Brand sponsor + Event= Success? Maybe…but for who?

21Aug09


Nick McGlynn’s Obliterati party is being sponsored by CitySearch next Thursday. 

I’m a supporter of this event and it always gets rave reviews (even though it conflicts with Digital DUMBO every month ahem ahem :) )And as an organizer of a networking event, I understand that sponsorship will probably help with drink costs and specials are always a plus. Way to go Nick. I just wonder what the motivation is from the CitySearch standpoint?
  • To be associated with the hip New York tech savvy scene?
  • Get them to review the bar and comment on the CitySearch site? (That’s what Yelp is for. Not Citysearch in my opinion)
What’s in it for CitySearch? 
When brands come in to sponsor events, there is usually a goal. So for example, when Citysearch competitor Yelp does their special events, the goal is for those Yelp Elite that attended the event to go back and  review the event, tying back into the whole community site and vibe. (Plus, the venue now has a set of fresh eyes in their space in hopes that they’ll come back.) Or, when Pepsi hosted the Brooklyn Bowl event a few weeks back for the new Mountain Dew, they had a specific goal of reaching a targeted audience that would enjoy that venue and interact with the brand in the way they wanted.
Brands can come in and throw money at many types of events. For the most part, I would confidently say that it’s accepted by the organizer if it’s going to help with costs, buzz, etc…but from a planning view, you also want to make sure that the sponsor ties into the overall theme of your event.
What do you think?
Subscribe!

Filed under: events, new york, social media   |  Leave a Comment

Breaking News on Twitter-some thoughts

20Aug09

So Mashable posted today two breaking sports stories that were first “heard” on Twitter. News outlets now are afraid to be scooped by others that they immediately post to Twitter and THEN follow up with a longer post with the details. They listed the benefits to breaking first on Twitter including the amount of awareness you gain, less chance of being scooped, etc…
I’m all for this. A quick “post on the go” with follow up later on the details once you have time to read it is awesome. For people that are busy, sometimes just knowing the headline of the news is good to keep going. 
But, I also thought of something else.
In a meeting this week iLike came up and I had remembered seeing on my Twitter feed that MySpace was in talks to buy it for $20 million “or something.” (News later reported it was official.) While the news was insightful for those in the room that didn’t know, not having further details left a lot of open questions. Questions that I wish I had the answers to. 
So, what’s the ideal? 
  • Waiting for the full story to provide the details and get everything right?
  • Quick post on Twitter in fear of not being the first to break it. (Doesn’t this also remind you of those blogs like Perez Hilton where people comment to only try and be FIRST?)
  • A combination of the two? But then what would that happ medium be?
I don’t have a full opinion on this because I can’t decide what I think works best.
What do you think?
Subscribe!

Filed under: social media, twitter   |  Leave a Comment

Update

16Aug09

I’m not one to take a break. Honestly, I need to do it more and my recent vacation proved that after multiple people commented on how happy I looked in pictures and in person. (Note to self: Hawaii looks lovely. How much are flights?)

In other happenings, I completed my first half marathon today. It was 95 degrees out. I may have almost passed out but damn did it feel good in the end running through the streets of New York.

And, for the most exciting news, (that I’ve already announced but want to put on here) I have a new job! I start at Attention tomorrow as a Director for the Consumer group. I’m beyond excited. Check out the first blog post on the Attention blog here and continue to check it out for more content from me and my awesome colleagues.
Link

Subscribe!

Filed under: my life i live it, the job   |  Leave a Comment

Plan B

11Aug09

Just in case this whole digital/social media/online trend goes away, we all need a backup plan. I don’t have one yet, but I do like this quote from David Sable, vice chairman-chief operating officer at WPP’s Wunderman:

“And if all else fails, there is plan B. My contingency plan is to open a falafel stand. There’s always a market for that.”

David if you need a backup chef or a girl to hold out free samples on the street I’m your girl. Although honestly, I immediately thought to give this new falafel stand a Twitter account. So yea, I don’t see this digital stuff going anywhere yet.

Read the full article here from AdAge about why the ad industry won’t be doing that well in the second half of 2009. Good thing that PR has an optimistic view about them.

Subscribe!

Filed under: advertising, public relations, social media   |  Leave a Comment

General Public Stalker is the new Celebrity Stalker

10Aug09

Out to dinner for a very close friend’s birthday downtown. Small place with about 25 people in it total. There was an urge to take photos of our perfectly made margaritas, the great presentation of the nachos and the laughing friends lit by the candlelight. The birthday cake bought by another friend for the lady of the evening comes out almost the size of her head. Instantly, I whip out my iPhone and snap the picture, posting it to Tumblr for all to see that 1)it’s my best friends birthday 2)look at the size of the cake! 3)to share a little bit about what I’m doing that night and to document. Harmless.

On the other side of the bar there is a girl with a few friends wearing a leotard over her jeans. Not an uber fashionista, I’m not one to usually gawk at an outfit but she was also dancing around like crazy and making a bit of a small scene. The entire table couldn’t stop staring at her and her unusual antics dancing around the bar. I immediately tried to snap another photo to share it. Why? WHY NOT.

Posting photos of your friends is OK and most of mine expect it now. When I take a picture on my phone I usually get the “is that going on your blog?” question. Sometimes it does, sometimes most of the time it doesn’t. Obviously some friends will say “Don’t tag me in that!” I do the same. But with strangers, I don’t offer them the opportunity to tell me to not post it and that’s kind of bad because honestly, I don’t want people posting me without my knowing.(Note-I don’t think people would. Don’t think I’m tooting my own horn here) In fact, my posting that photo of the girl (I didn’t) could have ended up crossing blog paths with someone else I know, causing an uncomfortable situation and so on.

So, where’s the line?

An article in yesterday’s New York Times about banning photos and tweets at certain bars and restaurants made sense to me. No one wants to go to dinner and have to worry about getting their photo taken by an unknown because they like your shoes or your bag, or if you’re lucky enough to be joined by a famous dinner date. You go to dinner to enjoy the meal and the company.

But, while that is a strong view of mine, I also like hearing about celebrity sightings at local stops. Example: A friend sat next to Matthew Broderick at a coffee shop a few weeks ago and my instant reaction was “Why didn’t you take a picture?!” Sure, the picture would have been of the back of his head or maybe a blurry action shot, but because of the current paparazzi state of the web, my instant reaction was to get proof and I wanted to see. I’ll admit I enjoyed the days when Gawker Stalker was really popular and I keep an eye on OMGICU. I also understand it’s a scary world for celebrities with stalkers and etc…

With the easy click of a button on a phone, the sense of annoyance of the paparazzi for celebrities also now applies to the normal person. As the article says, “On Facebook, “You have movie star issues, and you’re just a person,” she said.” It’s true. People take photos EVERYWHERE. Even when going on a recent vacation I asked my friend to not tag some of the photos and keep them private. It’s the normal person’s version of “No pictures please.”

What do you think? Do you agree with the banning of photos being taken in the bars or should we all just accept that our lives are now in a fishbowl and we need to deal with it?

Subscribe!

Filed under: my life i live it, social media   |  Leave a Comment

Me on the Internetz

27Jul09

I saw Nate Westheimer and Anthony DeRosa (Soup to some) blog about the difference in where they publish content. Nate says his blog innonate.com is for the more serious stuff while Tumblr is for his low brow/brilliant things he finds on the internet.

I do the same thing and know others that do it too. This blog I use for one type of content and the other places on the web for others. Out of the top four places I put content on, here they are:

Social Cocktails: This is my blog. I use it for more professional thoughts about social media/PR/internet/tech etc… Sure, I’ll stray away sometimes but I try and keep it professional here. (Note this blog is moving to WordPress shortly. Goodbye Blogger. You’ve been great but I like WordPress better.)

Tumblr: As I say on the sidebar, “This is where I dump all of the fun stuff from the Internet.” It’s true. I post songs, random photos of my walking through the city, funny quotes…you name it. It’s a place to dump the crazy stuff we all find.

Facebook: I’m still trying to figure this one out. I’ve imported Twitter and Tumblr to both and hate it. I guess I use it to post photos, but not all photos because I don’t want every picture of myself from nights out on the Internet. I use it as a stalking mechanism. I’m not going to deny it and come on, neither should you. I use Facebook to keep an eye on what people are up to. Who got married. Who has a kid. Who got fat. If you haven’t done ONE of these things I’d be shocked. I’m just being honest here! I also use it to get some content from the posted items, but I’m really using it to keep up with friends I don’t see on a regular basis.

Twitter: This one is interesting. I’d like to say I’m completely professional on this, but I’m not. And I don’t think it’s a bad thing. I’m myself. I’m a mix of my professional life and my personal life. I don’t tweet about my dating life or real personal issues, but I do put my personality out there. Plus some cool links. I also share where I am on Foursquare if I want to and some Yelp reviews. So be it.

What about you? Do you use different platforms for different types of content or do you keep one presence across all?

Subscribe!

Filed under: social media   |  Leave a Comment

"I have 2,189 followers!"

22Jul09

When thinking about Twitter followers, I am instantly reminded of a story back in college. I was at my friends party and this tiny girl walks in. She smacks her hand down on the make shift bar and yells “I weigh 98 pounds!” All of us looked in horror at the girl not sure who she was, why she was there and most importantly, why she was telling us that she weighed that much. There was no context behind the statement and no reason as to why that would matter to the group. We were all having a good time and didn’t care much for her issue at hand. (Luckily she left quickly, grabbed more punch from the party and went on her merry way.)

I get the same feeling when I think about the conversation around the number of Twitter followers people have. Imagine if I walked up to someone and in my introduction said “Hi! I’m Kristin Maverick and I have 2,189 Twitter followers!” I would get CRAZY looks!

I think it used to matter. People cared about numbers as a benchmark to how influential they were within the network. Thousands of people “listening” meant that they were “interested” in the important 140 characters that were sent out on a daily basis.

Now? I think it’s changed. When Twitter opened up and celebs became really active on it, more followers started coming my way. I don’t even talk with HALF of them. Heck, 3/4 of them. I took a look this morning at some of my followers. A TON are spam. Some are PR related. (I get that as I’m tagged with PR messages) Some are bots that pick up on key words and instant follow. (Example: I tweeted about Smoothie King this morning and now I’m being followed by @smoothieweb—COME. ON.) The number just doesn’t matter to me. I value the 463 people I follow and how most of them follow me back. I enjoy that conversation. I don’t want to use Twitter as a way to publish my content. People can do that, sure, but don’t go boasting about numbers here. Not when 1,000 of these “followers” are in fact computer bots.

Numbers are numbers but if you’re not interacting with the right people in a smart matter, what’s the point? Quality over quantity. I’d rather people I don’t talk with stop following me than follow me. I want to look through the ones that follow me that can offer some interesting conversation.

What do you think?

Subscribe!

Filed under: social media, twitter   |  Leave a Comment

The tools—they are obsolete my friends

16Jul09

Well said. Great post by Curtis Hougland at Attention PR. This snippet nails it on the changing of the PR industry, with simple proof.

The press conference is becoming obsolete for two basic reasons. The media has become more distributed, fragmented. The news cycle has changed. The people that spread word-of-mouth often cannot or do not attend these events, and the news is invariably already being discussed by the time of the press conference.

Rachel Roy (client) proved this point through a one-hour Twitter press conference, which cost $1 (Dina on our team wanted a Poland Springs water), and effectively reached both top-down and bottom-up media.

It is time to change the tool set.

Subscribe!

Filed under: public relations   |  Leave a Comment

Why social media makes things worse than they really are.

02Jul09

Do you remember bad news always being THIS BAD? Think about bad things that happened in the news a few years ago. (I don’t think I need examples) You saw what happened by watching CNN or picking up your newspaper. Then blogs came up and would post recaps. You could comment and add your 2 cents and you’d be able to find more information by doing a search based on your own interest for the cause.

But now, with Twitter especially, news (and especially BAD NEWS) gets spread around to a point of over exposure almost making the news sound catastrophic.

For example, the latest in celebrity deaths was extremely overwhelming. Farrah Fawcett. Michael Jackson. Billie Mays. Each announcement alone was a shocker in its own right, but when multiple people in your online stream are constantly posting, commenting, tweeting—it makes it even bigger because the news continually repeats right in front of you.

No longer are you able to back away from the news. It follows you everywhere. People are writing about the same things as part of a new news cycle across social media. This continuous repeating of the news makes small things bigger than usual and more important than it really is.

Great example: Yesterday, Tumblr went down for about 30 minutes. You go to Tumblr, it’s down. Fine. I won’t be able to check it out but I can move on with my life and get back to work. You then go and check Twitter and EVERYONE is writing about how Tumblr is down! Alone, it’s not really a big deal but together with a critical mass of content about the same thing: IT’S INSANE.

What do you think? Does social media make things bigger than they really are because of the opportunity to spread it and repeat it?

Subscribe!

Filed under: social media   |  Leave a Comment

Why social media makes things worse than they really are.

02Jul09

Do you remember bad news always being THIS BAD? Think about bad things that happened in the news a few years ago. (I don’t think I need examples) You saw what happened by watching CNN or picking up your newspaper. Then blogs came up and would post recaps. You could comment and add your 2 cents and you’d be able to find more information by doing a search based on your own interest for the cause.

But now, with Twitter especially, news (and especially BAD NEWS) gets spread around to a point of over exposure almost making the news sound catastrophic.

For example, the latest in celebrity deaths was extremely overwhelming. Farrah Fawcett. Michael Jackson. Billie Mays. Each announcement alone was a shocker in its own right, but when multiple people in your online stream are constantly posting, commenting, tweeting—it makes it even bigger because the news continually repeats right in front of you.

No longer are you able to back away from the news. It follows you everywhere. People are writing about the same things as part of a new news cycle across social media. This continuous repeating of the news makes small things bigger than usual and more important than it really is.

Great example: Yesterday, Tumblr went down for about 30 minutes. You go to Tumblr, it’s down. Fine. I won’t be able to check it out but I can move on with my life and get back to work. You then go and check Twitter and EVERYONE is writing about how Tumblr is down! Alone, it’s not really a big deal but together with a critical mass of content about the same thing: IT’S INSANE.

What do you think? Does social media make things bigger than they really are because of the opportunity to spread it and repeat it?

Subscribe!

Filed under: social media   |  Leave a Comment
« Previous Entries