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.)

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. :)