« November 2005 | Main | January 2006 »
December 12, 2005
Is your Web content gregarious?
Back when I worked at a software company, the developers used to refer to “promiscuous code.” That meant the software code was very friendly with other programs. I like to think of content in a similar way, but let’s call it “gregarious.”
Ask your PR team or Web folks what they’re doing to make your Web content more gregarious toward search engines, blogs, news publications and others who would possibly spread the word-of-mouse about your company’s products, ideas and knowledge.
In addition to search engine optimization, one of the best ways to make your news, articles and other ideas more outgoing is by using a “feed.”
Public relations people understand news feeds: PRNewswire and BusinessWire feed their press releases to reporters who “subscribe” to the content and then pick and choose what releases they’re interested in using. Yet few of us are using the do-it-yourself feed technology that has grown up alongside blogs. Technologies like RSS and Atom allow bloggers, reporters and others to receive your content right from your blog, online newsroom or knowledge center, and plug it into their articles and entries.
This blog, for example, has a feed (see the RSS icon at the bottom of the home page). That way, someone with a blog reader (like Bloglines) can simply enter our URL into their blog reader and get our content delivered to them, without the risk of spam. (We also let people sign up in e-mail, if that’s their preferred method of delivery.)
Is it worth the effort? Considering the time and effort it takes to develop the content, you will want to leverage it for everything you can. Also, as IT folks continue to turn down the screws on what can get through their e-mail system, even those who have subscribed to your e-mail newsletter may not be receiving it. Adding a feed to your site takes a bit of coding, but it’s relatively straight forward and there are even authoring tools out there that make it doable for the Dreamweaver-dependent crowd.
Gregarious Web sites that radiate their content to the world will become the norm. We suggest getting into it now to stay a step ahead of your competition.
Posted by Bob Brin at 12:10 PM | Comments (0)
December 8, 2005
The New York Times blog memo
The New York Times is justifying to its newsroom why it has decided to create multiple blogs in a staff memo. The stake in the ground for the Times came in this line from the memo: “A blog is nothing more than a piece of technology.”
We can be literal about this interpretation, or take it in the spirit in which it seems it was intended. News is news, and increasingly, communicated in multiple ways through multiple venues and technologies. As the memo suggests, you take from blogs what you get.
Is the newspaper selling blogs short? What do you think?
Posted by Rich Sharp at 11:20 AM | Comments (0)
December 6, 2005
Hot Dish
We Midwesterners know a good hot dish when we see one. We also know a bad hot dish. Wikipedia, the free, online encyclopedia edited by all contributors, is somewhere in between. It’s good because there are nearly 1 million entries on just about any topic you can imagine. It’s also good because of its communal nature – you and I can contribute to the collective knowledge.
But when people take advantage of the collective (or are perceived to take advantage), all hell breaks loose, as it did over the past week with two separate issues.
Adam Curry, yes, that Adam Curry, he of the hair-band lid, vjay background and proclaimed Podfather, entered Wikipedia to edit the entry on podcasting. Immediately, some claimed he edited history. He claims he’s reporting his version of the truth.
A more egregious incident occurred this week when it was suggested in a Wikipedia entry that John Seigenthaler, Sr., former advisor to Robert Kennedy in the early 1960s, was involved in the assassinations of Kennedy and his brother, John F. Kennedy. Seigenthaler repudiated the claim in an op-ed piece in USA Today.
Because of these incidents, Wikipedia is requiring contributors to register, which, of course, won’t stop people from submitting erroneous entries. Wikipedia is based on a common trust among contributors.
I’ll still use Wikipedia. But, like any good journalist, I’ll double-check my information before it’s used.
BTW, as I submit this entry, Seigenthaler is being interviewed on NPR's "Talk of the Nation."
Posted by Rich Sharp at 11:19 AM | Comments (0)
December 1, 2005
TV a la carte
Are we being a bit demanding? The broadcast industry is upset that the FCC is pushing consumers toward a world where we choose what we want, when we want, where we want. Cable über alles feel it’s a violation of the First Amendment, among other things. First Amendment? Which part? Freedom of Religion? Assembly? Speech? Press? Redressed grievances? Baloney?
I thought of this issue as I installed a satellite radio unit in my father-in-law’s Buick (now there’s dichotomy for you). We listen to the kind of music we want, when we want it and where we want to listen to it. Yea! No more ****ing Journey!
We read news in the same fashion. Today, I caught the latest sports headlines from ESPN on my phone while stuck at a traffic light.
Consumers want freedom. As a consumer, I’d like all television – network and cable – to stop confining me to a grid. I don’t want the news at 10 p.m. I want it at 11:15 p.m. I want “The Office” at 9:30 p.m. on Thursday, not 8 p.m. Tuesday. And I don’t want anything from Fox. Period.
With few exceptions, the world of broadcast advertising depends on the grid. Price structures are built upon it. Revenue is generated through it. If networks and stations can’t tell advertisers that “Grey’s Anatomy” indexes high among women 25-39 on Sunday at 9 p.m., then how is Proctor & Gamble going to create a plan that sells feminine hygiene products in a :30 spot on the half hour? And how is the network going to price that :30 if it can’t tell an advertiser when the :30 will air (or if it ever will air if the viewer has TiVo and skips the ads)? You get the picture.
Don’t touch that dial. Next time, I’ll talk about what this means for PR practitioners. But hey – read it on your time, not mine. Enjoy the freedom.
Posted by Rich Sharp at 2:44 PM | Comments (0)
