Laughter Through Tears (and Other PR Blog Jots)

It's (not) Funny Because it's True
Common Sense PR
Wired covered an admittedly hilarious “tool” called the Web 2.0 B.S. Generator, inspired by the insipid language engorging crappy press releases throughout the land. Eric Eggerston rightly points out that while it’s pretty funny to make fun of the glut of poorly crafted releases, once you realize how ubiquitous they are (and how on the money tools like the B.S. generator are), it’s maybe just a bit less funny and a bit more pathetic. I’ve banged the bad writing drum repeatedly, but it increasingly feels like shouting at the rain. Eric offers up a tongue-in-cheek solution: find a way to make money out of “de-jargoning” the press release. It’s so crazy it just might work. “Now if we can get a Web 2.0 startup to monetize the dejargonization of business semantic tag clouds, we could revolutionize corporate motivation-triggers. We can call it RealSpace. Or Gabopia. Or Jabberpedia. Or Camindu! I can taste the venture capital funding already…”

Influencers 2.0
The Flack
Peter Himler examines the Hillary Clinton campaign’s decision to offer Clinton antagonist Matt Drudge an exclusive on a story regarding her fundraising prowess, going to the notorious blogger even before hitting the major outlets. The New York Times picked up the story, and the buzz flowed from there. A-list bloggers are becoming the go-to influencers for, as Peter puts it, PR pros looking for a little “kindling” for their buzz fire. “A while back, this blogger wrote about a new media pecking order in which the most influential bloggers have gained the upper-hand for setting the national news agenda -- in spite of fickle audiences spawning in a 24/7 news flow. From Arrington to Huffington to Levin (and even Drudge, if you must): if you're not cultivating those A-list RSS-fueled journos that operate in your client's space, you soon may be guilty of PR malpractice.”

Doing the Hulu
Marketing Conversations
In the past, I’ve been baffled when major networks, movie studios and other media outlets have balked at their content appearing on YouTube. YouTube has essentially served as free advertising to each network’s target audience. If they see a clip on YouTube and think it’s funny, doesn’t logic indicate that user will be more likely to check out what other content the outlet has to offer? Yes, I understand the copyright implications, but I don’t view the content on YouTube instead of my regular viewing, if anything it enhances it. Seeing an old SNL sketch might inspire me to check out the latest season to see what’s up; YouTube to me represents free buzz. That being said, I must grudgingly admit that NBC has the right idea in pulling all their content from other online sources (including iTunes) and setting up shop for their own online video channel, Hulu. Jonathan Trenn argues that it shows YouTube’s vulnerability in the online video marketplace. “On YouTube, someone can watch 10 minutes of something and then hop over to a video of a guy picking his nose.  NBC will essentially own their traffic.  They can measure it better, the can monetize it better.  They’ll be able to create greater brand affinity and loyal communities of interest.  The ROI could be excellent.  The model is unproven at this point, but so is YouTube.”