Flack's Revenge

February NY Tech Meetup (or Bust!)

I attended the February NY Tech Meetup last night; it was great event, as always, but not easy to get in.

They really should try to find a larger venue. Trying to get tickets has gone from a mildly frustrating exercise to damn near impossible. That is great, in a way, because it shows the enthusiasm for these events and growth of NYTM - but not so much if you want to attend.

They always sell out, so the best way to get in is to pay close attention to release dates (tickets become available in batches), and if you don't jump on it, they are gone. Getting them when you fail to have that discipline becomes an exercise in begging and pleading on the mailing list and Web site discussion forum. It seems like those in search vastly outnumber ticket sellers.

Actually, it gets pretty funny reading the sob stories of people looking for spare tickets.  Many (myself included) wrote about how they report or blog and just want to cover the event, and spread the good buzz about NY Tech.

You can see the messages posted here. One enterprising guy offered his ticket in exchange for job opportunities - I thought that was very creative.

Usually someone responds to my emails/site posts with ticket offers, but not this time. So a colleague and I decided to roll the dice and go to NYU's Skirball center to see if we could scare some up down there and the gamble paid off, as we ran into someone who had two spares to sell.

Our persistence was rewarded - it was another great event and night of demos and networking. Without further adieu, I list the participating companies below:

• How about We - This novel dating website has been around for some time. They provide a nice alternative, as their service is more about getting people together over creative dates rather than just helping to make connections. It was a very nice demo; they now have a service for couples (my colleague jokingly wondered if it was about swingers).
• Combosaurus - This new Web-based service is an outgrowth of OKCupid, which is another dating site (and the one where I met my girlfriend of close to two years - so it worked well for me!). Combosaurus gives you a way to discover interests and people based on lots of data and impressive number crunching.
• Shelby.tv - A great video discovery and sharing site
• Mortar Data - Grist for the big data geeks out there - a so-called open source framework and Hadoop-as-a-service for engineers and scientists. The CTO showed a cool demo - he mined Twitter data using clever searches to find which state had the most coffee snobs (Oregon, as it turned out).
• MLB Advanced Media -This is a business unit within Major League Baseball that does live streaming for a number of clients, including NYTM. It was a really impressive demo - they used their own streaming tech to take us behind the scenes in real time, showing their data center and walls of video.
• Catchafire - A website to organize do-gooders around pro bono projects.
• Tactonic Technologies - This company offers an innovative approach to touch and gesture interface technologies (thus "enabling surface interaction - everywhere"). There are many cool potential application, e.g.they showed how this might work on a car dashboard and steering wheel.
• SumAll - Business intelligence for the rest of us, AKA small biz.  The team showed how to generate beautiful charts and graphs from a range of data.
• Citia - This company wins my vote for the coolest demo of the night.  The website claims that they reinvent the media experience, and I have to say, I don't think this is an overstatement.  Their system makes content jump, roll over and do many other tricks.  It is really hard to explain, but they do have nice videos on their home page that will give you a taste (the demo they showed looks like Flipboard on whatever comes after steroids).

Mind the Customer Experience at your Next PR Event

You may have heard of a relatively new buzzword that is getting lots of play in the customer service and telecom arenas: customer experience management (CEM). I thought about this when I attended a press luncheon this week that our agency helped put together.

The event went very well, and had all of the nice touches. It took place in an upscale NYC restaurant. We had a semi-private area carved out, and about 20 people in attendance, including journalists, PR and client staff, and a guest analyst.  There were no empty tables - media attendance was what we had hoped it would be.

We paid careful attention to the seating arrangement to make sure that vendor executives were evenly distributed. There was an air of buzz and excitement as we took our seats - the media were told in advance that this would be a major announcement, and they seemed to be eager to learn more over a very nice lunch.

The speakers were top notch. They did not get too deep down into the tech "weeds" and made sure to include application examples that were impressive and easy-to-understand. The information that they shared about the company's leadership market position was helpful to those who were just getting to know the company,

The spokespeople made their pitches with the help of large monitors on either side of the podium. The news covered a very technical, B2B product, yet the demos showed compelling benefits for end users. The speakers tied product features and benefits to relevant industry trends, and the analyst added an important air of credibility to the event.

OK, so the press luncheon wasn't perfect. Perhaps the presentations went on for just a little too long - and no food was served for about an hour during this time. But that was OK, as the reporters were literally salivating over the news - and would not leave until we fed them! Some might have found the noise from other parts of the restaurant to be a little distracting - on the other hand there was a good vibe, it was clearly a popular and happening restaurant - hopefully sending the message (by association) that our client and its news were happening too.

I was seated next to a reporter from a major newswire and was very pleased to see her listening very carefully, taking notes, and quizzing one of the vendor execs at our table about the news. As I watched our other "customer" clearly taking in and enjoying the proceedings, the importance of the phrase CEM to what we do in PR really hit home.

After all, I can say with a fair degree of certainty that the newswire reporter (and other media in attendance) have no hands-on experience with this technology. All they had to go on was the information that was presented, within the context of a very nice backdrop - an elegant meal at a fine NYC restaurant, with all of the nice touches that supported our news.

It is hard to know for sure without asking the journalists - but I hope and believe the experience we delivered was a good one - and played a role in how they regard the brand and cover the news.

Some may dismiss CEM as just another buzzword. And, while it may be more often associated with things like billing, support, and call quality - if you are in PR and planning an event, make sure that the media customer experience is optimal.

So, How did Lance Armstrong do? Was it a good PR Move?

It was one of the world's worst kept secrets: Lance Armstrong's decision to tell all on Oprah. The media widely covered this leading up to the interviews, and speculated about motives, what would be revealed, etc.

I thought t that I would try to find out from other people in the PR field whether they thought that Lance's decision to tell his story in this manner was a good PR move. So, last week, before the interviews aired, I conducted a survey. My question was simply this - forgetting for a moment about what you think about Lance as a person and disgraced sport figure - was he taking the right steps to turn around his image?

Here are some of the answers that I got when I started an email thread:

• Is waiting until you get an exclusive with Oprah to admit to years of doping a PR move? Yes. A better one was just admitting it when you actually got caught.
• My 2 cents: Lance Armstrong’s image is beyond repair. There is no amount of PR or Oprah interviews that can rehab him. He cheated and lied to the public and the government for personal gain.
• Might be worthwhile to look into some of the Tiger Woods controversy awhile back for comparison. Slightly different as one is infidelity vs. doping and one was kicked out of the sport, the other not. But he also did the Oprah apology that bombed. Tiger still suffers in the public eye for his indiscretions, but as far as an athlete goes you cannot deny he changed the game of golf. Something to think about…
• It’s different though – Tiger is still respected as a once-great athlete because his indiscretions had nothing to do with his athletic performance. But Lance Armstrong’s entire legacy is now in doubt. He cheated. No one was inducted into the baseball hall of fame this year because of drug issues for all potentials. That says something about how the public and the professional sports industry feels about cheaters -- cheating in sports, not cheating on their wives.

One of my friends who is in PR said that it was the right PR move, but that Lance has a long road back to repairing his image. Since it seems that Lance was angling for something here, my feeling is that most people would not care much about his belated tell all - he obviously has an ulterior motive, i.e. to get back into competitive sports. If you really want to burnish your image, just do the right thing and then go away for awhile.

The interviews are now over, of course. I saw the first one and did not think he did too badly. Some also expressed said that he did as well as could be expected. Others said that he was not contrite enough; one opined that Lance is a sociopath.

I enjoyed the SNL segment on this and thought I would share it - I thought Jason Sudeikis did a brilliant job as Lance.

Tempt - and then Reject - Your Best Customers: The Great New Way to Build Brand

If I told you there was a way to build your brand by tempting - and then rejecting - more customers; would you believe me?

The very idea might be foreign to tech marketers, but it is a strategy that seems to have worked well in higher education, according to an article in the WSJ. The Journal story caught my attention because I saw it right after a friend told me about the status of his son's college applications (my younger daughter is graduating from high school this year and also going though the process now).

He was surprised that his son's early action application was deferred by Northeastern University; the kid had high grades and test scores, etc., and should have been a shoo in. Here's an excerpt from the article:

In the past six years, Northeastern University has vaulted 42 spots in the powerful U.S. News & World Report college rankings. And not merely because it added programs, hired superstar faculty or built fancy facilities. The private school in Boston also has made an all-out effort to increase the number of applicants for admission, dispatching its 30-person recruiting staff across the country and sending hundreds of thousands of personalized letters and emails to high-school students. It persuaded more than 44,000 students to apply for one of the 2,800 spots in its fall 2012 freshman class—up from about 30,000 in 2007—a move that boosted the school's selectivity, illustrating a growing trend in college marketing.

The article discussed methods that Northeastern and other schools are using to boost reputation and ranking, draw better students and increase donations; these include advanced target marketing techniques, and influencing the influencers (e.g. college guidance counselors).

There might not seem to be many takeaways for tech marketing, e.g.tech companies won't generally limit availability of product. Yet the tech world has its various ranking systems and influencers. You can rest assured that other companies, perhaps right in your space are applying forward thinking strategies for target marketing, influencing influencers, moving up in rankings and brand perception - what are you doing to move the needle for YOUR company or brand?

Netflix Shows Facebook its Privates, Gets Slapped by SEC

I love the intersection of words and technology.  One phrase that seems to have caught on recently is "humblebragging", that is the art of shedding crocodile tears, or exhibiting false modesty, generally via social media status updates (this NY Times article explains it well).

I also saw the news in the Times this week about how Netflix CEO Reed Hastings got into hot water with the SEC by doing more bragging than crying on Facebook. According to DealB%k:

In July, Mr. Hastings posted three lines stating that “Netflix monthly viewing exceeded 1 billion hours for the first time ever in June.”

In doing so, he apparently violated Regulation FD (for Fair Disclosure, also known simply as Reg FD).  Most PR people as well as Wall Street types know that Reg FD specifies how news that can move stock prices is shared with the public. It aims to ensure a level playing field for investors, and avoid the situation where some people - e.g. journalists, or industry analysts - get a heads up on news before it is officially announced.

The whole thing was surprising to me because it seems that it was years ago that the SEC relented to modern times and agreed to let companies use their websites and even social media to release such news. Previously, companies had to use a newswire service (I wrote about some of these issues in this post from 2007).

But as it turns out, life is not at all so simple - Stephen Davidoff's DealB%k piece schooled me on a couple of things that I did not know.

First, I had assumed that Reg FD was generally a good thing, and was not aware of the potential unintended consequences that he reported:

It seems so simple. How can more disclosure be bad? But both public companies and investment banks argued that the rule would actually reduce the flow information, as companies, now forbidden from disclosing only to analysts, would simply choose not to release the information...

Subsequent studies of Regulation FD’s effects have shown that the critics may have been right. One of the most-cited studies found that analyst coverage of smaller companies dropped. And since there was now less information in the market about these smaller companies, investors subsequently demanded a bigger premium to invest, increasing financing costs. Another study found that the introduction of Regulation FD increased market volatility because information was no longer informally spread.

Regarding the Netflix case, Davidoff discusses the updated Reg FD rules, and explains why they may not apply here:

Then there is the issue of whether this was privately disclosed information... Some have seized on this requirement to claim that the S.E.C. is in essence saying that Facebook is not a “public” Web site. This is laughable; after all, Mr. Hastings is popular — he has more than 200,000 subscribers to his Facebook account. But the S.E.C.’s argument is likely to be more technical than saying Facebook is private. In a 2008 release on Web site disclosure, the S.E.C. asserted that a Web site or a blog could be public for Regulation FD purposes but only if it was a “recognized channel of distribution of information. ”

In other words, a public disclosure is not about being public but about being made where investors knew the company regularly released investor information.

94 Words, Botched Media Opp, Nary a PR Person in Sight

Most of us have heard about those 94 words: the now infamous talking points that Susan Rice used to explain what happened in the Benghazi tragedy. On Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal featured a blow-by-blow account of how a CIA assessment that was at first brutally frank and accurate got watered down, as it bounced around the powers that be like a pinball. The article reported the chain of events, and how public statements evolved, culminating in Rice's appearance on the Sunday morning political talk shows.

Here is an excerpt:

Behind the political showdown over the deadly U.S. consulate attack in Benghazi, Libya, are a few dozen heavily edited words.

The 94-word intelligence summary emerged from a daylong email debate between more than two dozen intelligence officials, in which they contested and whittled the available evidence into a bland summary with no reference to al Qaeda, an assessment the administration now acknowledges was wide of the mark.

Now famous as "the talking points," the 94 words were used by United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice on Sunday talk shows days after the attack.  A detailed examination of how U.S. assessments were turned into the talking points reveals a highly cautious, bureaucratic process that had the effect of watering down the U.S.'s own intelligence.

The unfortunate result of this situation is that Rice's account - which seems to be the one that is most often cited - provided inaccurate information to the public and gave fodder to Republicans and Romney campaign.

I don't know if Susan Rice sought or got advice from a PR professional before going on TV and sharing the "party line" version of events; if so, this was not mentioned.

Some might see this as a good thing, that a flack wasn't brought in; but perhaps that was part of the problem.  A competent media adviser (one who had visibility into situation - but the objectivity of an outsider) would have thrown cold water on the whole ill-conceived enterprise and said "look guys this may sound good now but we will be toast if we go with this." (This is not to let Susan Rice off the hook, she made the statement, and that is where the buck should stop; the article reports that she did not believe she had clearance to improvise around the script).

Unfortunately, some just see PR as people who Spam reporters to get clients in the press (see my last post, which shares an example of this distorted view). Media training and strategy are also part of the job; good PR pros have the guts to stare down a tough situation and give their best advice despite the torpedoes.

Did you know that it is an important role for the profession? If you are in PR, are you that kind of advisor?

Tech Media Thrashes About - and Blames PR, a Convenient Target

My friend and former colleague Suzanne McGee called my attention to a story, the kind of which has become sadly familiar. John Biggs wrote on TechCrunch about Churn:The Problem of the New Tech Journalism.. John writes:

We post a lot of things for two reasons. First, lots of posts is the low-hanging fruit in the orchard of traffic.. It’s that simple... If that sounds mercenary, then you, the readers, are the hiring generals... If we didn’t have to shovel this stuff into your constantly grinding maw we’d have a lot more time to write 4,000-word reviews of Atheros chipsets. The second reason we post so much and so quickly is because we’re constantly involved in a conversation. It’s a conversation with tipsters, with readers, with creators, with makers, and, sadly, PR peoplle.

Somehow, amidst the many excellent points he makes about the field of tech journalism, and the factors that explain its frenetic pace, John singles out PR for special attention (well, he also blames the hapless reader, and our "grinding maws").  John adds:

The answer, as far as I see it, is simple: avoid PR and PR newswires and keep the conversation going naturally.

There are several things to note here. First of all, it seems that PR has become an all-too-convenient target - bad behavior by some in the profession seems to give many in the media carte blanche to trash the entire field. I have written about this, here is one of my more recent stories: Absurd to Call Samsung Customer service Isssue a Tech PR Fail.

However, we are now, in growing numbers, quite vocally defending ourselves - the comments section for the Biggs article seems to be dominated by PR and many take issue with the story, kudos to John and TechCrunch for letting these stand.

The second is that the article reflects the overheated nature of tech media. I wrote about this too, see my post about sniping between the tech blogs. Also, some may have seen the Twitter trash talking between Kara Swisher of AllThingsD and Alexia Tsotsis, also of TechCrunch yesterday, it got quite heated.

Let's all take a few deep breaths, can't we all just get along?  Tech coverage is important, but let's face they are not writing about cures for world hunger. Even John admits: "I can’t say we’re reporting on the cure for cancer or sending in dispatches from the Eastern Front..."

To add a little gallows humor, I include a video of recent SNL skit, which skewers tech bloggers, not to insult or trivialize tech journalism (after all my livelihood depends to a large extent on tech media, and the trust and good will that we establish with journalists) but to implore us all to keep things in proper perspective, lighten up (and, yea okay and let's face it, it is a pretty funny and on-target routine).

Facebook Brand Page Reach: Turkey, or Goose that Laid the Golden Egg?

Recently, there's been some controversy over Facebook regarding brand page reach and costs.  My post yesterday on Windmill Networking cited a social media succes story; it was about an effort that relied heavily on Facebook ads to improve brand page results.  I did not have room there to delve into the questions about Facebook, and so am following up with this post.

The column I wrote shared the details of a case study that was published in TechCrunch: How to get 100,000 Likes for your Fan Page.  It related the story of how a VC blew out his blog traffic by combining his Facebook fan page and ads with FanNewsCast, a content curation solution from the company IT Agility,

I first learned of the Facebook controversy from a post by fellow Windmill Networking columnist Chris Treadway, who asked: Facebook - Are the Good Times Really Over for Good?  He cited rants from entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and George Takei of Star Trek fame regarding increased costs for brand pages, and declining reach numbers.  Chris wrote

"Last week, we perhaps had a watershed moment in the ongoing maturation of Facebook as a business.  Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, posited that Facebook was “blowing it” by offering the Mavs an “opportunity” to make posts visible to its fans for $3,000."

Takei and Cuban were complaining, essentially, that Facebook was trying to sell Promoted Posts by reducing how often brand page updates get featured in follower news feeds.

Since my story involved using Facebook advertising to build visibility for brand pages via posts and newsfeeds, I thought it only right that I ask IT Agility founder Steve Wick about this.  The TechCrunch article featuring his company's technology preceded the controversy.  My question to Steve was, given the recent Facebook changes, could the VC have achieved comparable results for the same investment (which iwas fairly small) today?

Steve was steadfast; he said that there were opinions on both sides of the issue, but "our solution to scale relevant fans to Facebook pages works fine and is not impacted by the post reach controversy."

The problem is that hard data is not easy to come by; Facebook's algorithms are a black box that filter and determine which updates go iinto a user's news feed; it is never an all or nothing situation.

Steve provided some links and articles that give more of a complete picture.  One reported an update from Facebook which seemed to be in response to the controversy, and designed to allay concerns (although they insist not, according to the Wired story below).

TechCrunch: Killing Rumors with Facts; No Facebook Didn't Decrease Page Feed Reach to Sell More Promoted Posts.

Wired:  Facebook Has Good News for Mark Cuban and George Takei

Mashable: Mark Cuban's Criticism Aside, Facebook Page Conspiracy Claim is No Slam Dunk

Content Curation Update and Roundup

I am working on my monthly Windmill Networking content marketing column, and thought it would be a good time to revisit my article Blow Out Your Content Markerting and Lead Social Conversations witih Content Curation, which ran in March.

So I took some time to get caught up with experts in the field whom I know and respect.

Tom Riddle of curation platform CIThread, a solution that I have covered, mentioned that the company is taking a step back and reevaluating its approach to the marketplace.

When I asked him about alternatives, he mentioned Curata (I know and have covered them, as well) and Curation Station, but seemed to wonder whether any curation tech companies were having great success and impact on the market.

I also spoke with Alex Romanovich of Social2B, and he had a lot to say, offering his "two cents" on the state of content curation:

Let's define this first.

Content Curation is a content marketing approach that allows an individual user or an organization to collect, refine, and repurpose or retarget this content to a specific audience.

This is a great opportunity for Small Business or Professionals who are interested in providing unique, curated content to their target audience, as a differentiator. Content Curators are Content Connoisseurs - the good ones are providing value to their audience, and sometime monetize it as well.

Another important aspect of content curation is the fact that well curated content is all about personal story-telling and personalized input on the content obtained elsewhere. The original content is left untouched, yet the curation process allows for a more opinionated and more refined look at nuances and elements of that original content.

So what's the big deal? Well, precision and viewpoints make a difference. The audience likes curators for their ability to refine and to filter content, and thus categorize it for the target audience.

Here are some good examples of Content Curation platforms and what they may entail:

1. Pinterest - image and video curation at its best. More on Pinterest in this Social2B blog post. After you review the blog post, consider this - there are tools now, like Curalate.com, that allow brands and professionals to measure the effectiveness of their Pinterest curation presences. As always, and with any content, you have to be consistent, sustainable and relevant.
2. There are a variety of tools that allow you to create your own Curated Magazine - Storify, Paper.li, Scoop.it, and many others, allow you to select the existing publications and create an interest based publication catering to a particular audience. Passion Marketing and Interest Based Marketing will be entering our vocabulary fairly shortly.
3. For bloggers, there are a number of Blog Curation solutions, including the WordPress itself as a curation platform with various plug-ins. The solutions can be as simple as leveraging Google Alerts and using free tools, such as SocialMention. If you want to integrate other features related to curation, such as voting and feedback, FanNewscast could be a great solution as well - extending curation to Facebook and other platforms.
4. For email marketers, it is possible to integrate your email content with social media, thus extending your message beyond the direct response capabilities offered by email only. XYDO, ConstantContact, ChimpMail, Vertical Response and others now provide well integrated, social content marketing and curation solutions to drive your audience towards the social media and digital media platform of choice

Finally, to get results from Content Curation you need consistency and some level of automation offered my platforms such as Curata and others. Curata includes a more sophisticated level of automation and analytics not immediately offered by other platforms. In the end, Curation is all about telling your story - your own way, refined for your audience and catering to your community.

Crawling Back

Anyone who follows this blog knows that I like to post at least once and sometimes several times per week.  However, hopefully most will forgive me for going dark last week as Hurricane Sandy blew into our lives, here in NY and the Mid-Atlantic; and it is hard to say when or if things will ever be the same. 

Sure, most of us now have power, Internet, shelter, and food. But the impact of this storm has been wide ranging, for the local economy, citizens and NY tech.  In terms of the latter, both the New York Times and Wall Street Journal ran stories, see NY Start-ups Become Officemates in Hurricane Sandy Aftermath and Start-ups Move Fast to Revive Operations, respectively.  Also, the Huffington Post ran this piece: Silicon Alley During Hurricane Sandy: Techies Adapt to Weather, Work from Home.

The NY Tech meetup mailing list buzzed about the mess, and featured many heart wrenching stories, and offers of help.

The impact on the local tech community was felt beyond Silicon Alley in NYC; Miles Rose chimed in from hard hit Long Beach, New York, on Long Island (where DeskCenter, a software company that we have worked with, is also located) via the NY Tech Meetup mailing list:

It's ugly, car destroyed, no electric, no water, good that there is still gas. I literally was left with the clothes on my back but now have some from the only open office shop drop off place in LB. As much as you read about natural disasters it's not the same until you experience it. It's bay water, ocean water, oil from up ended oil tanks and sewage from overflowed sewers. Not fun my any means. And showers surely needed by all.

Miles is spearheading a relief effort there; you can subscribe to his newsletter, which lists helpful resources, by sending an email to lbnysandy@gmail.com.

A Fairfield County, Connecticut colleague wrote:

As you well know, my town in Connecticut has been severely impacted by Hurricane Sandy and I have been without power, internet and phone for exactly 1 week.  Due to downed trees, I am still trapped on the street after 1 week due to dozens of downed (and massive) oak trees which block the way. Although I was promised by CL&P (our power utility) that power would be restored by 9pm tonight, I recently learned that the devastation was 10x worse than they originally forecast and that several more days will be required.

For the first time in my life, I feel completely powerless and depressed (not to mention cold/the house is now 55 degrees). Generators are nowhere to be found.

The impact is being felt well beyond the area, as some papers have reported that supply chains have been disrupted; this could spell doom for holiday shopping season business results (e.g., my girlfriend's company had a deal to sell some of their fashion merchandise on NY Tech company Fab; however Fab's site appears to be down; the WSJ article linked above mentioned that the company's operations have been affected).

As for me, I really can't complain too much as power came back after one day in the Northern Westcheter town where I live, and cable TV and Internet shortly thereafter.  I just bought gas today without too much of a problem.

But it is far from certain when things will really be back to "normal."