Why you need to create video for the web

Three years ago online video was something I mostly only viewed. I’d played around with recording and uploading video but this was a long winded haphazard affair involving hand coded xml files every time I wanted to add a video to my podcast.

Then, if I wanted to share it further afield, I’d upload it to YouTube giving me the option to embed on a website or link to it in an email or forum.
 
Now it’s just as easy as sending an email. Many of the sites I visit today are either video conversational platforms or at the very least places where video is being shared and commented on. Video is now a medium of conversation.
 
Recently I have been asked more and more by companies: “Do we really need to get involved in video?”
 
The short answer is “Yes.”
 
For me, engaging with online video is a no brainer.

The easiest way for me to explain why this shift from old analogue methods of communication to online ones is so important is to compare online video with TV. The buzzword for a while now has been ’social media’, which does exactly what it says on the tin: it allows people to have conversations on a new level of engagement, be it from an entertainment or marketing perspective. TV could not be further away from this world. The most interactive thing TV can offer us is the red button. Nowadays people expect a conversation with their content.
 
TV advertising is also fleeting and expensive. After the cost of creating your media, you pay for your slot and when it’s gone it’s gone. Online video on the other hand, can be made at a fraction of the cost, and if you spread it intelligently it’s viewable forever. Not only that but the viewer can comment on, respond to, and share it for you. This conversation around your content keeps it alive, relevant, and in the public eye way beyond other forms of old analogue media.
 
Online video is also instantly global, searchable, on demand and with viewing stats that are easily measured. Whether you want content for your website, to launch a brand or product, produce video news releases, or just show the human side of your organisation, you need to have a presence in the digital world, you need to be using online video. Like I said, it is a no brainer.

So for a little while now I’ve offered one-to-one consultation and
informal training sessions on all aspects of social media and video
making for the web. Now, for the first time, in conjunction with
Econsultancy, I’m going to be able to offer a formal workshop called ‘Video For The Web‘. I will show you how to do produce content cheaply and effectively. I cover the kit, how-to shooting tips, file compression, uploading and aggregation, how to make your video visible, and loads more. Whether you wish to use some of the free solutions out there like Twitvid, Tokbox or Qik, or shoot HD on a handheld device, I will be there to guide you through selecting suitable equipment to shoot, edit and distribute your video effectively.

4.7 billion videos are watched online in the UK every year. Make one of them yours.

Social Media and PR News by EConsultancy

The vending cart wars: A lesson on the limits of social media

The problem started when the Schnitzel & Things Truck drove up to start selling food and found some of the established vendors on the block didn’t appreciate his presence. The Schnitzel owner tells  Midtown Lunch:

“We got harassed by 4 different dudes as soon as we showed up.. But we weren’t having it man.. Whatever, it was the usual, you know the “I’ve been on this block for 15 years” routine:) and??? You want us to move because??? Take a walk.. They wouldn’t leave us alone, I called the cops on them for harassment:) then they brought their own cops, it was a freaking mess but funny, cuz they couldn’t do anything.. We reasoned with the cops and they didn’t do anything but leave and the guys were left in bewilderment ..”

While street turf wars may seem like an antiquated form of competition, it’s a reality for business owners who make their living on wheels. And the world of street vendors represents a marked clash between old school and new school ways of doing business.

Street vendors have spent years staking out their territory on city
blocks. And while Twitter may make it easier to get in touch with
customers, it doesn’t change the difficulties of finding a place to
park, or help businesses deal with their competition.

The creation of Twitter has been a boon to foodies looking to start a business with low overhead. John Bowler, a vending cart owner in Los Angeles, says that he shredded his startup costs by opening a cart instead of a full fledged restaurant, spending about $40,000 to get started, compared to the $200,000 it would cost to start a restaurant.

And by simply sending out a tweet about their location, vendors can keep foot traffic headed their way no matter where they travel. Starting with the Kogi Korean taco truck in Los Angeles, urban areas have been inundated with trucks that tweet. And the list of street vendors using Twitter just keeps getting longer.

But as the economy has continued to dwindle, bargain food sales haven’t stayed so lucrative. In Los Angeles, for instance, many laid off employees have turned to street vending to earn cash. But as more vendors have entered seemingly recession proof markets like ice cream sales, ice cream truck sales have actually declined 25% in the city.

Flooding the vending market could soon be a bigger problem. James Rojas, founder of the Latino Urban Forum in LA tells the LATimes:

“Traditionally, taco trucks were very working class—janitors,
secretaries, people on public transit—but now they’ve been adopted by
the middle class as a legitimate way to buy and sell food. I think
people under 30 want to bike and walk and take transit. These aren’t
Latinos that have to take transit. These are privileged, middle-class
kids. So taco trucks are targeting this group.”

The recent proliferation of mobile gourmet options has been great for urban residents. But it may not be such an awesome business model. Even the Kogi truck, with all of the major media coverage it has received, is constantly fending off imitators (the most recent? Baja Fresh).

But the vending wars point to a good lesson: If you’ve heard of an innovative way to use social media to boost sales, you’re probably not the only one. And a good social media strategy isn’t going to help businesses sale by real world problems that have plagued new companies for years.

From Midtown Lunch:

“While Twitter can be a monster marketing tool that can create instant
crowds (and profits) it’s not usually the case.  Like any business you
have to pay your dues, and build up your customer base over time.  It’s
not going to be easy at the beginning, but the key (as it has always
been with street vending) is consistency.  Don’t be lured in by the
freedoms that you think twitter affords you.”

Image: DeciderNY

Social Media and PR News by EConsultancy

Southern Comfort goes all in on web advertising

In December, Google refined its policies on liquor keywords in AdWords
(just in time for the holidays) to allow ads for hard liquor to target
the U.S. Now brands like Southern Comfort can take better advantage
of search advertising.

Hard liquor ads in search can still only be used for branding purposes, like recipes and seasonal drink ideas. Beer advertisers (who were allowed on
AdWords earlier last fall) can promote a purchase with sales
promotions.

But there are also more options for display and branding, and compared to television, where restrictive guidelines prevent liquor ads from appearing on most network programming and those that do get through are often relogated to late night programming, online offers promising options.

Lena DerOhannessian, SoCo’s U.S. marketing director, tells AdAge about her company’s problem with traditional TV buys:

“You’re usually in the same program, if not the same pod, with another
spirits advertiser. That was just a game we didn’t want to
keep playing.”

Rather than dealing with that, SoCo has started partnering with digital properties where
it is the sole alcohol sponsor. The company is working with Facebook, Spin, Playboy, Thrillist, NBC and Pitchfork on branding, sponsorships and original series that promote different aspects of its product. And online, it has relationships with network programs
like 30 Rock” and “The Office” that spirits ads wouldn’t be allowed near on television.

But ad spend online is also saving them money.

From AdAge:

“Ms. DerOhannessian said savings from the switch to a 100% digital media
buy will allow the brand to bolster its presence in bars and at retail,
as well as through events. It will also give it a significant footprint
online, where a $10 million budget stretches very far.”

Last year, the company spent $6 million of its $8 million ad budget on cable television and another $1.5 million on magazines. But after a year of slow sales, Southern Comfort is replacing its traditional media buys entierely with online purchases.

Says Ms. DerOhannessian: “As we’ve focused more on 21 to 29, TV becomes less and less effective
at reaching that audience. It was getting harder and harder
to hit our target without so much waste.”

Social Media and PR News by EConsultancy

Tomorrow’s news companies: small, lean and venture capitalist

The above graphic comes a post at Silicon Alley Insider, which they took from business-networking site Meet The Boss. I’m a big fan of data visualisation because in most cases it illustrates a story better than some actual articles do.

Why this graphic is important is it shows how far Amazon has come since 1998. It gobbles up companies that its executives believe will give it a competitive advantage. That’s all they care about, customer service aside, so it makes sense that they’re acutely aware of developments in their spheres of influence.

My question: Why can’t news organisations do the same? They’re a business just like Amazon is a business. Each actively seeks to gain a competitive upper-hand. As the news industry slowly drifts into the web as a primary outlet, it would make sense that they seek out the companies that could get them to where they need to be.

Think about it this way: What if The Daily Telegraph had bought TwitJobs? It would have given the paper a real presence in the growing arena of Twitter job ads and would have been a new revenue stream. How about GumTree? Or MoveFlat? There exist many opportunities to interweave news content alongside products like this, which would increase uniques and page views. Not only that, the income from fees placing ads and from third-party advertisers would be considerable.

Finding where these companies are is as easy as walking out the door and to one of the many networking events that London’s entrepreneurs have on a weekly and monthly basis. Last week I went to an event called “DrinkTank” in London hosted by Huddle.net, an online platform for online workspaces

. The bar was bustling with local talent, each developing a unique product for the web.

Ignoring the availability of so much talent is a huge mistake. Web-focused journalism requires new thinking. The first to dip their toe into the bustling entrepreneur scene will have an advantage over their competitors. 

Social Media and PR News by EConsultancy

Five reasons why consumers will reject news paywalls

This list has little to do with the economics of the situation. Rather, I’m employing a method I made up on Twitter a few days ago when discussing with friends why Jon Stewart is seen as ‘America’s most trusted newsman’.

I call it the ‘Jon-Stewart-is-America’s-most-trusted-newsman-because-he-calls-people-on-their-bullshit’ method.

It boils down to Jon Stewart’s appearance as someone who speaks for the people who watch his program, not the important people he interviews and his peers. I’m going to try to look at this from the perspective of the consumer who would end up paying for access to the content.

Alright, here goes …

5. Bottom line: Paywalls mean people have to pay, and most will not

The economic theory is that in a system like this, the subscribers subsidise the free users. The only problem with that is it has been tried and it failed. The New York Times used Times Select and shut it down in 2007 because the $10m a year in revenue it was generating just was not enough. 

4. Charging for something that was free is a losing idea

This only works when you’ve offering a free trial, often used by software companies. That’s not the case with news. Niche and business titles aside, everything has been free for many, many years. Would you pay for something one day after getting it free for years and years? I wouldn’t unless it was bigger and better than the free version.

3. People won’t pay for something that was free unless it becomes much, much more valuable to them

Say you do decide to build a paywall around your content. It’s the same content that was free, only now it has to be paid for. Consumers will not pay for something that was free unless the value of the commodity, news in this case, increases along with its price. If that doesn’t happen, people will not buy in.

2. You’re forcing people to make a choice – and news organisations may not like what consumers decide

You may have heard that Chris Anderson, US editor of WIRED and author of ‘The Long Tail’, has a new book out called ‘Free’. In it he talks about the history and application of ‘free’ in the marketplace. He makes a very interesting point about what happens when suddenly consumers are confronted with having to pay for something that previously was free:

It’s as if our brains were wired to raise a flag every time we’re confronted with a price. This is the ‘is it worth it?’ flag. If you charge a price, any price, we are forced to ask ourselves if we really want to open our wallets. But if the price is zero, that flag never goes up and the decision just got a lot easier.

1. The timing could not be worse

This reason is more situational, however it’s very important. You hear lots of people spouting off about how the recession is coming to a close, and more often than not they’re completely and totally wrong.

But once the recession is really, truly over, it’s not as though we’re all going to be swimming in money. When that time comes, if people are paying for news, they will stop paying for something else. That’s just how it works. Right now paying for news is an additional expense in the eyes of many. This is not the time for additional expenses. 

Social Media and PR News by EConsultancy

Social media: myth versus reality

Myth: ROI can’t be measured.

Reality: This is perhaps the biggest myth and it’s absolute hogwash. Social media is measurable. For online businesses, tracking traffic and conversions from popular social networking destinations is no different than tracking traffic and conversions from, say, AdWords. For offline businesses, there’s no good reason that the same methodologies that are frequently applied to measure the impact of ‘branding‘ campaigns in other mediums can’t be applied to social media. Given that there are companies measuring the impact social media has on their businesses, I feel comfortable stating that most of the people who continue to repeat that social media can’t be measured are either lazy or have something to hide.

Myth: Social media is still immature.

Reality: Obviously there is still some disagreement about the formal definition of ‘social media‘ but let’s make this simple: online message board communities were popular in the late 90s, blogs have been on the scene since the turn of the millennium (you might recall that Blogger launched in 2000) and Friendster put today’s style of social networking on the map back in 2003. So to call social media immature is a bit disingenuous. If you need further convincing, consider that your grandmother may be on Facebook.

Myth: Social media is about conversations.

Reality: It may sound cynical, but oftentimes social media degrades into a less formal exercise in corporate shilling; an extreme extension of the ‘tell the customer whatever he wants to hear‘ mentality. One example is instructive for brands: when former Frontier Airlines customer Andrew Hyde complained about the airline’s standby policy, Frontier’s willingness to hold a “conversation” with him didn’t matter because he wasn’t being told what he wanted to hear. I personally admired that but from a social media standpoint, you can be sure that Frontier would have won a lot more praise from the social media community if it had apologized when it felt no apology was due, committed to using Twitter @JetBlue-style and paid lip service to Hyde. And I do mean paid.

Myth: For brands, authenticity is a must.

Reality: For brands, money is a must. Brands that are willing to open their wallets can easily influence consumer perception of them in the realm of social media. There are plenty of case studies demonstrating that social media denizens are easily bought off. From Twitter users who will tweet just about anything for a chance at a prize to mommy bloggers gladly write product reviews in exchange for free product, there’s no doubt: the easiest way to play is to pay.

Myth: Social media is killing off [insert industry name here].

Reality: Social media has definitely made an impact on the media landscape. But blogs aren’t killing newspapers (newspapers are doing a fine job of killing themselves thank you very much), television is far from dying, etc. etc. etc. The smartest players are taking social media for what it is: a new channel. Nothing more, nothing less. This isn’t an either-or proposition: when used strategically, social media can augment multi-channel initiatives.

Myth: There are no social media experts.

Reality: Debating whether anyone deserves to be considered a social media ‘expert’ has become a waste of time; you could probably argue that in most industries today, things move so fast that nobody can truly lock in ‘expert‘ status. The reality is that there are savvy individuals who have used social media to demonstrably benefit their businesses and the businesses of their employers. While their experiences and track records don’t guarantee future results, they’ve earned more credibility than, say, someone who calls himself an ‘expert‘ but doesn’t have any real-world case studies to back up the title. So the real question is not “Are you an expert?“; it’s “Have you walked the walk?“

Myth: Social media is ‘cheap‘.

Reality: So is television advertising, print advertising, direct mail, radio advertising, etc. With one catch: it’s all relative. When it comes to social media, the true measure of ‘cheap‘ isn’t determined by how much it costs you to register on Twitter and tweet, for instance. The true measure of ‘cheap‘ is how your investments (including of time and labor) relate to what you get in return. For some companies, social media may be extremely cheap. For others, it may be far too expensive.

Myth: It’s all about influence.

Reality: Are there influential individuals who can collectively make or break your business? The good news: in some cases it appears that the answer may be ‘yes‘. The bad news: you probably have no way of knowing who they are. The whole concept of ‘influence‘ has been reduced into an oversimplistic mechanical view of the social media world. The reality is that the serious ‘science‘ of influence is far more nuanced and complex than many have tried to dumb it down to be and for companies, this means that looking for the right haystack is probably a better strategy than finding the needles within it.

Myth: Social media is the future.

Reality: Social media is the present. The future is unknown. If your company treats adoption of social media today as some form of future-proofing, chances are when the next big thing comes along, you’ll look a lot like those companies who are still trying to figure out what the big deal about the internet is.

Myth: Social media is a passing fad.

Reality: There’s a lot of noise but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t signal. Remember: a lot of businesses fail when they attempt certain things. In the world of SEO, for instance, I’d venture a guess that more than 50% of the companies that have implemented some sort of SEO initiative have failed. Does that mean that SEO is a passing fad? Of course not.

Social Media and PR News by EConsultancy

The social media paradox: success & time.

Social Media and PR News by EConsultancy

Twitter hack: insight into a hot startup that may be losing its edge

Lies, Damn Lies and Projections

First up: an internal financial forecast from February 2009. It projects:

• Initial revenue for Twitter this quarter.
• $4m in revenue next quarter.
• $140m in revenue by the end of 2010.
• “1 billion users, $1.54 billion in revenue, 5,200 employees and $1.1 billion in
  net earnings” by 2013.

I like Twitter and think there’s a good chance that it will have a bright future (at least for the founders and early investors) but internal financial projections like this are a great example of just how disconnected from reality management at hot startups can become.

While projections are always just that (projections), projecting 1bn users and over a billion dollars in net earnings by 2013 is so unrealistic for Twitter as to be tragically laughable. Dreaming big is fine but as far as I’m concerned, entrepreneurs do well to temper their projections with a dose of reality. By putting down these sorts of numbers in even the most informal of internal documents, I think the Twitter team is doing a disservice to itself.

Laziness Breeds Incompetence

According to TechCrunch, access to Twitter’s “search product interface” was permitted via a bug that accepted the password ‘password‘. According to a response by Twitter co-founder Biz Stone:

…this bug allowed access to the search product interface only. No personally
identifiable user information is accessible on that site.

That may be so but as TechCrunch’s Robin Wauters notes, “the vulnerability speaks to a greater culture of lax security at the startup, and may be indicative of how earlier breaches possibly occurred“. I’ll go further than that: any development or system administration practice that permits the word ‘password’ to be used as a password is an example of incompetence.

Clearly, given Twitter’s profile and the amount of capital it has raised, it should have no problem attracting talented people. So it’d be unfair to label Twitter’s staff as inherently incompetent. In my experience, laziness breeds incompetence even in the best of individuals and groups. So as an organization, Twitter should probably reflect on how it is that a company which has built such an incredible product is apparently losing focus on the little details that can mean the difference between long-term success and eventual failure.

Make no mistake about it: this is not about passwords. It’s about attention to detail and maintaining a culture where things are done thoroughly and they’re done ‘right‘.

Twitter’s Loss is Your Gain

While I still disagree with Michael Arrington’s decision to release the documents he received, hopefully the insights they provide into Twitter’s operations and culture will be considered by entrepreneurs as I think they offer some important lessons:

• Don’t believe your own hype. If you’re fortunate enough to find yourself in the cat bird’s seat as a startup entrepreneur, don’t forget that your future isn’t guaranteed. If you haven’t earned a cent of revenue and you publicly maintain the line that “we’re not worried about making money“, you’re lying to yourself if you put down in writing financial projections that have more than seven digits in them.
• Always sweat the details. Entrepreneurs at hot startups have a lot to think about. So little details that seem more annoyance than anything else are easy to put aside. There are high-level product decisions to make, media relations to attend to, etc. Those are more exciting things to work on. But in so many industries, it’s the companies that do the little things right that build businesses that thrive over the long term. If you don’t sweat the details, you risk losing your edge.

Right now, the people at Twitter have an opportunity to achieve the kind of success most internet entrepreneurs will only dream of. Whether that success comes through M&A, an IPO or the development of a profitable private business, I think the Twitter hack and the documents it has brought into the spotlight show just how close Twitter is coming to losing its edge.

Photo credit: carrotcreative via Flickr.

Social Media and PR News by EConsultancy