Tuesday, October 30, 2007

It's a Shame

Seriously, is PR going to learn?

I posted a long post - some called it a rant, others didn't like it, but I view it as a wake-up call because I do care about my profession. It's about passion, and I rather have passion than become so beaten down to have no passion about anything.

So, I get to wake up today and read a long list of email addresses from Chris Anderson, he of Wired and The Long Tail. Chris had his own Howard Beale moment - he's mad as hell and not going to take it anymore - and I don't blame him. I receive the same bad pitches all the time - and from some of the same PR firms. Is Chris right in calling out the firms and people - I think he is. There's enough education that people should know better, and we all have media databases. It's laziness versus strategic.

Here's a fun little hint for PR people pitching me: I write on PR. That's about it. I rarely care about P2P music networks, or sunglasses, or social networks. I do care about how they are changing PR, and what is being done that is so different. But, rarely the products themselves.

Now, Anderson's post comes after Marshall Kirkpatrick tried to school PR people on the good, the bad and the ugly. Even in the comments, though, people missed the point on PR and transparency and tried to hide. It's not right - sorry for getting on my high horse.

The fact is that education is missing. Now, there are professors and classes that are trying to get it right. Look at Auburn and Robert French. Look at UGA with Karen Russell and Kaye Sweetser. I spent time today with Kaye's undergrads, answering questions. Why? Because it's about education and helping the next generation of students. I love my little Tigers that I have had the benefit of working with at Auburn, and have worked and helped out a bunch of other college students. Do I get anything out of this - yes, I keep my finger on the pulse of campuses, so I can put together college campaigns, but I also get to balance out some karma (the second if probably more important for me). And, yes, there is value for my company as the students learn about what I am doing, and give me feedback that is very helpful for me and the company.

And, well, it's about relationships. I take these seriously, and I got burnt once because I was promised information that was not delivered. The "lead the horse to water" mindset in PR is not going to work anymore. You cannot burn your relationships because a client does not deliver in a media briefing - it hurts the client, and ruins the relationship. And, at the end of the day, that's what is left for a PR person: good, working relationships. These people don't have those anymore with Chris Anderson.

So, here's my thought - here's my education presentation. I have been updating it and fine-tuning it for the past three years, since I began presenting to companies:




For another take, from a beloved blogger, read Ryan Block's take on it. He suffers a lot - I'm sure - but he still knows that it's a two-way street for bloggers and reporters and PR people.

Other takes from the PR blogosphere:

Thursday, October 25, 2007

PR will lose Social Media to Advertising Because of Sex

Okay, not necessarily sex - but advertising does know how to make mundane things sexy.

And, at times, social media can be mundane. And, advertising (and marketing) understands how to sex-up the mundane.

So, after putting together this post, mulling it over in my mind since, I've come to some conclusions. Since Widgetcon - where although I was pretty much ready to vomit at how I viewed the advertising and marketing firms treat the community (as, well, commodity) - I did see that advertising (and marketing) would win the fight for social media.

Let me lay out the argument.

First, I am looking at this as someone that just came from a large firm in a multinational conglomerate that owns advertising and marketing firms. I'm also a poor sap that bought the stock when I first worked there under the employee stock purchase plan (hey, it was a good idea then!).

The reality is that the holding companies do not care who gets the cash. It's money in pocket and bottom line, and if advertising can get bigger bucks for campaigns, it's better to go to advertising.

I've heard quotes of $X millions for a YouTube campaign. That's just for a professional shoot, etc - because, you know, it's all professional and slick on YouTube. But, the clients eat up those numbers because they expect that from advertising, and, well, advertising knows how to sell itself. Unlike PR. Oh, and that cost includes nothing on outreach - it's just production. Take a minute and think of all the bad campaigns that advertising has done in social media ... but dayum, it's slick!!

And, well, look at the past. The Web sites should have been a PR vehicle - it's communications - but we lost it to marketing. Why? Because Web sites became a vehicle for selling - only. Messaging and communications rate, at best, a distance second (after)thought.

How many corporate sites make sense, and tell the story of the company? Barely any. Why? It's because PR ignored the power of the Web early on. Now, all that marketing / advertising has to chime in with is that they already execute on the Web with the corporate site ... and they will win that sales war (and still have crappy execution, as a whole).

In social media, advertising has that Midas touch, except it turns almost everything to shit. Plus that seat at the C-suite table helps them out ... while we're stuck in the lobby, pacing like hired help.

What can PR do to win - because at the end of the day, we need to win or social media will be ruined (and we'll be blamed).

Here's my bullet-pointed plan to save PR, have a statue put up for me in New York, and be remembered like Howard Rubenstein as a mensch.
  • Education programs - too many large firms have no real education programs, and have AAEs up to SAEs emailing social media all willy-nilly.
    • If you are a large or mid-sized PR firm, and you have no education program, you are a sham and joke. There's no nice way to put it, sorry. You simply suck as a firm and are doing a disservice both to the firm and your clients. End-of-story.
    • And, education needs to be quarterly, required for everyone, and done consistently. There is no real reason to have a specialized team in social media, because they will be cut out and likely have neither the knowledge or understanding of products and clients across the network. Education for all, so all get social media, and social media can then be smartly integrated into campaigns.
    • If you are a mid-sized, small or boutique firm, and you are looking for help in an education program, I can help (do it myself in Chicago) or recommend PR and social media practitioners throughout the country, including David Parmet, Heath Row, Constantin Basturea in NYC, Marshall Kirkpatrick in Portland, Teresa Valdez Klein in Seattle, Shel Holtz in the Bay Area. And there are others in the EU like Neville Hobson, Stuart Bruce, Allan Jenkins. And, go read Jeremiah Owyang's blog - and, yes, for a most part these people are independent PR practitioners or social media specialists, so there's no hard-sell. Heck, if you're in-house PR, bring someone in that won't sell, but will talk.
  • It's a community - have the teams understand that this is not PR anymore, but it's community relations.
    • The best analogy is an article about a local bar in Chicago ... think of social networks and communities as a local bar. Would you walk in there, no intro and no relationships, and start spouting off like Cliff Claven? Um, no - you'd be beaten severely ... like we see all the time when PR people are exposed ... thanks Marshall Kirkpatrick.
    • Hats off to Edelman and it's recent campaign from BlogHer for Kraft Cheese. The email I got noted I met them at BlogHer, and is working on being part of a community in a fun way. At BlogHer, Edelman had 10+ people networking, meeting, engaging ... unlike another male PR person that sucked up but did not discuss (no, that wasn't me - I gots chops at BlogHer for actually participating). Compare that to a flat advertising campaign on BlogHer - one that lacks creativity - and you will see a lack of understanding of community and engaging community.
    • The flip-side is that there are some that position themselves as community specialists ... but have nothing to back it up, nor can go beyond one community. If I'm at BlogHer, and I see these people not mingling and speaking to others at the event ... those are not community-minded people, but rather people that will talk a lot ... and only do what matters for their own personal goals.
  • It's about PR - sorry, social media is part of the PR mix, but a new look at it. If you are being lead by an interactive group, best of luck. You're being led by a team that does not understand the principles of public relations, or, well, client relationships.
    • In an agency-setting for social media, your clients are both the internal teams and the clients themselves, and it is about messaging.
    • If you cannot push back - and, well, interactive teams seem just to be able to build a Web page or two - then you are doing a disservice to the client and the agency.
    • Then again, interactive should be ordered around by a PR / social media team to build what needs to be built: Facebook apps, widgets, a micro-site ... whatever is needed for the real campaign work.
  • REAL social media teams need to be in the pitch - not a bullshit page or two in a presentation, but a seat at the table during the pitch and AFTER the pitch.
    • None of this "there's no money" when programs are sold in, and then the money is kept for one team only.
    • No half-assed sell-ins to clients, since the pitch teams just know buzz words and do not understand it.
  • Do not force the staff into blogging (or Twittering or Facebooking or MySpacing, or SecondLifing...)
    • I too often see junior staff jump into blogging not for the purity of it (thanks Jeremiah for calling me a purist at Forrester Consumer Forum) but because they see dollar signs and promotions. Those are just Clavens - they are going to be sniffed out as fakers and posers, and not really part of the community.
    • I often meet senior staff that go into blogging because they think they need to be there ... but have no real interest in being part of the conversation, but were told by higher-ups that they needed to "get it."
    • On the flip side, if there are not a few people that are engaged, you stil are a bunch of posers. No, you cannot force people to be involved, but they have to want to be involved. I do this stuff because I like to blog, I like technology - heck, I wrote a post about it already.
    • Don't allow junior staff to be know-it-alls. I've seen it a few times already in the blogosphere, and clients will sniff them out as detrimental to the account when their "counsel" falls flat. Sorry, but you need the PR experience to fully get the social media implications that follow.
  • Social media is not media relations - it is about PR (where the P is public).
    • If you have a specialized online media team ... they are treating it like media relations. It's not. It's community relations (yes, I am repeating myself, but it's an important distinction).
    • It's about community. To paraphrase James Carville, it's the community, stoopid.
  • Listen. Like Talib Kweli says - listen, for some reason no one listens anymore. For some reason, PR has forgotten how to listen. If we listen, we'll learn our clients want from us, and we'll learn from both junior and senior staff.
Large agencies are still standing, and there are people in most of them that get social media as a new skill set. It is not a replacement to other skills - but a complementary skill that is needed. Unfortunately, there are skills that are just as ignored in PR right now ... such as the simple ability of phone pitching, or writing, or providing counsel and handling a crisis. These are all skills that a good PR person should have, and include social media in there now (as the line is becoming blurred with traditional media and influence). It's why I never wanted to be characterized as a blog specialist: I'm a PR generalist that has a wide array of different skill-sets.

The reality is that it does not matter if PR, advertising and social media are all marketing communications - what matters is who is going to get control of social media, and make it right for clients and the agencies. In my view, it should be public relations because social media is very public and socially oriented. You cannot just pop in there and try to be part of the community, to never return again.

If you want to know which agencies are doing it well, well, there are a lot of them. MWW, Voce, Edelman, MS&L and others ... and there are agencies that are talking about getting it, but it's a talk and no real walk.

Will social media stay with PR, or is it going to be another marketing communications discipline? I do not know - I just know that there are some things that social media needs to have for it to be transparent, honest and community-oriented. If PR jumped the gun a little earlier, there wouldn't be these specialized social media practices popping up, and we would have the advantage on advertising and marketing.

Funnily enough, I thought I was being vague in this post - someone told me as subtle as a freakin' Mack Truck. Yes, the post is about my sentence at Weber Shandwick and Screengrab.

Monday, October 22, 2007

Reputation - Both Corporate and Personal

It has been an interesting week - a few blog posts out there attacking others, a nice article on online reputation that was syndicated from the Seattle Times, and a phone call via Facebook asking me about ... defending your reputation because of blogs.

Let's start at the attacks - famously on TechCrunch some guy named Ronald is using Justin.tv's software to lifecast his ... well, so-called life. That's fine. I've worn the hat, I've done the Jeremy.tv shtick with Justin's hat ... and while I would not do it fulltime, I can appreciate the performance art aspect of it, and think Justin's done a great job with the shtick.


Jeremy Pepper.tv
Originally uploaded by b_d_solis.

Ronald, though, got into a little (forced) tiff at the movie theater. He wanted to wear his cap and lifecast from the movies ... and boy, wouldn't the MPAA love that. He tried to explain what lifecasting is - and, since I've seen Justin explain it, I do know that it's sometimes a trick to people. When Bryanna politely told Ronald no ... he called her a bitch.

Fine. I look at it as typical Detroit self-esteem issues (I know, I was born in that former city). It's his right to call her a bitch and be unhappy with her treatment of him and his art ... but what was the purpose of using Bryanna's full name? To Google Juice her so that the first thing that comes up is someone calling her a fucking bitch? Um, great.

And, well, it shows a lack of honesty and respect to the "practice" of lifecasting. Anyone that blogs knows that if you have a big enough audience, and use a not "internet famous" person's name ... you will own that name on Google. It just shows a lack of respect or humanity ... but what about Bryanna now? Her name is fully linked to that video, and unless she begins blogging or uses a system like ReputationDefender ... her name will forever be attached to that While Ronald is going to apologize to her (hey, it's another chance to do a video!), is that going to show up in Google as well? There is a certain bit of responsibility social media has ... and instances like this show a lack of understanding of the esprit de corps of social media. Game over because a simple lack of respect or humanity has not hurt someone else's online reputation.

Now, here's a flip side. You're a young, brash blogger and you're taking on the world! You're young, you're hip ... you're the cat's meow. And, all these social media PR people - quite a few that have earned their stripes because of projects that they have done, and clients they have worked on - well, they're old farts that can never understand social media like the young buck you are because you're that MySpace / Facebook generation.

No, serious. Read about it on David Parmet's blog - and love well, the attitude.

And, that's fine. I love a little bit of 'tude as much as the next person. But, when you are representing a wire service - oh, like Marketwire - does it really behoove you (or the company) to insult and alienate a large group of PR practitioners? You know, I am in the market for a wire service right now, and I have my choices of PR Newswire, Businesswire and PR Web ... but Marketwire is not on that list.

Yes, here's an example of one person's action resulting in potentially hurting the employer; we can write this off as the impetuousness of youth. We can also point to a fun PC Magazine example ... and write that off as a naked emperor incident. Either way, though, the action of employees hurts the corporate parent. Those are just two quickie examples, but the bloggers can (and likely will) steal Google Juice that should be going to the original source. What can corporations do to protect themselves? Well, simple social media and blogging policies should help ... but not necessarily do enough. Employees can co-opt a corporations identity and brand, and make it their own. And, while that might sound nice in a social media aspect, we should rather have our brands co-opted by our customers, not the employees.

But, at the end of the day - it is about your own reputation. What do you do if you are a high-level employee at a corporation, and when you leave, the message trolls come out and come attacking? Soon, those results are the top results for your name.

Or, on another, more basic level - it does not even have to be leaving a job or starting a new job - schools are so wired, and people are so networked through networks like Facebook and MySpace, Facebook is searchable via Google (unless you opted-out, which I did) that your reputation is formed both through your own content and what others think of you ... and knowing human nature, that's not necessarily a good thing.

Photo by Brian Solis

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 13, 2007

The myopia of the Valley

Robert Scoble just rips apart the NewTeeVee conference as missing the boat. And, while he might have a few points on his list of 40 ... he forgets the audience, those that are going to come to the conference.

Is the audience for this conference the more advanced veterans, or is it for the new audiences (and, well, corporations) that are trying to figure out (still) what to do in all this new media, including the NewTeeVee world?

The post, in essence, was written for the Valley bloggers and vidcasters, but not the rest of the country. This past week was the Forrest Consumer Forum in Chicago - almost every new media person should have been there (including PR firms and advertising firms) and see what is understood and what is not understood by companies that are trying to get social and new media. If you want a better take, check out the Forrester Blog for the conference, Jeremiah Owyang' blog, what the blogosphere said, or even my posts - it showcases what is and is not clicking out there, and how companies are and are not getting it, but still trying.

We can sometimes forget that when we are in the Valley (or, well, why I am in Chicago right now, and looking beyond the Valley community to others).

For me, the NewTeeVee conference schedule looks great. When I was at a firm, I'd recommend it to clients that are trying to get a handle on what is going on out there, as well as clients that tangentially touch upon online video.

But, before we rush off to commend a company like Kyte.tv - a UGC channel that speaks very little to me, as I primarily love my television programming. And, before the Valley goes nuts over that one ... read your own Twitters on Heroes or Battlestar Gallactica or any other hot show right now. We can all pretend to be too cool for old media ... but are still there for certain instances of appointment television.

And, that's what we need to remember in the Bay - those cheesy flyover states have a lot of power and a lot of pull. And, they are the hardcore communities we are trying to reach and get to use our stuff.

Friday, October 12, 2007

Forrester Forum: Ze Frank kicks Philip Kaplan while Jeremy Allaire watches and Shar VonBoskirk panics

A panel on the changing face of media, albeit a lot of old sounding theories and practices. But, you have to love Ze Frank for his show, Philip Kaplan for shaking up the industry with Fucked Company and potentially with Spottt, and Jeremy Allaire pushing the video against the grain of YouTube and for professionalism with Brightcove.

Kaplan: there are no more networks anymore, we are all our own networks. It is causing a problem with the large brands - such as MTV - because content is available

Ze Frank: Media is anything you can advertise against or put a brand against. Anything is media. The challenge is that there is a fragmentation that is causing confusion. There are conversations, media online is a conversational tool with more capital.

Allaire: The behavior of media is as valuable as media itself. It is about how to monetize media, or just the metadata. It can sometimes be more valuable than just the content itself.

Ze Frank: There are boundaries in where companies can operate. There is so much media out there, and there are boundaries that they can work within the community. Media is the relationship, it is social capital.

Kaplan: Your customer is your competitor - you have to be ready to recognized that the customer is going to put out her own views, that might conflict with the companies messages.

Kaplan: People don't complain about ads in magazines, in their Vogues. If you have a cool ad, put it in people's faces - they'll like cool things.

Allaire: Advertising and marketing has been so slow to move into interactive, social media forms. A pharmaceutical company had put together a video from various patients on what the drug had done for them. For the patient, it can be valuable and see the interaction.

Ze Frank: Simplicity is the key - the direct relation to your brand and product, that is the best starting point. There is the flash, but it is about simple interaction with your product. There is a lot of value of having the data, experiencing the data.

Kaplan: You have to throw everything at the wall, if you are a media company, and just try everything and anything. You cannot risk sitting back, because the media is going to be developed - by the customers and consumers and audiences.

Ze Frank: Brands are the big winners, and provide the context.

*****

It's interesting - I look at what I wrote above, and what I listened to (and read from Chris Thilk on the Forrester Blog) and wonder if corporate America can move forward with social media. While the panelists do understand community, and being part of the community (in particular, Ze Frank with his show and Philip Kaplan with the group schadenfreude of Fucked Company from the dot-com era), I am not sure if that translates into how brands can get into social media.

To me, that is the key. How can brands work with communities, and work in such a way that it is working with them as people, not as a means to an end (yes, that philosophy background). Yesterday, Jeremiah Owyang (whom is doing great at Forrester, and invited me as media) noted that I am a purist when it comes to social media, that I want it to be pure. I like the communities I belong to - and I belong to a wide array of them, and really believe in treating them as people, as communities.

And, that's where many companies (and, well, PR firms) fail miserably. They want to message and advertise and brand and market - and not listen to the conversation. They just want to talk, and not listen, and not be creative and try to really be part of the conversation.

As you can tell, I'm telling part of the story here, and personalizing it. I believe in communities, in working in communities, and took the job at The Point to work in an environment where I can be part of these communities - be creative and smart and not using, but participating - which is where corporations and firms tend to fail. No creativity, no discussion or desire to be part of the dialogue, just messaging and old ideas (which do work, but do not work that well in social media).

Media is changing - as is the business of media, including PR and advertising and marketing. The smart people are there, and they understand that it is community-related and participation-oriented, and not just bad messaging in a one-way format.

Forrester Forum: MTV and I are not BFFs

The way that MTV looks at its audience is that they are BFFs, and with the understanding of that, that tastes change and that BFFs do have fall-outs. They recognize that not everyone is going to enjoy the shows, but they do want to have that relationship with their audiences.

While teens are "beyond televisions" as the single medium in their life. It's an important part of their life, and MTV has adapted to be more than just a channel. On the service, it is the bands that is the message for MTV. And, it is about integrating advertising messages in a new way, in a different way. It's a way for the advertisers to connect with their audience - it becomes a part of the show.

So, listening to MTV, all I can think is ... wait. This is just exploitive in a way marketing to people that are not mature enough to differentiate between content and advertising. It's taking advantage of kids that are not mentally mature enough to understand what they are seeing (because, let's be honest - the MTV audience is tweens, not teens.) It's a total lack of transparency, lack of caring of the community - and that is what the audience will eventually sniff out. Or, the fact that MTV is all about exploitation (Real World, Road Rules, The Hills, Super Sweet Sixteen ... and on and on and on.)

Thursday, October 11, 2007

Forrester Forum: Corporate Image in the Age of Social Technologies with Richard Edelman

Every company is a media company now - so sayeth Richard Edelman during his presentation.

Now, full disclosure, I used to work for a competitor, but also interviewed both Richard and the head of the US, Pam Talbot and have a view on the firm (it's below).

His presentation is on how PR is changing, and how we need to change with it. For those basic rules, he points out:
  • Transparency
  • Dialogue
  • Honesty
  • Immediacy
  • Depth of content
  • Updating as you learn
  • Journalistic level of accuracy
Okay, it has been an interesting speech. While I don't agree with all the hires for the ME2Revolution, Edelman (the man and the firm) has pushed the boundary much, much more than any other agency out there. During my round of interviews with both PR firms and start-ups, I was often asked which agencies get it, and I would say three firms immediately: Edelman, MWW and MS&L. While Edelman gets a lot of the press out there (it's the good stuff you don't hear about, just the Walmart crap), the people at MS&L and MWW have done great stuff.

And, well, when you do good work, it's in the background. You should not know about the campaigns (despite claims of transparency and full disclosure, a good campaign is integrated and smooth, and about getting information out to the right audiences).

The job of PR is to not control, but to help move the conversation (old news, wrote about it in the past via Jack O'Dwyer that we need to be the bridge for media, and not pulling the Heisman).

Embrace the issues, adopt to the new reality - it's about coming together and trust.

Forrester Forum: Social Networking and UGC in Today's Media Environment

From the Playboy perspective with Christie Hefner - that true brands represent attitude and a point of view, that can be moved from one product to another. It can play in different spaces.

It is about evolving and expanding the brand, as the media landscape has continued to change. Embrace and leverage new opportunities. How do you expand a brand that has gone into television, online, mobile - what is the next step for Playboy that will continue to expand and transform the publication.

Online is the democratization of content - the diminishing of authority has been the result, though.

It is becoming more dynamic, more interactive. The original fear was that online was going to devolve where people did not interact in the meat world anymore. For Playboy, though, it has been the opposite where they extend the brand online and in the real world with the sponsorships of events. It is about creating an experience around the brand with Playboy destinations - going for high tech and high touch, to continue to interact with customers.

Pick the places that seem obvious, safe and smart for the public to take possession of the brand. One such place is Playboy Island in Second Life - showcases what people want to do, what games to play, what apparel they want: it's a microcosm of a focus group, but in real-time and live.

A breakdown of the silos, a breakdown of the walls to become permeable to think of the experience of the brands, experience to marketers and experience to consumers. We will learn from our consumers, and user generated content is just going to strengthen the brand. It's a local / global mind-set, where you extend the brand into various technologies around the world, depending on how they are used worldwide.

Realization that PlayboyU was not a success, so listening to the community and embracing what they want in the community, as well as share with them the Playboy knowledge and understanding. It's a give and take with a discriminating demographic.

Forrester Conference: The Customers are Revolting

And, from History of the World Part I ... of course they are, they're ugly. (Rim Shot).

For corporations, the fear is that the consumers/customers are talking and not listening, but pushing their own agenda.

Corporations do believe that they are speaking to consumers - feedback forms, etc - but without realizing that they are just engaged in one-way dialogue, and not really listening to the customers.

Example one is CBS and Jericho: CBS was listening - at the beginning - to the fans. They had a CBS-based message board, and were working to augment and support the community. But, then the show was pulled off the air for the NCAA tourney, and then rescheduled against American Idol ... which killed the show.

Then came the nuts campaign - and CBS saw the real groundswell at work. CBS took the revolt, and turned into reform. It was no longer arm's length, but embracing the fans. The reformatted the home page, offering Widgets and a Wiki, and a production blog for behind-the-scene's view for the hardcore fans. It took a revolt and turned it into reform.

But, who are these people in the groundswell? It's not about technology, but how people participate. It's the ladder of participation - and it's not a full characterization because it is not static (the ladder) and people can cross various points of the ladder (you can blog on one topic, but just a reader on other topics).
  • Creators - they create blogs
  • Critics - posting on forums, comment on blogs, but not necessarily bloggers
  • Collectors - use RSS feeds, picking on Digg and tagging on Delicious, the list makers
  • Joiners - social networkers
  • Spectators - read blogs, listen podcasts, read forums
  • Inactives - aren't there yet, but might be there tomorrow - they are poised, and 2/3 have broadband and 50 percent are technology optimists
This is applicable to any group of consumers, and understand the participation of your customers and consumers.

So, how did one company turn the revolt into a reform? Targeted the Alpha Mom ($55K+ income, 1 child under 18, etc.)
  • Gave Mom's blogs and podcasts
  • Have wikis to share best practices
  • Social network to connect the Alpha Moms
Looked at the data first, though - POST (People, Objectives, Strategy, Technology). So engage the critics with reviews and ratings, serve spectators with social content, enable list making for the collectors and use profiles to give compelling context for discussions, not just connections.

Embrace the customer to turn back the revolt - turn revolt into reform. Share the power, and have the strength to tap into the revolutionary power.

Photos to be uploaded later. :)

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

Well, a video - it ain't a post, but it is something

And, a little bit of love to J Dilla and Stones Throw. RIP Jay Dee.


video

Update: Okay, J Dilla was too loud. In a nutshell, I left Weber Shandwick, I took a job at The Point, and I will be doing my longer post about leaning against windmills (or what it's like being on a Quixotic mission for a year and a half).