since you finished, but still keep in touch,  It means a lot.  And what was even more meaningful was watching several of you walk across that stage and get your diplomas.  I was like a proud pappa.  And I know that I suck because I know that I have left someone out completely by mistake, but that’s why they have the “edit” button on blog posts.  And yes, I could have died a happy man after that picture.

People From the Past

Most of this comes from former employers (I have a lot of them).  I firmly believe that if you are real friends, the friendship transcends the term of employment.  So David, I have watched you go from an agency newbie to someone who has completely mastered the art of social media – and regularly kicks my ass in the stuff you write.  Hillary, I will never forget that you were there for me when my mom was dying. Never.  Same for you, Maura, Jess and Layle.  Spencer, it’s great that I still get to see you from time to time.   I love reading about your life, too, Oona.  Jaselle – I miss our completely off-colour (with a nod to the British spelling) jokes and still remember our pub night out in London (BC for you;  Before Children).   All of you remind me of the times when APCO was a FAMILY – not a soulless corporation.

Cheryl, you and I are polar opposites in just about everything in life, but still good friends. And that is so awesome.  Monica, I so love that we can still keep in touch – and now that you have climbed the corporate ladder of success, you have not forgotten this little person.  And since it’s just the two of us reading this, how about getting me a corporate gig in Miami?  Winter sucks.

And Tom – we pretty much started in the whole “Internet thing” together in the late 90’s.  Fun times, those.  And yes, it was randomly generated.

What Got Me Hooked

Chip, the friendship that we developed over the years and has grown was the spark that helped ignite my passion for social media.  And Jen, it’s been zillion years since I last saw you, but I have loved working with you on articles or podcasts and you always have smart and funny things to say either on my blog or my Facebook page.  And you are real friend – a Prince says “ruff” to Ralph.  Sarah, we both suck for never meeting face-to-face now that we live 10 miles apart.  I would really like to correct that in 2010 as well.

And thank you to Lourdes and Laurie for finding me after all those years.

This post is too long, but, for a long time, I have been thinking that when I tweet something like “I’m sick,” or “at the vet,” or “today blows,” I will, at some point hear from one of my social media/online/offline friends.  And I have never really said “thank you,” because when I get that little Facebook message back, or that tweet saying “What’s going on?” it makes all of the difference in the world.

Thanks, social media.

Mark

P.S. – As a demonstration of my thankfulness and devotion, I got carpal tunnel syndrome inserting all of these links.

P.P.S. – For those of you who know my, um “irascible” personality, NO this post does not mean that I am dying and this is my epitaph.

P.P.P.S. – There are so many outbound links in this post that I fear that I will disappear from Google all together, bleeding links.  Linkey love, anyone?

It’s rare that something catches my attention and holds it for longer than three seconds, but I was no less than stunned at the backlash yesterday when Steve Jobs rolled out Apple’s latest creation, the iPad.

Holy crap, Batman.

The #1 trending topic on Twitter yesterday was NOT the iPad, but #iTampon.  Several women reacted with comments like “This shows that no women were involved in naming the device.”

My thinking?  Lighten up.

The San Francisco Chronicle ran an article this morning entitled  “Apple iPad tablet called iTampon on Twitter; women tweet, “and the author, Zennie Abraham, commented, somewhat indignantly:

And the vast majority of tweets referencing the iTampon are issued or retweeted by women. And adding Apple’s self-inflicted insult to that injury is the Apple iPad video itself, presented by three white male Apple senior level employees and including no women, and one very provocative segment where a man is using the iPad, where it’s placed between his legs and at his crouch, and the woman points to a feature on the iPad right near his crouch.”

Oh, where to start.

1. In the last sentence, the word is “crotch,” not “crouch.”  If we are going to go all ballistic (gasp!  Did I mean “balls?”) on the male species, at least spell that part of our anatomy correctly.
2. The vast majority of responses were tweeted or retweeted by women.  Really?  Perhaps I am not up on Twitter, but where is the box where you check your gender?  And what aggregator enables someone to tally this magic number?
3. It was presented by three white males. Guess what?  Perhaps — just perhaps — these were individuals who were closely involved in the creation of the damn thing.
4. And a woman pointing to a man’s “crouch?” Oh, the horrors.  Pretty soon, they’ll go back and move Lucy and Rick’s beds together in the old “I Love Lucy” shows.  And if you think THIS is provocative, walk through the grocery store with your children today and see how many times the word “orgasm” is listed in soft-core porn magazine like Cosmopolitan.

So here’s the Alpha Male perspective (and yes, I am ready for the inevitable flaming):

1. I don’t remember there being an uproar when IBM rolled out the “trackball.”  There were not men with the online equivalent of torches and pitchforks protesting the completely offensive, intentional and unjust allusion to the male anatomy.  And women actually TOUCH THESE?
2. Where is the outrage on mattress pads?  Men and women lie on these things together — and gasp — sometimes take their clothes off!
3. Women wore shoulder pads in the 80’s.  Oh, the outrage!  Are all of these women now headed back to the closet, burning their shoulder pads?

Conclusion:

Ladies, I don’t want to hear any more about menstruation than  you want to hear about us getting kicked in the balls, jock itch, or any other affliction which is unique to the male species. And in the midst of the greatest economic collapse — maybe now a double dip recession, wars on two fronts and Obama bin Laden’s ugly mug showing up on a TV screen near you more than Conan O’Brien, THIS is something to get worked up about?

So maybe — just maybe — everyone can put down their torches and pitchforks and think for a moment this very important thought:

Before the whole “Internet” thing, we had this handy-dandy little device called a PAD — OF PAPER.  And we wrote on it.  And we read it.

Lighten up people.

Mark

P.S. – I have linked to the image from the SF Chronicle article.  Click on it.  At the end of the image name, you’ll see “apple-ipad-phalic.jpg.”  Hello pot? Kettle here.

For those of you who follow sports and even for those of you who don’t, you may have seen the story that Washington Wizards guard Gilbert Arenas has been ” suspended indefinitely” for bringing four handguns to his locker at the Washington, D.C. Verizon Center — as well as allegedly leaving a threatening note for a teammate telling him to “pick one.”

Oh – and to further taint what the NBA would like to be a squeaky-clean image, the dispute with teammate Javaris Crittendon (who allegedly also brandished a LOADED handgun) was over gambling debts.  Nice.  And there’s the oh-too-cute picture of Arenas making a bang-bang gesture is the Wizards team huddle.  Nice.

Until recently, Arenas was literally a poster-boy for the NBA.  He had a blog on NBA.com (gone) as well as his own Twitter account (gonzo as well), which apparently helped him get into hot water.

ABC News, in an article entitled “Did the Twitter ramblings of Washington Wizards’ star point guard Gilbert Arenas cause him to be suspended indefinitely by the NBA?” stated:

It’s certainly starting to look that way and now the hoop star may regret using the social networking tool to speak his mind about the recent off-court incident that has him in hot water.

Clueless

I live and work in Washington, DC, and while quirky and immature, it seems that the NBA and the Washington Wizards have tolerated Arenas’ social media forays — and profited from them as well.  If you tweet and gain hundreds of thousands of followers, you gain more popularity and you — and the NBA — benefit from it. Financially, dude.  More shirts, more hats, more $$$.

Until you say something they don’t like after you do something stupid.  After the story broke, Arenas tweeted:

“i wake up this morning and seen i was the new JOHN WAYNE..lmao media is too funny,”

Peter Vescey of the New York Post broke the gun story.  Arenas then tweeted:

“As for the reporter who broke the story – NY post should eject Peter V FROM WRITNG EVERY AGAIN,”

Hmm.  Seems like Ol’ Gil doesn’t get it.

Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project said that Twitter and other Web sites are a blessing and a curse for professional athletes:

“They have a new way to engage the public, their fans, and new ways to show a playful side of themselves…a way for them to bond even more deeply with their fans. But things that might seem private or more intimate, playful or spontaneous, appealing in one context, all of a sudden when they’re tweeted out to a wide audience, could take on a different context.”

You’re off the mark, Lee.  Tweeting something to a wide audience is not “taking on a different context.”  That statement is like saying that you have been misquoted in your own autobiography.  Plus, it’s hard to be taken out of context in 140 characters.

Double Standard

If the NBA wants their marketable athletes to tweet, let them tweet.  But don’t express horror when they say something that you don’t like, or say something that makes them look dumber than a bag of rocks (hello, handlers).  Moreover, you can’t he “half pregnant” – either let the athletes use Twitter when and how they want or not at all.  ABC notes:

Under the new social media policy, athletes cannot tweet during game time, which includes the 45 minutes before a game starts, half-time and the period after a game that is traditionally used for press conferences and media interviews. Violators can be fined by the league and face additional sanctions by their team. The NFL has similar restrictions on the time periods when players may not use social media.

My point is this:  the NBA WANTS their athletes to find ways to market themselves.  It furthers their reach, their audience and their brand.  The NBA WANTS people like Gilbert Arenas to blog on their platform.  And I tweet all the time at work, in restaurants, wherever.  And it rarely distracts me from what I get paid to do.

Here are some screen shots below that show how the NBA is either a little sloppy or a little clueless:

Gilbert is listed under “NBA Player Blogs.”  Ok.  Cool.  Let me click some more:

“Agent Zero Blog File.”  Wow.  You mean the NBA could have suspended him indefinitely and left his blog up?  Wait — it’s moved:

Doh!

I think that Gilbert Arenas is yet another example of a man-child, pampered athlete whose exploits may have never seen the light of day, save for some investigative reporting by the New York Post. I think that the NBA was happy to have a man-child, pampered athlete use social media — as evidence by the fact that they HOSTED A BLOG FOR HIM.  So presumably, they were ok with him tweeting.

But Gilbert did something irrevocably stupid and then made it worse using his Twitter account.  That was shut down.  Gilbert was no longer a squeaky-clean poster boy, so the NBA shut down his blog (note to Webmaster – “page not found” is stupid and sloppy.  Just link to David Stern’s statement, dammit).

Man-child Tweeting?  Good.  Man-child blogging?  It’s all good, baby.

Idiot bringing four handguns to his workplace over gambling debt and then blaming others?  David Stern to Gilbert: you are SO outta here, baby.

My final point is that when Gilbert was finally facing his indefinite suspension and grand jury investigation, if you let him blog while he was the poster boy, why not let him blog when he is apologizing all over the place?  And why not let him do it on NBA.com?  That would demonstrate openness, transparency and prove that social media is not only ok, it can be a pretty good crisis communications tool.

But you can’t have it both ways, Mr. Stern.

Mark

I am steamed like I have not been steamed in a long time. I learned of this story while listening to the latest edition for “For Immediate Release,” but an article in Ad Age states,

“The Huffington Post has started offering marketers the ability to inject their own paid comments among reader comments and place paid Tweets among the live Twitter feeds the site assembles around news subjects and events.”

That’s right.  It appears that they want to parlay their 70 million monthly visitors into an opportunity to “double their revenue stream,” a stated goal.  Moreover, the Ad Age article quotes Ian Schafer, CEO of interactive agency Deep Focus as saying:

In theory, there’s more upside in doing it that way than in buying a banner ad. With those the default behavior is to ignore them. With this the default behavior may be to pay attention.”

So, Ian.  It’s better to deceive readers than to put an ad where people will know it’s paid ad? Nice.

WTF?

Let’s face it.  The Huffington Post leans pretty far to the left, which, as demonstrated by their popularity, clearly resonates with readers.  But there so many things wrong with this that I don’t know where to begin.  It’s at best, stupid, and at worst, deceptive.

Reason #1: Paid editorial content gone awry.

In the olden days, we called this paid media.  Sure, if you picked up a newspaper and saw a paid editorial that had the same typeface and font as the article surrounding it, you could figure out that it was paid.  Oh – and it was clearly marked as an advertisement, not an opinion endorsed by the paper.

Greg Coleman, HuffPo’s Chief Revenue Officer (note the title) states:

“An advertiser sponsoring a Twitter subject page around the World Series might interject with relevant baseball statistics — just to earn a little good will and brand halo, he suggested. Or a health-care company sponsoring a Twitter page around health-care policy might post a paid Tweet ‘to bring to fore the facts’ but in a neutral way.“

Greg, you are either being disingenuous or you are an idiot.  What pharma company is going to PAY for “neutral facts?”  I can’t imagine a person in a marketing capacity for a company saying “Hey boss, I have a great idea for how we can put out our information — and pay for it — but that waters down our point of view.”  That’s a steaming load of bullshit that I am not swallowing.

Reason #2: Leaders should set the pace.

There was justifiable annoyance and even outrage when the FTC announced that bloggers would need to begin to disclose paid relationships on their blogs.  I blogged about this before, stating that I sincerely wish that the FTC had better things to do than to mandate common sense, but what precedent does this set when one of the leading news sites on the Web is now blurring the lines between content, marketing and public relations?  Bad, bad, bad.

Reason #3: Hypocrisy, plain and simple.

HuffPo built its name and considerable audience by leaning left, and often attacking essentially any corporation or entity that they view as overly greedy or disingenuous.  If you want to taint an opponent, put the word “big” in front of the industry.  “Big oil.”  “Big tobacco.”  “Big pharma.”  Read:  it’s wrong to make obscene profits when the little guy suffers.

Get ready to spit out your coffee.  HuffPo does not compensate its bloggers.  The Wall Street Journal noted:

“The initiative is already generating discussion, not surprisingly, on Twitter, where some users wondered if the extra revenue would go toward compensating the site’s unpaid bloggers.”

So HuffPo is not paying their bloggers while attacking:

• “Big Oil”:  MoveOn v. “Big Oil” McCain: Spend Our $39 Billion on Clean Energy
• “Big Pharma”: White House Confirms: Deal With Big Pharma Bars Price Negotiations
• Capitalism: “Will Obama Reboot Capitalism Anew?“

Go ahead and read these articles — they describe corporate  greed and deception, profiting while the little guy gets the shaft.

So if you:

• Blur the line for “paid tweets” as part of your revenue goal to double your profit this year;
• Do so in a way that is highly suspect and disingenuous;
• Do not compensate your bloggers, presumably the “little guys”; and
• Still rail against “BIG [INSERT INDUSTRY HERE]?

it’s ok?  Just so long as the rules apply to others and NOT YOU?

Remember what happened when the Washington Post, in a fit of stupidity and greed,

“…intended to sell sponsorships to lobbyists, corporations and industry associations for dinners at Ms. Weymouth’s [the paper's publisher]  home, attended by Mr. Brauchli [the executive editor] and journalists covering the evening’s topic, along with government officials.”???  Pay for play in journalism.

They got busted.  Hard.

At what point does the HuffPo become “Big Online?”

Shame on you, Arianna Huffington.  You and your editors have wrapped yourself in the cloth of journalism while practicing the worst form of deception and hypocrisy.

Shame on you.

Mark