Monthly Archives: October 2012

Eating Rocks And Bark

Our Foodie Friday Fun this week revolves around rocks, bark, and dried flowers. You probably had all three for breakfast this morning. Seriously.  Salt is the only rock we humans eat on a regular basis (or on any other basis as far as I’m concerned). The bark we regularly eat is cinnamon – you might have sprinkled some on your oatmeal or cereal. The dried flowers are pepper – maybe on your eggs?

You just know there’s a business point lurking here, and you’re right.

What’s interesting about each of the aforementioned food items is that someone had to be the first to figure out that these seemingly unappetizing things were actually quite tasty and useful in the kitchen.  None of them, however, can be used “as is”.  Peppercorns (actually a fruit of a flowering vine) need to be dried.  Cinnamon needs to be transformed from tree bark into a dried and ground form.  Salt comes in dozens of types but is either extracted from the ground or from the sea.  I’m not sure who was the first to figure that out but it’s instructive.  All have been used by humans for millennia and maybe the ancients were smarter than we are in some ways.

Sometimes our first instincts when we see something or someone who doesn’t appear to be particularly useful is to move on.  Our ancestors couldn’t do that – food was not something you ran to the supermarket to get.  In many businesses today, resource availability is in many ways as challenging as food was for the ancients.  Everything they encountered was evaluated (I expect quite a few brave souls didn’t survive the “R&D” phase of new food discovery) before it was discarded.  In the cases of these three items, someone had to figure out how to transform them into something useful.  Maybe a dead animal or fish was preserved in a bath of seawater that dried.  Maybe someone saw an animal eating tree bark and tried some.

We need to have the same mentality in many ways.  Don’t dismiss anyone or anything out of hand.  Take some time to think about how they can be useful in another form or another position (I know a lot of ex-lawyers who are great salespeople and a few accountants who do wonders in marketing).  Rocks and bark may not seem like a great diet but thinking out of the box is at the root of a great business.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under food, Helpful Hints

Advertorials

If the internet has a downside, it’s that is has neither barriers to entry nor a filter.  Of course, that’s also part of what’s so good about it.  However, there is really no way to tell if what you’re reading is from a credible source that did research or if it’s just made up crap.  One way I think users can distinguish one from the other is by considering the source.  Legitimate news operations tend to have done their homework and there’s usually some sort of editorial control in place to assure that some writer’s fantasy doesn’t get put out there as fact.

That’s why I found the story in this morning’s Media Post so disturbing:

If there is a red line delineating the church and state of journalism, some big news publishers have just crossed it — introducing a spate of new “native” advertising formats that blur the line between advertising and editorial content in new ways, including brand-produced videos served directly in the news organizations’ video news players.

This is not a new phenomenon.  “Advertorials” have been around for a long time.  These are long-form ads written to appear as regular editorial and are designed to look like a legitimate and independent news story. It might be a TV piece that’s an “infomercial,” or as a segment on a talk show or variety show. In radio, it might be a discussion between the announcer and a brand representative.  The brand usually controls all of the content and there are subtile differences – a tiny “advertisement” written someplace – that make it hard for someone encountering the content to tell that it’s brand advocacy, not editorial.

I’m not a fan.  Obviously I’m a big fan of ad-supported media – I worked in it and sold it for decades.  I do think, however, that doing this in digital in particular is an issue since there is so much content out there and users’ expectations of editorial integrity as explained above are not met when the line is crossed.  It calls into question all of the legitimate reporting.  I get that people might ignore advertising but pay attention to this.  They need to know it’s not the same as other content.

The pressure for revenue can’t undermine the integrity of the news brand, and while it’s easy to rationalize including this sort of advertising, you’re ceding control to someone who may not meet the same sort of standards you set for your organization.  I don’t think that’s smart.

What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Reality checks, Thinking Aloud

Debating The Second Screen

Tonight is the first of several debates in the current campaign for president and I’m very much looking forward to it. These things are great theater even if they’re usually not particularly informative. I liken them to trade shows – no one ever makes any huge news at them unless they make a mistake. The big stuff is saved for an event one can completely orchestrate and the debates (or trade shows) don’t qualify.

I think, however, that these events might be a bit different this time around and it has nothing to do with the candidates themselves. They will not answer the question asked but instead will put out whatever talking point tested well. They generally won’t get too specific about anything and they’ll probably spend more time on things that have very little to do with solving the challenges that face the country and more to do with the loud nonsense that seems to surround our elections. One thing will be very different, however, and that may make all the difference.

85 percent of tablet owners use the device while watching TV, according to one study and Nielsen says 45 percent of Americans use their tablet while watching TV daily.  Throw in smartphone use and suddenly there is a majority of people conversing and fact-checking in real time during the debates.  In addition, one hopes that there will be sentiment analysis pushed out by the major firms in that field as we go.  I wonder if either campaign is smart enough to be monitoring that during the debate and if either candidate will be told to adjust anything during a break? It’s sort of the digital version of the positive/negative lines CNN usually runs based on a panel twisting dials.

Lincoln knew you can’t fool all of the people all of the time and given that there will be real-time fact checking happening concurrently tonight, I don’t think these guys will even be able to fool all of the people some of the time.  Another example of how technology has changed media and politics for the better?  I think so.  What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a comment

Filed under Thinking Aloud, What's Going On