Only 29% of Millennials See TV Sets as a Necessity

Especially on the heels of the annual Beloit College Mindset List, which is well-intentioned if largely out-of-touch in trying to track societal changes, I found this article from eMarketer (citing data from Pew Research Center) to be rather interesting.

Through two separate charts, the article conveys what people 18+ view as essential items ("car" topped the list; at bottom "flat screen TV" trailed things like "home computer" and "microwave"; most notable to me was that "landline phone" tops "mobile phone," 62% to 47%) and a bit more compellingly, the differences between Millennials (age 18-29) and Seniors (65+) in which electronics and services they consider necessities.

I'm not too shocked by the large disparities; they seem to fit common assumptions about the older and younger generations. More surprising to me are some of the actual numbers; it seems low that only 59% of Millennials see "Mobile Phone" as a necessity, while 46% of them still value landline phones (I'm well-beyond the demographic and get by just fine with only an iPhone).

And while I know that TV programming can now be watched on computers, cell phones, iPads, etc., I'm amazed that just 29% of Millennials think having a "TV Set" is a necessity and even that barely more than half of Seniors polled think so as well. Aren't they the generation Timothy Leary told to "Turn on, tune in..."? Guess they decided to "drop out" once Reality TV nonsense became the norm.

Latest "Mindset List" Seems Terribly Out of Touch

This week, Beloit College put out its annual Mindset List that supposedly gives insight into the worldview of the incoming class of 2014.

Although in the past, I've found the list to be rather intriguing, this year it seems pretty tame, even lame.

On my personal blog, Seth Saith, I wrote a long piece pointing out some of the list's flaws and providing my own list of factoids that I believe are a bit more compelling. As this certainly pertains to marketing, trends and the like, I thought I would share it here.

http://sethsaith.blogspot.com/2010/08/latest-mindset-list-seems-terribly-out.html

Recommended Viewing on Netflix

Back in May, I wrote and posted a piece about the success of Netflix and how I was enjoying their service, particularly the instant streaming movies, to the point of canceling all of my premium cable movie channels. The company recently announced very strong Q2 earnings, while Blockbuster Video continues to sink, but rather than revisiting the same old story, I am relaying some shrewd insight into one of Netflix' key methodologies, provided by a networking acquaintance with expertise in analytics.

Although most of my Netflix viewing selections have been either acclaimed/popular films I missed in theaters or those recommended through a Film Discussion Meetup I attend each month, one of the things that makes Netflix well-beloved by many is its recommendations based on one's past viewing habits and personal movie ratings.

As some have noted, Netflix can seem amazingly accurate in predicting what its users might like to watch and what they will enjoy. This prescience is no accident, nor is it merely based on suggesting movies with similar themes, directors or actors.

Recently, an associate of mine named Meta Brown, whose experience & expertise is in the field of analytics (and the marketing thereof), put together a very informative video about how Netflix offers up customized and largely on-target viewing selections to each of its millions of users. With her permission, I have posted Meta's video below and those interested are welcome to connect through her LinkedIn page or the contact information provided in the video itself.

And next time Netflix recommends you watch movies as seemingly disparate as Citizen Kane, National Lampoon's Vacation and The Blind Side, you'll at least have some idea as to why. 

125,000,000 Facebook Users Can't Be Wrong (at least not all of them)

I came across a few interesting stories and statistics about Facebook usage today.

The first, published by eMarketer, notes how people of different ages and ethnicities vary in their frequency of Facebook use. While it's not surprising to learn that people from 18-34 spend the most time on the site--in average number of hours per week and in the percentage on Facebook of total weekly time online--it was a bit eye opening to me that Facebook users over age 55 spend more than 4-1/2 hours per week on site.

The same article also reveals that of U.S. internet users, Asians spend the most time on Facebook, followed by Blacks, Whites and Hispanics, and that individuals with incomes over $100K spend the highest percentage of their total time online on Facebook.

A previous article by eMarketer showed statistics indicating that individuals who utilize Facebook most heavily are also tend to be those who spend the most money online. The top 20% of Facebook users spent an average of $67 in online shopping during the 1st quarter of 2010, while Internet users who did not visit Facebook at all bought significantly less online than average, spending only $27 during the quarter. 

I guess this is why everyone is trying to establish a marketing presence on Facebook, although I worry about the signal-to-noise ratio once it becomes commonplace for companies to send out commercial messages on Facebook. 

But as another article I saw today--this one by MarketingCharts.com--indicates, although Facebook usage was off a bit in June, both in the number of new users added and activity by the site's prime 18-44 demographic, there are now 125,000,000 active Facebook users in the United States--50% of whom log on in any given day. (The U.S. population is approximately 307 million people.) An estimated 400 million people worldwide are active Facebook users.

This is pretty staggering, and if indeed accurate, means that about 20% of the U.S. Population, across all ages, uses Facebook on a daily basis and almost 41% uses it regularly.

In recent months, there have been issues raised about Facebook's seemingly perpetually-changing privacy policy, which this Newsweek article by Daniel Lyons suggests is misguided and aimed to leverage user data for commercial profitability. There were stories about how people were threatening to stop using Facebook, but none of my 118 Friends dropped off and although I'm sure Facebook Chief Mark Zuckerberg and crew have noted the June decline, I don't think they have too much to worry about just yet.

An Uplifting Moment...and Metaphor

As I presume everyone knows by now, the United States won their World Cup game against Algeria in the closing minutes on Wednesday, earning the right to advance to the next round.

Up to that point, the US team that was predicted to get past the Group Stage was teetering on the brink of elimination and great disappointment, despite suffering no losses in their first two games and being tied in their third.

Adding to the sense of frustration was that midway through the match, the US seemingly scored a goal, which was disallowed because the scoring player was deemed offside. The announcers instantly stated--and a replay showed--that the call was erroneous, as seemingly was the one that took away the Americans chance to win their last game against Slovenia.

But after playing a scoreless tie through the 90 minutes of regulation, longtime US star Landon Donovan scored the game winner during "extra time" on a rebound goal. In an instant, the US went from utter dejection to winning the game and also topping their 4-team group (from which the top two teams advance, England being the other). 

As I am not currently working, I was able to watch the game and to see the US win it in that fashion really made me feel good. Not just because the US won--although I am a proud American, I'm really adverse to overt "USA! USA!" fanaticism--but because justice seemed to be served and perseverance paid off.

And, although perhaps this only holds up only in my head, the game seemed to be a metaphor for what I'm going through as a job seeker. I've been out of work, at least in terms of a full-time job, for over a year, and though I try to stay philosophical and realize that many people have things much worse than I do, it certainly can get frustrating.

After being laid off from a job in which I received nothing but high praise for the quality and impact of my work, I've had a really tough time enticing another employer to utilize my talents (as a copywriter, creative director, etc). And when I did recently land what was supposed to be a 4-month contract assignment, it was shelved after only two weeks.

So like the US soccer team, I'd imagine, I've felt a bit snakebit. But I'm continuing to stay positive and do the right things, and I've actually been getting some calls from staffing firms about possible assignments. We'll see what comes to fruition, but as Landon Donovan and the US team proved, if you keep pushing and don't give up, great things can happen.

It only takes a moment (as the song, from Hello Dolly, goes).

A Unique Way of Earning My Business

I don't know the first thing about auto repair and am about as far from "handy" as one can get.

Thus, I am always at the mercy of auto mechanics when it comes to keeping my car in running order, and pretty much wind up paying to fix whatever I'm told is needed, whether or not it could be done elsewhere for $500 less or not done at all without jeopardizing drive-ability or safety for another 30,000 miles.

As I have owned only 4 cars in my driving-age lifetime and have driven each for close to or well over 100,000 miles, I think I have done a pretty good job of keeping my cars maintained and don't feel that I've been too egregiously bilked by mechanics.

But as an auto repair idiot, it is often a bit uncomfortable taking my car in for service when it runs beyond the manufacturer's warranty. I realize that high-mileage vehicles will invariably need to have some work done, but per my level of comprehension, mechanics could literally speak Japanese to me, write down a dollar figure of any amount and, should I give a look of incredulity, add an exclamation mark to signify the importance that the repair be done right then and there--and I pretty much will say "go ahead."

Just last November, I paid about $1,600 to have my 2004 Dodge Stratus repaired, and I couldn't even tell you what was done. Anything under the hood beyond the engine, transmission and radiator is all a mass of confusion to me, where it seems that $20 parts require $1,000 in labor to replace.

Part of the problem is that I've never found one mechanic that I completely trust and depend on. Whether because I have moved, or have chosen the garage most convenient for getting repairs done during a workday, or have been (sometimes temporarily) convinced of the superiority of new car dealership service centers, I have tended to switch between Firestone repair centers, dealer mechanics and local gas station garages.

I cannot say that I know that any of these places has done me terribly wrong, but I am also not certain that they haven't.

Which brings me to a couple of unusual experiences of late at Wil-Ridge Auto Service in Evanston, IL. It is too soon to say that Wil-Ridge is completely phenomenal--though the few online reviews I've seen have been quite glowing--but I've been extremely impressed so far with what they haven't done.

The other day, I was alerted that my passenger-side brake light wasn't working. I'd never been to Wil-Ridge before, but they are close to where I currently live--and convenience to work isn't a consideration at the moment--so I called and they said bring it in.

I did, and although their parking lot was completely full, less than 20 minutes later, my car was ready and the cost was a whopping sum of $5.

"You're used to _____ Dodge prices," said John, the owner, when I looked amazed. And while I don't feel a need to specifically disparage the Dodge dealership I've recently been using for service, they had charged me $30 to replace a brake light.

So when John suggested that I should bring my car in one morning to have the exhaust checked because he was concerned with the way it sounded, I took him at his word.

This morning I took it in and although I should've gotten there earlier than the 8:15 the I did, within a half-hour, it was ready. No repair, no $100 fee just for checking it, only that I should listen for the exhaust getting louder, as that would signify an urgency for getting it fixed. But for now, it was drivable without worry.

John very easily could have said--as other mechanics would have--that I should get it fixed then and there. And while funds are tight, I would've pulled out my credit card and done it.

But when I asked him when it should be done, noting that I wasn't currently employed, he said that I should monitor it and come back when I could better afford the $560 it would cost. No scare tactics; in fact, if anything, his lack of "get the sale" urgency was a bit off-putting as I was unsure when I should plan to return.

Yes, I realize, the lack of tactics could be a tactic in itself. But I prefer to trust people, even auto mechanics, and seeing how I could've already paid $120 more than I did for what he'd done to date, and just about anything he asked today, I'll be happy to go back to him when the exhaust--and just about anything else--needs fixing.

In this day and age, when seemingly every business in the world is trying--albeit usually without much imagination--to get business through Facebook, Twitter and the magical, mystical world of social media, companies of all types can take a cue from Wil-Ridge Auto Service and realize that the best way to engender customer loyalty and good word-of-mouth--even via social media, such as this blog--is to just treat people decently.

Exceeding expectations is sometimes only a matter of doing what is unexpected.

Aon Aims To Increase Global Goals with Man U Sponsorship

I guess it was actually announced about a year ago, but a story just last week in the Chicago Tribune revealed to me that Chicago-based insurance giant Aon will replace disgraced insurance giant AIG as the primary sponsor of English soccer behemoth Manchester United.

Although the image above is just a rendering, created by Zoran and showcased on his Football Kits Design blog, the Aon logo will become the main imprint on Man U's uniform (or "kit" as per the Brits).

Although Man U won three English Premier League championships and one Champions League title in the four years of AIG's sponsorship, repercussions from revelations about AIG's derivatives trading--including its need for a $180 billion federal bailout--precluded the New York-based insurer from renewing its agreement.

After Manchester United--itself embroiled in a bit of controversy ever since American billionaire and Tampa Bay Buccaneers owner Malcolm Glazer bought the team in 2005--sent out a sales pitch to possible successors, Aon, led by CEO Greg Case, decided to pony up $80 million for the 4-year rights (the Tribune article says $80 million, but this Telegraph article from June 2009 says 80 million British Pounds, which today equals about $116 million).

If this isn't the largest soccer shirt deal ever, it's certainly well up there. Though it sure sounds like a lot of money in the midst of a recession, according to the Tribune's Greg Burns, Aon had both the money and incentive. "Having jettisoned low-margin underwriting for more profitable reinsurance, the company wants global clients to view it as a broad-based professional-services consultancy."

I won't pretend to know much about the global insurance industry, or English soccer for that matter, but it seems like a pretty good investment to me. Consider these factoids, from the Tribune article, the Telegraph article and an Aon website about the new partnership, which officially begins on June 1 although the new jersey won't debut until after the World Cup ends in July:

• Manchester United is the #1 brand in the #1 sport in the world
• 333 million fans worldwide follow Manchester United, which claims to have 6 times more fans in India than the UK
• The Manchester United web site has 60 million web page impressions per month — 70% outside of UK 
• In 2009, Man U sold more than triple the sales of all NFL jerseys combines
• Approximately 6.6 million Man U shirts are sold each year (official/non-official).
• After one year's sponsorship of Manchester United, the AIG brand was entered as the 47th most recognized brand in a survey of globally recognized brands
• AIG then jumped from 84 to 30 on Barron's most respected list

So not only does Aon get its logo seen by millions of "football" fans worldwide, they also get over 6 million "walking billboards." Yes, the expense seems a bit daring, but the exposure should be tremendous.

For a company that made $7.5 billion dollars last year (ranking #298 on the Fortune 500), but has considerable room to grow, putting itself top of mind--and front of chest--to Man U, its millions of supporters and myriad other observers seems like a shrewd way to get a real worldwide "kick."

Netflix Presents A Rosy Picture

Although the stock market had a big upswing today after last week's drastic decline, it's still not an idyllic time to quote any company's stock price.

For instance, after closing on Friday at $91.09 per share, Netflix (NFLX) rose over $6 today to $97.50. But just two weeks ago, on April 26, 2010, Netflix hit $108.17 on the Nasdaq market.

So this story might have been a good deal more impressive then, but even at today's $97.50 price, its pretty eye-opening to note that at the start of 2009, Netflix was under $30 per share. Given the state of the economy over that time, that's rather phenomenal growth for a video rental company with no storefronts competing with an ever-growing spate of on-demand cable television movie watching options.

Clearly, Netflix has been doing something phenomenally right in a highly-changing industry. Just today, Movie Gallery, Inc., which operates the Hollywood Video chain, announced it is closing its remaining stores (2,400+ in the U.S.) and liquidating its operations. Meanwhile, longtime video rental behemoth Blockbuster, which has 9,000 stores in 25 countries, has been said to be contemplating bankruptcy and its stock price today is at 39 cents. This equates to a market capitalization--essentially what the company is worth to a buyer--of just under $81 million.

Netflix, with no real estate holdings except the distribution centers from which it sends out 89 million DVDs to 14 million customers (averaging 2 million DVDs sent daily) has a market cap over $5 billion based on today's stock price. By that measure, Netflix is 60 times bigger than Blockbuster, even though its total revenue for 2009 was more than $2 billion less.

While through-the-mail delivery of physical DVDs (including hi-definition Blu-Ray discs) is still the core of Netflix' business, and CEO Reed Hastings recently forecast that this distribution system--which enables customers to receive their chosen discs within 1-2 business days--will remain in place for another 20 years, from my layman's perspective, it is through its burgeoning selection of movies available for instant streaming that Netflix is really poised to take over the world.

Who needs HBO, Showtime, Starz or Cinemax? Not me anymore. 

Although I have long been a huge movie buff and happy to slowly-but-surely jump on most new technology bandwagons, I only became a Netflix customer this January, about 10 years after its DVDs-by-Mail concept hit the mainstream.

Given that I own nearly 1,000 DVDs, including more than a few that I still haven't watched, and can rent for free from my local library's extensive selection and for just $1 per night from RedBox--which has also led to the downfall of Hollywood Video, most Mom & Pop video stores and the crippling of Blockbuster, which charges over $4 per rental at its retail outlets--I never could justify paying Netflix' base $8.99 monthly fee to have 1 movie out at a time.

While Netflix' instant streaming has become more widespread--both in customer use and movie selection--I've never enjoyed watching movies or TV shows on my PC, so that never really abetted my inclination to try Netflix. But in January, I bought a Blu-Ray player (this one), which beyond the ability to watch HD movies (not such a priority), has enabled me to stream Netflix through it. In my living room, I have the cable box and Blu-Ray connected to a projector rather than a TV, making for a low-rent home cinema that allows me to watch television on my wall.

Although far from Blu-Ray quality and likely not even quite as good as a standard DVD, the resolution of Netflix streaming is more than adequate even when viewed at over 100 diagonal inches, as the photo below should illustrate.

What the photo also is meant to illustrate is that I recently watched a little-known movie from 2006 called The Wind That Shakes The Barley. The day before, a couple of friends were talking about a  British film director named Ken Loach. I had never heard of him, but after looking him up on IMDB and AllMovie.com found that Netflix had 10 of his movies that I could get mailed to me, and one of his most recent and best reviewed films available to watch instantly. So I watched it the next day and it was excellent.

I believe Netflix has over 17,000 titles available for instant streaming--out of a total selection of over 100,000 movies & TV shows--which can be accessed through a computer, Blu-Ray players of many makes & models and XBox 360, PlayStation 3 & Wii gaming systems. Always growing, including through an arrangement with Starz, this selection is tremendously greater than any options offered on-demand by the premium cable channels.

So with my cable plan coming due for a price increase--after the expiration of a special promotion for a package including HBO, Showtime, Starz and Cinemax--not only did I realize that I was now doing the bulk of my at-home movie watching via Netflix, both streaming & by mail, but I took note of all the movies currently available through Comcast On-Demand that I might want to watch. There were only about 20 and all but one of them is also available via Netflix streaming. So I watched the one that wasn't--Body of Lies, which I could've gotten by mail and wasn't that great anyhow--and canceled all my movie channels.

This took $70/month off what my cable bill would've been going forward. For Netflix, I pay $10.99/month as I pay $2/month to be able to get Blu-Ray movies by mail. Tons more selection for $59 less each month seems like a pretty good deal to me.

Though I know many people enjoy the original TV series offered by the premium channels--such as True Blood, Weeds, Dexter, The Wire, etc.--I've never really gotten into any except HBO's Curb Your Enthusiasm, and past seasons of most of these shows can be rented on DVD through Netflix, with several old episodes available to be watched instantly.

So it seems obvious that Netflix bears watching, even if only from an economic standpoint. Not only has it destroyed Blockbuster and its brethren, it relatively soon might render HBO, Showtime, etc., largely obsolete. I wouldn't even be shocked if Netflix eventually gets into developing its own TV series and low-budget movies, although there might be prohibitive rights restrictions and business reasons not to do so.

What Netflix has done in little over 10 years--and its distribution methodology, consumer marketing and customer service are all textbook caseworthy--is rather amazing, but I think it might only just be getting started. And it sure sounds like a success story for which someone should buy the movie rights.

Rolling Stone's Matt Taibbi Shows No Sympathy for the Devils on Wall Street

No matter what one thinks about the fraud charges brought by the SEC against Goldman Sachs, the Senate hearings held over the past two days or Wall Street in general--and disgust over the tactics and corrupting greed of many of America's leading financial power brokers seems to be one issue on which members of both parties can agree--a heaping helping of praise, and likely even credit for future reforms, is due Rolling Stone National Affairs writer Matt Taibbi.

With painstaking detail and a gift for simplifying the complex complicity of Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street firms, Taibbi has written a series of sensational articles in which he takes fat cats to task, not with empty harangues, but with razor-sharp, highly insightful precision.

Back in July 2009, Rolling Stone published Taibbi's article entitled "The Great American Bubble," which presaged the SEC's lawsuit against Goldman Sachs by accusing the firm of betting against its clients at the end of the housing boom. In a remarkably researched expose of nearly 10,000 words, Taibbi detailed how Goldman has engineered every market manipulation since the Great Depression by repeatedly positioning itself in the middle of a speculative bubble and selling investments they know are garbage.

As Taibbi points out in his article  covering the Senate hearings this week--"The Feds vs. Goldman"--after last July's article, the "sneering Wall Street cognoscenti scoffed" at his charges of gross corruption by Goldman Sachs. Although no great glee can be felt due to the havoc wreaked on the world's economy--of which I was a downsizing victim--it's nice to note that Taibbi's insinuations--and his passionate work--have seemingly been validated.

In addition to Matt's ongoing multi-faceted Taibbi Blog, at least two other of his Wall Street-related Rolling Stone articles are well worth your attention, particularly for a great overview of how Goldman Sachs and others have betrayed the American people:

"Wall Street's Bailout Hustle" reveals how Goldman and other big banks pocketed the bailout money and are bringing America to the precipice of yet another crash. Taibbi describes a number of Wall Street con jobs and how instead of investing in small businesses and other avenues to stimulate the economy, the banks just opted to make only themselves richer.

Of the many incredulous ploys that he explains in layman's terms, one that I was particularly struck by was that after receiving billions of interest-free dollars from the government, meant to stimulate lending, the banks instead purchased newly issued Treasury bonds. So essentially Wall Street just lent tons of money it got free from the government back to the government, but with interest. In doing so, they made additional billions from the bailout money, without using much of it to aid the people on Main Street. No wonder Goldman Sachs just announced its first-quarter profit up 91 percent, to a staggering $3.46 billion.

In "Looting Main Street," Taibbi exposes how the nations biggest banks are ripping off American cities--Birmingham, AL being central to the story--with "the same predatory deals that brought down Greece."

All in all, pretty amazing stuff and absolutely spectacular reporting. Although others have exposed some of the same-type of malfeasance--most notably, Michael Moore, especially with his Capitalism documentary--Matt Taibbi has been on top of it since the beginning and has educated me more than anyone with his outstanding journalism.

He definitely deserves a Pulitzer Prize, my thanks & admiration, and the appreciation of anyone--of any political stripe or social status--who believes in financial fair play.

(All above illustrations are by Victor Juhasz and from RollingStone.com with great appreciation extended and no violation intended.)

Happy Birthday to YouTube

As alerted to by Steve Johnson in yesterday's Chicago Tribune, accompanied by a great collection of related statistics (see below), the video sharing website YouTube today celebrates the fifth anniversary of its first video posting.

The level of mass popularity the site has reached--supposedly 1 billion views per day--is staggering. With over 24 hours of video uploaded to YouTube every minute, I guess I use the site relatively sparingly, certainly in what I upload, and even in the amount of viewing I do.

Except for a rare sports highlight or excessively-referenced viral video that I feel compelled to watch, I use YouTube predominantly for one thing: music.

If there's a song I really want to hear and don't otherwise own, or especially if I want to share a tune on Facebook to commemorate a certain occasion, I can pretty much find it on YouTube.

And I find YouTube especially useful for seeing concert clips of some of my favorite performers--Bruce Springsteen, U2, Pearl Jam, Radiohead--often within hours of them performing a particular show.

But while I certainly have enjoyed YouTube, I also can't deny that there is something seemingly very wrong about it. Although I know there are many people who create their own content for YouTube, from family movies to extensive productions, and that YouTube (and its owner, Google) have reached agreements with many record companies and production studios that understand that YouTube is a great promotional vehicle, even if individuals are watching videos and hearing songs without any expenditure.

Yet despite YouTube's supposed efforts to adhere to copyright policy, there are millions of videos posted that clearly violate the rights of artists, broadcast networks and other creators. While I admit that I watch concert clips of performers who have never granted permission to be filmed or posted--and this is a clear violation of the artist's and their record company's rights--I do at least buy their official albums and DVDs.

This isn't to fully condone my actions, although in simply watching what others have posted of artists I financially support in other ways, I don't think I am doing anything illegal or too ethically corrupt. But there are even more egregious examples of unauthorized content anyone can easily find, that makes me often wonder how YouTube can rightfully exist.

For example, I pay to to hear Sirius Satellite Radio, with its content--including the popular yet controversial Howard Stern--available only to subscribers. But if you search for Howard Stern on YouTube, you can find over 2,000 clips--doesn't matter that they're audio-only on a "video" site--of content from his Sirius show posted in April 2010 alone. So it somewhat rankles me that others are easily able to hear for free what I have to pay for. And yet, as Stern mentioned one day on air, if he wants to have his privileged material pulled from YouTube, his lawyers have to file a detailed complaint about every single video that they feel are in violation. All told this seems to be more than 15,000 clips. So the illegal stuff stays up there, at least long enough to be heard by thousands of people.

I actually was intending this post to be a birthday salute to YouTube, which I really do like and can honestly say has enhanced my life to a somewhat significant degree. But I guess I couldn't help and point out that in being a site "operated" largely by its billions of users, YouTube often seems to traipse on legally suspect grounds.

So while you celebrate the 5th birthday of this internet phenomenon, next time you watch oodles of trademarked or otherwise privileged content, without compensating anyone, perhaps at least give it some thought. And yes, I am aware that the clip above of The Ramones playing Happy Birthday on The Simpsons in honor of Mr. Burns, clearly violates the rights of The Ramones, Fox Television, Matt Groening and The Simpsons' producers.

But I like it. And at least "Happy Birthday" is in the public domain, isn't it?

While I'm at it, here's my favorite YouTube clip. It's of Bruce Springsteen singing Thunder Road from a hotel balcony in Naples, Italy in 1997. (It's been on YouTube since 2006 without getting pulled, so it's seemingly OK with the Boss).

3D or Not 3D: That Is The Question?

When the movie Avatar was out in theaters recently, in both standard and 3D versions, I ponied up the most money I ever spent for a non-IMAX movie--$13.00--to see it in three dimensions.

And relatively speaking, I would have to say it was worth it. Although a bit much to take in, especially for nearly three hours, the 3D was extremely cool and seemed to be the way the movie was meant to be seen.

Tomorrow, Earth Day, the super-sized environmental (and anti-imperialism) polemic is being released on DVD. But although 3D TV is the "next big thing" in consumer electronics, with its hype greatly accentuated by the success of Avatar--the highest grossing movie ever--and both 3D HDTVs and Blu-Ray players are now available for purchase, the Avatar DVD is not being released in a 3D format.

While I am someone who has purchased dozens of DVD movies on the day of their release, I don't know that I will be getting Avatar anytime soon, even though I really liked the movie.

To begin with, I don't currently have a steady income, so I haven't been buying DVDs like I used to, and though I did get a Blu-Ray player this year, I've only purchased one Blu-Ray movie. I think the Blu-Ray price point is a bit steep, even for new releases--the Avatar Blu-Ray is $19.99 through Amazon; $22.99 at Best Buy--especially compared to standard DVDs, so I've largely stopped buying either format (as it makes no sense to invest in lower quality, but I can't justify the higher cost for Blu-Ray).

Second, I am a Netflix user and I'm sure I can eventually borrow the Blu-Ray version when I care to see it again, or rent the standard DVD through RedBox for just a dollar (although I'm sure the Blu-Ray is not only so much cooler than the standard, it comes with a revamped plot that wasn't recycled from Dances With Wolves). 

But beyond my own personal economics or rental options, I'm not buying Avatar because I--and even director James Cameron--believe it's really meant to be seen in 3D. And though I don't know that I'll be jumping on the 3D bandwagon anytime soon, especially as I just got the standard Blu-Ray player and have it connected to a projector that I also hope to use for many years to come, perhaps I might upgrade my equipment one day when 3D becomes truly ubiquitous.

Still, per the insight of this CNET article (this 3D TV FAQ page is also good), the reason that Avatar wasn't released in 3D is kind of a Catch 22. You see, there isn't enough of a market yet for 3D movies because not that many people have the needed equipment (a new 3D TV, 3D Blu-Ray player and Active Shutter glasses), but without more 3D movies, the 3D-equipment market won't blossom all that quickly.

And while it might seem that there'll never be a better movie than Avatar 3D to prompt consumers to invest in the equipment, I guess Fox Home Video didn't want to acutely make people think about waiting to buy the 3D version if they could get their $20-25 for the standard or Blu-Ray version now.

According to CNET, the 3D version of Avatar won't be released for another year or two, with the November release of a Special Edition DVD & Blu-Ray coming first.

So if you are going out to buy Avatar tomorrow, be aware that even if you buy the Blu-Ray as a step up from the Standard DVD, you're going to wish you waited until November for the one with a bunch of special features, and if you want the 3D version--especially if you were one of the few early adopters of the equipment, expecting to enjoy Avatar in all its glory--you're going to have to wait and/or pony up again.

Cripes, I think I'll just read a book.

With Ad Age Now 80, an Interesting Look Back

I don't read Advertising Age--or even its website--as often as I should, but I do occasionally peruse it, especially as I look for interesting things to write about on this blog.

In looking at the Ad Age website today, I was intrigued by coverage of their own Digital Conference, as well as the top story in this week's magazine, about how after spending billions blasting each other's wireless phone coverage, AT&T and Verizon have seemingly reached a detente and will embark on new ad campaigns. Thus, Luke Wilson is looking for work again.

But the most interesting thing on AdAge.com isn't about hot trends, great campaigns, the present or the future. Rather, it's that this is the magazine's 80th year of existence, which the site commemorates with an informative special section, highlighted by a timeline showing what's happened in advertising, and the world, over the last 8 decades.

The magazine's 12-page debut edition from January 1930 is shown above, and not only do I find the central front page story--Federal Expert Tells Food Advertisers To Get Housewife's View--somewhat fascinating, it's interesting to read that the issue included coverage of several brands still in existence today, including Time, The New Yorker, Quaker Oats, Buick, NBC and Gillette.

As this article about Ad Age's milestone points out, Ad Age has covered the rise of new media -- again and again: Radio, which went from essentially zero to 55% household penetration in 12 years; TV (0.4% to 55% penetration in six years); cable (6% to 50% in 19 years); internet (broadband penetration soared from 1.7% to 54% in eight years).

It was also cool to glean some eye-opening tidbits from the timeline, such as:

1937 American Tobacco Co. struck deals with a handful of U.S. senators to endorse Lucky Strike cigarettes. In a testimonial ad, North Dakota Sen. Gerald P. Nye praised the "comfort and safety a light smoke gives my throat." The senators each received $1,000; some gave it to charity.

1945 Ad Age published the first Agency Report. Five largest agencies: J. Walter Thompson (now JWT); Young & Rubicam (now Y&R); N.W. Ayer (absorbed by Kaplan Thaler Group in 2002); Foote, Cone & Belding (now DraftFCB); McCann-Erickson.

1954 TV ad revenue moved ahead of magazines and radio. (TV didn't displace newspapers as the nation's largest ad medium until 1994.) TV household penetration passed the halfway point in 1954, with TVs in 55% of U.S. homes, up from just 0.4% in 1948.

1962 Discount chains swept the nation. Dime-store operator S.S. Kresge Co. opened Kmart. Rival F.W. Woolworth formed Woolco (closed in 1982). Dayton's, a Minneapolis department store, launched Target. Kohl's opened its doors. And Sam Walton, another five-and-dime retailer, started Walmart.

1975 Bill Gates and Paul Allen saw a cover story in Popular Electronics about the MITS Altair, a pioneering build-it-yourself computer kit, and they spotted an opportunity: Microcomputer hardware needs software. They started a company called Micro-Soft.

1983 Ameritech, one of AT&T's Baby Bell spinoffs, switches on the nation's first cellphone system in Chicago. The percentage of households owning wireless phones passed 50% in 2005, according to government data. Wireless-phone household penetration in 2009: 82%

1992 Starbucks, a Seattle-based chain of 165 coffee stores, completed its initial public offering. Today, Starbucks has 16,700 stores worldwide.

2004 Google, founded in 1998, held its initial public offering. Also in 2004: Harvard undergrad Mark Zuckerberg started Facebook as a place for his fellow students to connect.

Google market cap today -- $177 billion -- is more than the combined value of Disney, News Corp., Time Warner and Yahoo. Facebook is still private.

2010 The economy, consumer spending and ad market show signs of improvement. The job market continues to be weak. But the Great Recession of 2007-2009 -- the longest downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s -- gives way to a modest recovery.

Across the Universe: Yelp Adjusts; Apple Upgrades; Ad Spend Upswings

Today brings an assortment of topics of interest. Following recent news (see my post from March 21) of multiple class action suits against Yelp alleging that representatives of the online review giant offered to remove or modify placement of negative reviews in exchange for advertising dollars, BrandChannel reports that the site is now making filtered-out reviews visible.

Yelp has also removed the option for companies to push their favorite review to the top of their company’s page. Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman posted on his blog that “Lifting the veil on our review filter and doing away with 'Favorite Review' will make it even clearer that displayed reviews on Yelp are completely independent of advertising – or any sort of manipulation."

The controversial review filter exists--according to Yelp--in order to protect business owners from unwarranted, unfavorable reviews by competitors, but the algorithmic process does at times eliminate legitimate reviews. Some have speculated that the yanked reviews were pulled by Yelp because the subject did not want to pay for advertising on the site, but in a recent NY Times article, Yelp denies this allegation.

---

After resisting for several years, a friend of mine recently bought an iPhone. Within a week, he declared it "the greatest thing I've ever owned."

Being an iPhone devotee myself, and noting this JD Power Marketing Chart ranking Apple tops for Smartphone satisfaction, this is far from shocking.

And now, just days after the high profile launch of the iPad, which utilizes much the same technology, Apple has announced its biggest iPhone software update ever, to OS4.0. It promises more than 100 new features and over 1,500 new developer tools. Likely the most significant upgrade for the end-user is the ability to now multi-task, meaning you will no longer have to log out of listening to Pandora in order to check your email, and can utilize myriad other features simultaneously.

The upcoming software upgrade only applies in full to the iPhone 3Gs, with older versions like mine lacking the necessary hardware to accommodate it. But a fourth generation iPhone is rumored to be released in conjunction with the 4.0 software this summer, so perhaps it may be time for me to upgrade.

---

Finally, as someone still waiting for the economy to truly recover for those of us on Main Street, and with
advertising spending an important indicator from--and for--the industry in which I've longed made my living (and hope to again soon), this chart from today's e-Marketer article is encouraging.

While ad spend was down across all media in 2009, indications are that nearly all avenues will be on the upswing in 2010 and 2011. Keeping in mind that forecasts are far from facts, this is far better news than the alternative.

iThink iCan Resist the iPad

Just in case you've been stationed in Siberia, with access to nothing but the books in your backpack, Apple has invented this thing called the iPad. And it will be released in Apple Stores tomorrow, April 3, 2010.

Thus you will see scenes of people camping out in line as though they were buying Led Zeppelin tickets in 1977. Or Cubs World Series tickets in, um, I guess 1908.

But despite having read the Newsweek cover story about how the iPad will change everything I do (use computers, read books, watch TV, etc.), I think I'll be sleeping in tomorrow as the hordes gobble up the first batch. And while I may one day find some reason to acquire one--and the $500 needed to do so--at this point, I'm not really all that excited.

While I very much enjoy newfangled technology and what it has brought to my life, I have also found that the hype can turn out to be a bunch of hooey in terms of day-to-day consequence.

I have an xBox 360 I rarely play. iPods of two generations, with a combined 100gb of music on them, which largely collect dust. I have an iPhone, which I think is fantastic, but I've never upgraded to the 3G or 3Gs and of millions of available applications, I have downloaded about 15 and readily use about three (Scrabble, IMDB and PhoneFlicks, all of which simply duplicate what I can easily do on my desktop). I have access to over 500 TV channels and watch about seven. And of the billions of websites that exist, they could do away with all but about 500 for all I'd ever care, and there are only about 20 that are part of my weekly routine.

You can certainly call me an artifact at 41, but I still prefer physical books, newspapers, magazines, CDs and DVDs over their electronic equivalents. I have never owned a laptop computer and feel much more comfortable using a desktop. I have never been a business traveler, but took nearly 100 flights over the last decade--including at least a dozen of more than 6 hours--and found sleep, a paperback mystery and the airline-supplied movies to be more than sufficient time-passers. During the month of March, I sent a total of 7 texts and still communicated with everyone I wished. I've never owned a GPS and have gotten everywhere I needed to be--with some help from the wonderful Google Maps, but an atlas always worked just fine.

As I mentioned, I love my iPhone and like that I can check my email and Facebook page from anywhere at any time, but beyond not being truly essential in the first place, I certainly don't see why I would ever need to do so on the larger format iPad.

In the Newsweek article, Daniel Lyons writes about getting a sneak peak at the iPad and says, "Right away I could see how I would use it. I'd keep it in the living room to check e-mail and browse the Web. I'd take it to the kitchen and read The New York Times while I eat breakfast. I'd bring it with me on a plane to watch movies and read books." Are any one of these things he couldn't already do?

I understand the coolness factor. Apple has made not only some of the most useful products ever, but also several of the best-designed. So it's not like I would blame anyone for wanting an iPad or even getting one. For people with disposable incomes, $500 is relatively cheap for all the iPad can seemingly do.

But without wanting to sound like a grinch, I think as a society we've become detrimentally carried away with our impersonal technologies. And without dismissing the advantages all the advances have brought, I think it's vitally important to retain a balance.

I like the expediency of Facebook, texting or email, but it doesn't beat having a conversation with my best friend. I like the convenience of streaming movies on Netflix, but I also like going to my public library. I enjoy having infinite musical choices at my fingertips, but I miss the artwork of record albums or even the liner notes of CDs. I constantly look things up on Wikipedia, but still appreciate an 800-page thoroughly-researched biography. I enjoy the ease of my camera phone, but will never give up lugging around my SLR when I travel. I love watching concert videos on YouTube, but will always prefer to see artists perform live (and feel compelled to occasionally compensate those creating "free" content). And I love to share my opinions on my blogs and Yelp and the like, but I also enjoy reading the critiques of professionals employed by newspapers and magazines.

Unfortunately, I don't think those of younger generations have been given the wherewithal to appreciate both sides of the balance. And I certainly include myself when I say we have become a world of fat, lazy, asocial people.

So do I really need one more--no matter how much more sleek and sophisticated--excuse to not get out of bed even to check my email, or to not take a walk to and through Barnes & Noble, or to not speak to the person sitting next to me on a transatlantic flight? And with so many people out of work and struggling in America, let alone in Haiti and elsewhere--where the newfound ability to see YouTube wirelessly on a 9.7 inch screen probably isn't the most pressing concern--even if I could easily part with $500, is a shiny new toy really the best way to use it? Especially when it doesn't allow for anything I can't already do?

So despite an admiration for Steve Jobs, Apple and its industrial design wizards, iRefrain. At least for now. And iThink I'll be just fine.

Nestle's Facebook Crunch

Well, I'm a day late (actually a few days late) and a dollar short (or whatever a candy bar costs these days) but I guess there was recently a huge hubbub regarding Nestle's fan page on Facebook. It has been covered in hundreds of articles and commentaries, and I'll link to a few that I found worthwhile.

Long story short, Nestle had a fan page (still does). As Caroline McCarthy on CNET does a good job of recapping, the environmental group, Greenpeace, has been trying to get Nestle to stop using palm oil because it supposedly wreaks all sorts of havoc on the planet and endangered species. Greenpeace supporters started posting comments to Nestle's fan page, accompanied by having changed their own profile pictures to derisive modifications of Nestle product logos. Nestle threatened to pull the comments--considered a Facebook faux pas--of anyone using a modified logo, and the back and forth got nasty as the Thought Gadgets blog recounts.

According to an opinion offered by Blake Bowyer of EyeTraffic Media, "Nestlé didn’t recognize three inalienable consumer rights of a new media era:

1) Freedom of speech
2) Freedom of assembly
3) The right to petition

Having read over the pieces linked here and some others, I agree that whoever from Nestle was replying to the comments didn't do it very tactfully, and in coming off rather snarkily, poured gasoline on the fire. I am also respectful of environmental concerns, and aware that some multinational conglomerates may put the almighty dollar ahead of the common good and set themselves up for activist harangues (or worse), but I don't know enough about the specifics to really take sides on the original issue.

While I believe that Web 2.0 is a good thing, in giving everyone a voice, we all know that "haters" express their opinions much more vociferously than those who like a certain product, company, person, etc. So I'm not sure what Nestle was supposed to do in terms of handing the situation "correctly." People were violating Nestle trademarks in negative ways, and for reasons that I assume Nestle thinks false. Certainly the PR team could have responded more calmly, but if thousands are posting egregious claims--or what you believe are egregious claims--to your fan page, "falling on the sword" as one comment suggested doesn't quite seem just either.

I'm an advocate of company Fan Pages, as social media is just too prevalent to be ignored, but this episode shows why the business world will never be fully embracing. And why, perhaps it shouldn't.

Found on Google: Principles

A day after the U.S. House of Representatives did the right thing, in my humble opinion, in passing the health care reform bill--and whatever your stance, you can't deny the guts shown by many Democrats who voted their conscience when it may very well cost them dearly in November--America's best company gave us another reason to be proud.

Thwarted in efforts to keep its promise to stop censoring search on its site in China, on Monday Google pulled the plug on Google.cn. While it has said (on its official blog) that it will "continue R&D work in China and also to maintain a sales presence there," and will still operate online maps and music services in China, it is redirecting searchers to its Hong Kong site.

While this certainly isn't good news, for it intimates a worsening business climate in China for U.S. companies and demonstrates how polar Chinese policy continues to be with the West, Google is to be applauded for standing by its principles. 

Yes, it is a global powerhouse with a $170+ billion market cap and oodles of cash reserves. And yes, according to the New York Times, China "accounted for a small fraction of Google’s $23.6 billion in global revenue last year." But Google is a publicly-traded company, walking away from the world's largest internet market--with 400 million web users--and its stock price on the NYSE has dropped more than $15 since yesterday.

I doubt it would be completely correct to say that Google doesn't have to answer to anyone; from the Chinese government to the U.S. government to the international business community to Wall Street to millions of web users in China, I bet there are many who aren't exactly thrilled with the company at the moment.

But while many people and organizations, in myriad realms, would kow tow to pressure for financial gains, Google stood its ground on its intent to operate in the way it believes is just, costs be damned. And while I won't pretend to have expert insight into its decision, the ramifications nor the company's future plans, from a layman's perspective, all I can say is:

Bravo, Google. Bravo.

Online Reviews Under Review in Wake of Yelp Allegations

On the Chicago Tribune's front page yesterday, right below the story on the health care vote was a story about how Yelp, the highly popular online review site, is facing multiple class-action lawsuits "alleging that Yelp representatives offered to remove or modify placement of negative reviews in exchange for advertising dollars."

The same story, or more precisely two different versions of it--here and here--was also the top headline on the Tribune's website on much of Friday. (Beyond the notably different slants, it's strange that the two stories by the same authors would differ on Yelp's traffic stats.) Pretty prominent coverage--especially next to that of the biggest piece of legislation in years--for news about a website that exists to post customers' reviews of restaurants and other business establishments.

But social media is big news these days, and as the Tribune articles relate, Yelp gets approximately 30 million visitors per month to read and add to its database of an estimated 10 million user reviews. So the lawsuits' allegations that reviews are--individually or as a composite overview--slanted for mercenary reasons is worthy of note. And the stories state that the lawsuits come "a year after dozens of businesses voiced similar allegations in articles published in several newspapers, including the Tribune."

As a Yelp reader for the last few years, and active reviewer since the start of 2010, the allegations are troubling, nebulous and somewhat predictable all at the same time.

I feel empathy for any restaurant owner, especially in tough economic times, who not only has to learn to navigate the new world of virtual word of mouth presented by sites like Yelp, but may face unscrupulous business practices. In the Tribune articles and on its own site, Yelp tries to explain that it actively attempts to ensure reviews--both glowing and negative--are legitimate, so as to avoid numerous raves emanating from the restaurant's staff or jeers from the joint next door. This is an imperfect practice, so honest reviews on both ends might be wrongfully purged, or phony ones occasionally published.

If the lawsuits allegations are proven true, that Yelp has manipulated reviews--or simply offered to--for financial reasons, clearly this is a gross offense to the plaintiff restaurants, their competition, anyone who depends on Yelp for dining decision guidance and even those of us who like to share our honest opinions on the site.

But while the lawsuits are likely months from settlement and whatever consequences yet to be seen, all this lends itself to my words of advice on online 'consumer' reviews: Learn from them, let them provide you with insight and guidance, even heed their suggestions, but always take them with a grain of salt and never consider them gospel.

Now, I'm guessing this isn't really telling you anything you didn't already know. Which is why the Yelp allegations feel a bit nebulous, at least as they pertain to personal practices, and even somewhat predictable.

While we all value the advice of others to help us make decisions that bring enjoyment and avoid the wasting of time and money, the truth is, we don't all see and experience things--even the same things--in the same way.

Consider for a second the divergence of even the most professional of reviewers. In Friday's Chicago Sun-Times, legendary movie critic Roger Ebert gave 'Diary of a Wimpy Kid' 3-1/2 stars (out of 4). His Tribune counterpart, Michael Phillips, gave it 1-1/2 stars. Chances are, you can see it with your best friend and greatly disagree on its artistic merits. So the extent to which we rely on professional reviewers--and now on Yelp, Amazon, TripAdvisor and myriad other Internet outlets--perfect strangers, is somewhat laughable to begin with.

Long ago it was intimated to me that as devious minds are usually years ahead of the pure, the planting of positive Amazon reviews or the manipulation of Google search results, has long been par for the course. And the story of Sun-Times rock critic Jim DeRogatis having been fired from a job at Rolling Stone for writing a negative review of a Hootie & the Blowfish album that publisher Jann Wenner objected to, echoes my awareness that true objectivity is often at odds with the media's business interests. 

Even if you look at my reviews on Yelp, which I'd fully testily are my own personal honest opinions, you'll see the unavoidable imperfections of online reviews. Of the 17 restaurants I've reviewed so far in 2010, I've given 5 Stars to nine and 4 Stars to eight. This would imply that you would like all 17 restaurants I've eaten at, and unless your expectations of a "good meal" are vastly different than mine, unless you happen to get a terrible waiter, unless your food is undercooked, etc., etc., I fully believe you should like all 17 I've recommended.

But the flaw, understandable but perhaps unfair at the same time, is that I don't like to give negative reviews. Perhaps to movies, albums and professional theatrical performances, but not typically to restaurants. I generally have too much regard for people just trying to make a living--owners, chefs, cooks, wait staff, hosts, etc.--that I don't feel it is my place to publicly dissuade anybody from patronizing a place. Especially, as per the last sentence of the paragraph above, a bad experience might just be a one-visit fluke.

So while I won't inflate the reviews of restaurants I didn't much care for, I just won't review them on Yelp. Sure, I'm likely to personally avoid them and not suggest them to friends & family, but I won't go public with my disdain, unless there was something egregiously and directly offensive. The problem is, not everyone on Yelp feels the same way. And perhaps they're the right ones; give an honest opinion--including when scathing--of everything. Thus, their negative reviews of restaurants I enjoy will offset my positive ones, but not vice-versa.

Anyway, long story nearly wrapped up, it's an imperfect, imprecise world, and online reviews are no exception. I have long loved reading what others think of music, movies and books I'm considering buying on Amazon, and value many of opinions people share on Yelp and the like. And as someone who is now posting reviews on Yelp, my personal blog and IMDB, I hope my recommendations are of some value to those reading them. But, even if the insinuations posed in the Yelp lawsuits are proven false--and let's not forget that the Tribune, which owns and is actively trying to boost similar use of Metromix, may not have been completely "pure" in its high-profile coverage of Yelp's legal and credibility issues--I will continue to be wary, for the acuity and purity of online reviews should never be overrated.

Sharing Some Sound Advice

In addition to this blog, on which I try to cover topics of a professional nature, I also maintain a personal blog called Seth Saith. Usually the right blog to post on a given subject is pretty clear, but occasionally there is some overlap.

On Seth Saith, I recently posted a comprehensive guide to free online music sources. Whether you are an avid music listener or, per a more professional angle, someone interested in tracking new web-based technologies and resources--of which my post cites more than a few--you may be interested in reading it.

Facebook Far Out in Front

Although it truly encompasses a whole lot more, in a generic sense "social media" basically seems to reference Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. And in terms of hype, it would seem that once-dominance MySpace has become an afterthought and Twitter is now paired with Facebook as the two social media outlets that matter.

While this article about Twitter's adoption by Fortune 500 companies suggests it has made impressive inroads in the business community, overall site traffic remains dwarfed not only by Facebook, but by MySpace as well.



This seems to jibe with my personal usage, for while I use Facebook on a daily basis and occasionally visit MySpace simply for its Music resources, I explored Twitter only because its popularity was made to seem explosive. But truthfully, it has always seemed like a whole lot of nothing to me, and has fallen far out of my daily routine, whether in terms of posting Tweets or merely to see what others are saying. In a bigger social media picture, I avidly use YouTube, Yelp, LinkedIn, blogs and other interconnection outlets.

So the fact that not only is Twitter's monthly traffic just a trifle compared with Facebook, but has been stagnating if not truly declining of late, seems to validate my thinking that individuals--and companies--looking to connect and communicate with others, should take the hype in stride.

Although the still evolving social media age has shown more than a trifle of user fickleness, in terms of actual usage statistics, right now Facebook is the reigning champ, with no real challengers.

"Word of Mouth" still motivates, quite literally, in Social Media Age

Today's eMarketer newsletter article turned me onto a fascinating new study regarding the of proclivities of Adult Social Media Users versus those who aren't (whom I'll dub Non-SMUs). By clicking here, you can access a free downloadable PDF of a special analysis of the BIGresearch® Simultaneous Media Usage® Survey (SIMM® 15) compiled for the Retail Advertising and Marketing Association, a division of the National Retail Federation. That sure sounds like a mouthful to me, too, but I always like to give proper attribution.

Although any one study or its interpretation should never be taken as gospel, there were some eye-opening findings. Most notable to me was that among Social Media Users and Non-SMUs, all over age 18, literal "Word of Mouth" (i.e. Face-to-Face) communication reigns supreme in terms of motivating online searches for specific products & services, as well as in how people most commonly communicate with others regarding products, services and brands.

Referencing the top chart below, I'm struck by how prevalent Radio remains in stimulating online searches among both groups, even more so the SMUs. (Even in reading the detailed analysis, it's unspecified if the Radio and Cable TV responses include both Content and Advertising on these media as motivating factors, or simply advertising.) Both charts below certainly lend much credence to the thought that while social media should now be part of almost any organization's marketing mix, it by no means should comprise the entirety or bulk.




For anyone interested in the ever-evolving realm of social media, and how it is impacting the world of business, downloading and reading the report from the NRF website is a must. It gives you much more insight than I capsulized above and even the raw survey data is available.

I'll end by referencing the chart below, which to me validates my very sparse use of Twitter. It has always seemed redundant to how I use Facebook and LinkedIn, and while it's occasionally interesting to see how "the world at large" is responding to a big event or news story (by doing Trend Searches), I'm never really surprised or enlightened by what I read; more often saddened by the rampant crassness and stupidity.

While anecdotally Twitter may still seem to be "all the rage" as I keep hearing about celebrities Tweeting, unlike Facebook, LinkedIn and my own blogging, Twitter hasn't really added anything to my life and I'm not dismayed to see that its hype is seemingly far greater than its general acceptance.

Creative Heroes Linked By Diversification

As noted in the brief bio on my new Google Profile, I derive great fulfillment from creativity, both my own on a professional & personal level and in exploring the work of wonderful artists in a variety of arenas. As such, although I didn't find last night's Oscar telecast to be all that scintillating in itself, I had seen all ten Best Picture nominees and agree with The Hurt Locker and its director, Kathryn Bigelow as very deserving winners.

This past Saturday was an exploration of the new for me, as I attended the Third Coast Filmless Festival, which featured radio documentaries and emphasized the art of listening, and upon a last minute invitation, saw the great singer/songwriter John Prine for the first time at a benefit for the Old Town School of Folk Music.

Both were quite enjoyable but I want to focus here on two of my foremost creative heroes, both of whom I had the pleasure of exploring anew over the past 10 days. As detailed here, last Thursday I greatly enjoyed seeing Stephen Sondheim give a conversational overview of his career as the greatest Broadway composer & lyricist of the last 50 years. And as I described here, the previous Friday I took a tour of two Frank Lloyd Wright architectural masterpieces, the SC Johnson Wax Administration Building in Racine, WI, and the nearby "Wingspread" home designed for F.H. Johnson, the company CEO in 1938.

Aside from my own affinity, and generally-accepted global regard as artistic geniuses, there may not seem to be much linking Sondheim and Wright. But what heightens my--and likely public--esteem, is that they were both creators who demonstrated the ability to maintain excellence across a variety of styles throughout their careers.

As shown below, Wright initially designed homes with echoes of his boss Louis Sullivan, soon created his famed Prairie-style homes, and even with great variance within this realm left it largely behind by 1909. Over a 60+ year career, he would go on to design houses and buildings as disparate as LA's Ennis-Brown House, Fallingwater (in PA) and New York's Guggenheim Museum.




Sondheim, as he conveyed in conversation with director Gary Griffin, always felt he had the ability to be a composer and lyricist, but began his Broadway career writing just the lyrics for West Side Story, as Leonard Bernstein was already in place. Although he knew he couldn't--and gladly didn't--pass up this opportunity, Sondheim worried about being pigeonholed as merely a lyricist and was proven correct when Ethel Merman perceived him as such in insisting that composer Jule Styne partner with him on Gypsy.

On his subsequent show, A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum, and more than a dozen that followed, Sondheim amply showed that not only could he write both music and lyrics, he could do so with more dexterity than anyone who had come before or since. From his episodic compositions for Company to the waltz-infused score for A Little Night Music to the Japanese-influence on Pacific Overtures to the dark humor of Sweeney Todd, no two Sondheim shows are really alike, aside from the wit and sophistication that carries through his entire body of work.











While I certainly don't pretend to be on a level anywhere near the genius of Frank Lloyd Wright, Stephen Sondheim or other creative heroes who made major stylistic transitions while maintaining brilliance, such as the Beatles and Picasso, I do see some parallels with my career as a copywriter and creative director.

As showcased in my portfolio, I have worked in a variety of advertising & marketing arenas--recruitment, business-to-business, consumer, political, retail, real estate and more--across a range of media (print, web, direct mail, etc.) for a variety of industries, clients and messaging objectives. Proudly, my output has been highly praised by clients and employers alike, and has generated impressive results across numerous realms.

And as experienced by both Wright, who at times went years between commissions, and Sondheim, who hasn't had a newly-penned work open on Broadway since 1994, I am in the midst of a dry period, professionally speaking. In this high supply, low demand employment marketplace, translating my creative versatility into a new full-time opportunity has been challenging, as ad agencies and others with creative openings understandably desire depth of experience in their specific niche (as a resume-siphoning device if nothing else), and perhaps mine has yet to be a precise match.

Still, with the examples of my creative heroes to both inspire and sustain me, I am confident that my core talents--unique imagination, clever wordplay, the ability to synthesize dense information into powerful & persuasive messages, etc.--can readily translate to success in myriad manifestations, and that I, and my next employer, will be all the better for my multifaceted experiences and influences.

To discuss any full-time or freelance opportunities, please contact me at setharkin@msn.com