LINK FEST!!!! Belief vs Money

Searching through the vast ocean of the blogosphere, I've come across some interesting themes. First and foremost, people are angry. It seems as though they write most passionately about that which infuriates them. Personally, I live in a world of cynicism. Quippy jokes and snide comments are my failsafe fall back. But why does it seem that we revert to such places when expressing ourselves? I'm no more a hippie than John Wayne, but can't we all just be happy?

In the PR world, I've found the issue of money and convictions come to light quite often. It seems as though people are having to choose between that which they know to be right or at least they understand to be inherently "good" and the other option of what's best for the company (usually money....).

I pose these questions: What's right for us or what's right for the company? Where do we draw the line as PR practitioners? And, maybe most importantly, does it ever become OK to stretch our own values for the good of the company?

He's rich. He's funny. Together they equal poor humor

If you haven't seen the new Microsoft ads, consider yourself lucky. To say watching the commercials is like watching paint dry or grass grow is to insult the very soul of grass and paint. I've been unfortunate enough to see two of the ads in this new series. If you've only seen the one with Bill Gates and Jerry Seinfeld in the discount shoe store, relax; I promise the ad with them both at the dinner table is just as droll and uninformative.

However, Aarti Shah says this is exactly the kind of opportunity Microsoft could use. In her analysis of the commercials, Microsoft's new ad creates PR possibilities, Shah contends that these ads, which have not been received as humerus by viewers, create a unique situation for Microsoft's PR team. They can step in and respond. Bloggers, among others, have not been quiet about the weak attempts at humor from these commercials and the lack of information.

What advantages does this give to Microsoft? It seems as though they are keeping everyone in the dark about some type of product release. How do these seemingly pointless commercials further Microsoft's cause? Also, do these commercials to closely parallel that of Mac's recent ads where PC and Mac are represented as people?

Could this make any more sense???

Loren Baker of Search Engine Journal just slapped me with some knowledge. Actually, it was something very obvious and incredibly well said.

We live in a "right here, right now" world. Impatience at waiting in line, sitting in traffic or even waiting for a web page to load are all fueled by our need to be able to do everything and know everything at the same time. In the same instant, we want personalization. Everyone wants to be catered to. No longer are we a part of the masses. With the evolution of blogs, among a trillion other self-serving vices, everyone now believes his or her opinion actually matters.

So how does a company reach us? Baker said it best in her post "Search Engine Blogs as Public Relations Tools." She states "the new form of communication is an oxymoron; mass intimacy." How true! The days of press releases are coming to an end. Of course there is a time and place for them but people really are searching for up to date information else where. When you hear about a new company opening, where do you go? Are you looking for the nearest press release? No! You head straight to the web. And with the evolution of live blogging you might even be able to read about the type of piping being put in that very second!

Every company will have to adapt to this idea of mass intimacy. So how do they do it? Where do they start? Maybe this is an opportunity for entrepreneurs to pounce on. Let me be the first to raise my hand and volunteer to be the head of the Mass Intimacy Transversing Creative Heights Dept. Or as I would like to call it, the MITCH Department. ;)

AMC crushing Twitter dreams

This will be a follow up on the blog written by Tiffany Monhollon titled "It's Personal. It's Business. Mad Men, Twitter and Branding Online."

Monhollon brings to light an interesting story. AMC runs a show called Mad Men. The content of the show is not important to our discussion here. Recently, characters from the show began using Twitter as a way to communicate with fans. One fan in particular was so excited about this prospect, he decided to become his favorite character from the show on Twitter.

He went so far as to email AMC and inform them of what he was doing. It seems as though this would cover his tail with any type of legal backlash. In fact, it did quite the opposite. AMC took immediate measures to stop the characters and others posing as characters from twittering.

The rest of the story can be read at the first link. My question is this: is this a good move by AMC? It seems as though they were receiving free publicity from all of the twittering and so far, there was no harm done. What types of problems could arise for AMC if they leave these branded characters free to twitter as they please? Also, what does this say to the audience of the show who may enjoy feeling as though they are getting constant status updates about their favorite characters?

AMC has already chosen to handle this issue by shutting it down. This type of PR seems like it would negatively effect the channel as well as the show. I contend that viewers will be upset about the issues above and will thus hinder AMC and the show in future attempts push the programming.