Healthy Blog Reviews

We all know it goes on. Sometimes it’s disclosed, other times not. Sometimes it’s black and white, other times it’s more of a gray area. What am I talking about? Paid blog posts. According to  Fleishman-Hillard’s 2010 Digital Influence Index ( pdf ), consumers are wising up to paid/sponsored blogs posts–and they don’t like them! If you’re given a free sample, only 24% of your readers will trust you to be unbiased. Paid to write a review, that trust drops to 19%. Still, in both cases, there’s this big area of indecision (61% and 54% respectively). Of course, it’s one thing to say that you wouldn’t trust a sponsored blog post, but what about in reality? Factors that need to be considered in the real world include: Do you generally like and trust the blogger in question? Do you want to buy the product anyway–so need little persuasion? How was the disclosure handled? How relevant is the product to the normal content of the blog? All of these would effect the scores above, but at the very least, you have been warned that your readers don’t embrace sponsored posts as much as you’d like them to! Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Tags: digital, disclosure, know-it-goes, other-times, posts-as-much, product, readers, Research, shot-2010-07-02, Times, world-include
Posted July 2, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media

YouTube has chalked one up for the distribution channel of videos. The Google Blog says it best so I’m going to let them say it: Today, the court granted our motion for summary judgment in Viacom’s lawsuit with YouTube. This means that the court has decided that YouTube is protected by the safe harbor of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) against claims of copyright infringement. The decision follows established judicial consensus that online services like YouTube are protected when they work cooperatively with copyright holders to help them manage their rights online. The key to this entire argument and result is that YouTube worked cooperatively. They didn’t pirate anything, per se. Copyrighted material that was on YouTube was taken down as pointed out by the Judge in the case. The Washington Post reports “When they (YouTube) received specific notice that a particular item infringed a copyright, they swiftly removed it,” Judge Louis Stanton, of the U.S. District Court of the Southern District Court of New York wrote in his summary judgement order released Wednesday. “It is uncontroverted that all the clips in suit are off the YouTube website, most having been removed in response to DMCA takedown notices.” Those actions protected Google from liability for copyright violations, the judge said. This ruling was of interest to others who filed friend-of-the-court briefs in favor of YouTube’s position. Among these ‘friends’ were Facebook, Yahoo and IAC/Interactive. It’s pretty obvious why they needed a YouTube victory here. Of course, Viacom disagrees and will appeal. They feel that the ruling is not honoring the spirit of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. Oh well for now. Others on the outside think that this is a fair agreement. Public Knowledge, a public advocacy group, said the decision strikes a good balance for content and Web services companies. “The burden to point out allegations of infringement is with the content provider, and the burden of taking down material lies with the service provider,” said Sherwin Siy, deputy legal director of Public Knowledge. “Had Viacom won this case, that burden would have shifted dramatically. As the law now stands, prompt compliance with take-down notices shields an online service provider from liability.” Looks like this could all lead to the advent of a new cottage industry, OVM, otherwise known as online video monitoring / management. Hey Andy, do you have a solution for that?

Tags: court, digital, distribution, dmca, facebook, knowledge, rights, southern, summary, video, Yahoo, YouTube
Posted June 23, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media

This post is about sports and marketing. I say that so you non-sports types can bail if you like but I suggest you stick around just from a marketer’s point of view. Sports are one of those things. As a marketer you don’t have to be a fan but you have to understand how it reaches people and how people (prospects and customers) respond to marketing messages related to a true passion. If you don’t get involved then you may be missing out on some potentially lucrative market segments who might hear your message only if it’s attached to their passion for sports. How else can you explain the decision by an insurance company like Aon to spend $30 million a year over the next four years to sponsor the Manchester United football (soccer to us Americans) team? According to the CMO of Aon, Phil Clement, Man U claims some 333 million fans worldwide. You gotta figure that somewhere in that group is a prospective client, right? What better way to put your brand on the map than to put it on the jersey of the most well-known sports team on the planet? So you get the point. While sports marketing has been around forever it has been evolving along with the rest of marketing and has gotten to the point of being much more than just a billboard in a stadium. One of the biggest proponents of this change is Pat Coyle of Coyle Media. I have interviewed Pat in the past here at Marketing Pilgrim . He has worked with the Indianapolis Colts to develop MyColts.net and much more. He has also created the Sports Marketing 2.0 group which is a community of sports marketing professionals and those looking to learn more about this important marketing option. Now here’s the special offer for Marketing Pilgrim readers. On June 16th in New York City the Sports Marketing 2.0 VIP Summit – NORTHEAST will take place. It’s a half-day event with lunch, dinner and cocktails included that will examine many facets of the sports marketing world. Presenters include: Williams Flaiz – Vice President, Global Solutions, Razorfish Kyle Laughlin , Head of Sports & Games, Yahoo! Sports Kirsten Corio , Senior Director, Team Marketing & Business Operations, NBA Lisa Valentino , VP Digital Sales, ESPN Herbie Calves , Vice President of Marketing, Timex Scott Richman , SVP & GM, MSG Interactive The offer is a 50% discount off the regular fee for the event. Register for the Sports Marketing 2.0 VIP Summit in New York City now . Use the discount code: pilgrim (lower case) to save 50%! Meet and network with some of the biggest influencers in this influential segment of the digital marketing world. I know I am looking forward to the experience. Oh, one final note . There is absolutely NO monetary arrangement between MP and Coyle Media. We just happen to think this is a cool thing and could be very beneficial to some of our readers.

Tags: biggest, digital, games, Indianapolis, Manchester, president, senior-director, sports, sports-marketing, williams-flaiz, Yahoo
Posted June 5, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media

While I realize that many of our readers are not sports fans (your reactions to some of my sports themed posts in the past are a clear giveaway on that front) I feel it is important to share with you that ESPN is joining the social gaming fray. Why is it important? As far as brands go, ESPN is one of the strongest ones on the planet. You don’t have to watch SportsCenter to know what ESPN does. It’s just one of those that things that can either make people react with excitement or a full roll of the eyes. Either way, ESPN is a business and everyone knows about it. So why would a brand that is cemented in the American psyche turn to producing games for social networks like Facebook and others? I suspect it’s because they are smart. Mashable reports The sports brand has inked a two-year deal with social gaming company Playdom to build the games, the first two of which should launch in Fall 2010. Other platforms for the games will include Bebo, Hi5, MySpace and Tagged. In addition to launching on social networks, mobile apps will also be available. Raphael Poplock is ESPN Digital Media’s VP for games and revenue strategy and development. He said today in a statement, “Our deal with Playdom marks ESPN’s first major presence into the social gaming space. The sports genre for this category of games has gone virtually untapped thus far, and through this agreement, we have an opportunity to be in front of a highly engaged audience and at the forefront of what is currently the fastest growing games category out there.” Face it. Sports nuts are, well, nuts. They eat, drink and poop this stuff so why not take that to the next level and get them even more involved? Sports games on Facebook pretty much ensures that there will be no real exercise happening for the sports themed couch potato. Now ESPN can have mindshare not only on TV, radio and print but in social media as well. Of course, convincing these folks that they actually are athletes by playing a game online is enough to make an advertiser giddy with promotional ideas. Personally, I am not a big game person. That’s just me. But one thing I will say is that if these sports games are any good at all I will be in there trying them out because it’s something that interests me. I still don’t get the idea of virtual farming being a good use of time but considering the money it is generating I just have to say more power to ya, Zynga! When you find a way to tap into someone’s real passions you have a social winner. Sports people are passionate. You see where this is going? For marketers this is a clear signal that you should not be resting on your branding laurels. ESPN really doesn’t need to do anything else to lock down its brand. That has been done over the past 30 years. They are savvy enough, however, to make sure they are getting involved in where the foreseeable future is for all brands in the social networking world we now live in. The point is that all brands regardless of your recognition or lack of it need to be growing and moving in the rapidly changing online landscape. Even ESPN is susceptible to letting a competitor in if they simply choose to not get involved because they are ‘set’ as a brand. Ask the newspaper industry how that attitude has served them. Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

Tags: digital, digital-media, ESPN, facebook, games, money, past, platforms, Raphael Poplock, recognition, Social, Social Media, sports
Posted May 19, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media

During a third quarter earnings call for News Corp. yesterday, the content paywall’s number one proponent, Rupert Murdoch, gave some fuzzy “details” about the new way he suspects people will be buying their information. Murdoch has had the loudest rallying cry when it comes to fighting the “Internet is free” mantra. Along the way he has taken on Google as well, saying that they are the ones who truly profit from all the content creators’ hard work (especially News Corp.’s). The LA Times reports News Corp. Chairman Rupert Murdoch said the company planned to hold a press conference “in three to four weeks” to announce details of a new subscription model for news and other digital content. People with knowledge of the situation said that Murdoch is poised to announce details of plans to form a consortium that would charge for news distributed online and on portable devices. News Corp. executives met with publishers last summer to discuss joining forces to collect fees from readers who access stories via the Internet or their gadgets. “Today, we’re in final discussions with a number of publishers, device makers and technology companies and soon we’ll deliver an innovative subscription model that will deliver content to consumers whenever, wherever they want it,” Murdoch said Tuesday, during News Corp.’s third-quarter earnings call. Admittedly I am more than a little curious. I do find it kind of humorous that Mr. Murdoch touts an “innovative subscription model”. Right now, they are all innovative since the idea of widespread “pay for content” options don’t really exist. In fact, most “models” that have been rolled out thus far have fizzled. Just ask New York Newsday how many people are willing to pay for their news . What appears to be truly innovative is that News Corp. seems to have gathered a group of content producers who are going to be making a run at this together. Under the proposal, diverse news organizations would contribute stories and videos to a website that could be accessed by those who pay subscription fees. The participants would each be compensated on a pro-rated basis, determined by the amount of content they contribute to the site. Now that does sound different for sure but how it would look or how it would work is certainly up for debate. News Corp. would be using it’s Wall Street Journal technical expertise to run the deal. No doubt Murdoch is a successful businessman and his brash nature has served him well in the past. How his cocksure attitude translates into the online space will have many people taking a close look to see if he still has it or if this whole paywall mantra makes it apparent that he has “jumped the shark”. We always ask your opinion as to whether this model will get any traction, so we’ll do it again. Let’s look at it a little differently though. If you have one or two sources that you truly depend on or even just enjoy immensely, and they start charging for content would dismiss the idea out of hand or go along for the ride? What is your tolerance for how much you would pay if any at all? Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

Tags: content, corp-chairman, digital, marketing, news, online, opinion, Rupert Murdoch, street, street-journal, taken-on-google
Posted May 5, 2010 by cgseo under Social Media