The Wiz

Tweet

The Wall Street Journal's ad reporter Suzanne Vranica today raised a relatively overlooked, but not unimportant dimension of Michael Jackson's multi-dimensional life. In so doing, she brought back some good memories.

My first brush with the child star happened by phone. It was shortly after "The Wiz" had shuttered on Broadway and just before the show's scarecrow went "Off the Wall." Jackson starred alongside his mentor Diana Ross (or "Ms. Ross" as she insisted on being called). I was just out of college and working for a small entertainment PR boutique in NY that had handled publicity chores for "The Wiz," and subsequently for Ms. Ross' first solo U.S. concert tour.

A call came into the office and the caller, in a soft voice, identified himself as Michael Jackson. He requested that the cast album from the show be sent to a certain address. Fan, friend...who knew? I asked the caller to confirm he was indeed Michael Jackson. He immediately provided his home address, phone. etc. My boss called Michael's father who verified the accuracy of the info. The album was sent.

Years later, at Hill and Knowlton, we repped Pepsi, which along with its ad agency BBDO and Jay Coleman, had pioneered the use of pop artists in commercial advertising. We were initially retained by Pepsi International to help manage the overseas introduction of New Coke -- yes New Coke. That's another story. See post here.

For Pepsi USA, however, we were charged with publicizing the post-Thriller Jackson and specifically, his new multi-year contract for a second round of advertising spots. (It was during the taping of the first that the star's hair caught on fire, creating global headlines.) To announce the deal, Jackson reluctantly agreed to make an appearance alongside then Pepsi USA CEO Roger Enrico at a NYC news conference held at nightclub called the Red Parrot on West 57th Street. (See above video clip.)

As if the throng of expected media wasn't enough, we convinced Mr. Jackson's reps to allow us to deploy an ENG video crew backstage to follow him around and onto the presser stage. After the obligatory intros and Jackson's three words of thanks, the enigmatic star tried to slip off the stage. Mr. Enrico, to his credit, pulled the star back for an impromptu Q&A.

Later that day, we delivered that behind-the-scenes footage via satellite to hundreds of major market TV stations nationwide, let alone a handful of national TV entertainment programs and segments.

The commercial itself, if my memory serves me well, was destined to debut on the Super Bowl. (Pepsi had a penchant for making big splashes, and getting its money's worth.) Yet, Mr. Jackson, the perfectionist that he was, was in control. In fact, it was Jackson who oversaw the editing process, which put everyone at Pepsi in Mentos mode when the spot remained in edit the night before the Super Bowl game.

It had to be perfect, and guess what? It was.

Quick Draw McGraws

Tweet

The spat between TechCrunch's Michael Arrington sparked by The New York Times's tech editor Damon Darlin seems like eons ago, in spite of only hitting a crescendo in the last two weeks. (I guess today's continuous news flow creates short-memoried news consumers.)

You may remember that Mr. Darlin decided to compare the journalistic proclivities of bloggers versus those of mainstream news reporters. Darlin wrote:

"For some blogs, rumors are their stock in trade. In October, for instance, Silicon Alley Insider discussed a rumor that first appeared in a “citizen journalism” section of the CNN Web site that Steven P. Jobs, the chief executive of Apple, had had a heart attack. He hadn’t."

Darlin continued:

"Mr. Arrington and the other bloggers see this not as rumor-mongering, but as involving the readers in the reporting process. One mission of his site, he said, is to write about the things a few people are talking about, “the scuttlebutt around Silicon Valley.” His blog will often make clear that he’s passing along a thinly sourced story."

Having the pundit pulpit that he does, Mr. Arrington decided to use it:

"I can't help wondering if our occasional criticism of the NYTimes prompted their most recent attack, this time aimed squarely at us. Not only does writer Damon Darlin get a lot wrong, he just absolutely failed to write the real and far more interesting story that was staring him in the face."

The debate in essence pitted the quickdraw approach versus the more thorough, yet sluggish process newspapers and their ilk use before pulling the trigger. As the "first write of history," mainstream journalists strive to get it right the first time, and leave corrections or extended coverage for later as necessary.

If a rumor has a hint of truth, bloggers (and increasingly microbloggers) seem more comfortable with letting the crowd decide. First breaker status seems to hold greater allure than the mandate to get it (completely) right.

I was reminded of this debate after reading another Times story today that revealed how The State newspaper of Columbia, South Carolina sat for months on an alleged amorous email exchange between the now infamous Governor and his Argentinian lover.

"'We had not determined they were authentic,' Leroy Chapman, the political editor at The State, said of the e-mail. 'What it was, was a puzzle piece that was hardly discernible.'"

What if The State had published the email exchange back then and let its readers weigh in on its veracity? Does that reporting model serve the public better than the traditional model, which demands information be withheld until truly verified?

I personally believe that both models have their merits, but with one caveat: the first write of history, or post of a rumor as the case may be, invariably leaves the most indelible impression. It's that embedded impression that's often hard to shake even if subsequent facts don't support it. What's more, that conjecture lives permanently online, findable by anyone via Google.

Hence, I err on the side of caution. Let the journalists do what they're trained to do: report the facts when they're fully baked. Here are some links that further expound on the subject:

• NPR "On the Media" "Process Journalism" (June 12)
• BuzzMachine "Product v. process journalism: The myth of perfection v. beta culture" (June 7)
• TechCrunch "The Morality And Effectiveness Of Process Journalism" (June 7)
• Journalistics "Process Journalism and Its Twitter Enabler"(June 16)
• Bay Newser "Arrington: 'Getting It Right is Expensive. Getting It First is Cheap'" (June 6)
• Miami Herald "Commentary: Accuracy Standards & Online Journalism" (June 23)
  

Finally, regarding the Michael Jackson news of late today, these related tweets caught my eye:

• standupkid Jackson story shows the limits, risks of breaking news tweets vs. traditional vetting by legacy media.
• anildash Unfortunately it's true, according to (the reputable) @LATimescitydesk

UPDATE: And the debate rages on anew today (Friday).

Personal v. Corporate Brandstreams

Tweet

I recently wrote about the conundrum of posting under your own name to serve your employer's social media needs. We're all familiar with our friend fronting for Ford and the man behind the @ComcastCares Twitter handle.

Many recommend using a real person in order to make the engagement more human, authentic. While other minders of (mostly) consumer-facing products lead with a commercial brand to build esteem (and followers).

In terms of the latter approach, I may enjoy their products but you won't see me among Pepsi's 200K+ Facebook friends and 5K+ Twitter followers or Sharpie Pens' 13K+ FB friends. (I'm probably in the minority.)

I'm beginning to believe in a hybrid model that blends the product name with a human one. Think @Zappos (Tony Hsieh), @ComcastCares (Frank Eliason) and @Richard@Dell (Richard Binhammer). But what happens if you've built a personal-branded following on the back of your employer, and then leave the company for a competitor? Who owns those legions of fans - you or your employer?

One prominent corporate social media chief, who tweets under his own name, said it was no different than when a company CEO departs. And who doesn't abscond with his "Rolodex" when moving on?

I recently noticed that our industry's blogging pioneer (and a friend) Steve Rubel quietly added a second, personal-branded blog to his social media portfolio. It's called The Steve Rubel Lifestream. I asked him about it:

Why did you start Lifestream?

In my role I am charged with helping Edelman and our clients innovate. As part of this I am always evaluating new platforms and services. Posterous is one of those platforms.

I started the Lifestream because I was attracted to the simplicity of Posterous as well as the ability to post and "manage" it via email. There are many days when I am accessing the Internet more from my iPhone than I am on a PC so this was the ideal technology. I also wanted to find something in between Twitter and a blog - and a site that could handle multimedia easily (which Posterous does also via email).

What are the differences between the Lifestream and Micropersuasion (content-wise)?

I am still figuring this out but I believe that Micro Persuasion will become a place solely for essays (eg longer think pieces). The Lifestream site will also post these but also include far more links, photos and videos - all with bits of insights and daily. Twitter will post links to new items but also be more or engaging in conversation than just seeding links.

How do you find time to feed/sustain both blogs (and service clients too)?

It's not easy but basically my entire life is centered around work. I don't have my own family. I have no plans to have one so this allows me to focus more of energies here.

What happens to these blogs should you ever decide to leave Edelman?

All of these are personal sites that I own. So they would remain with me. That said I love my role with the firm and I plan to be here a long time.

There you have it. I guess I should probably figure out what to do with the domain PeterHimler.com. Any ideas?

20-Nothings

Tweet

In following all those forward-thinking PR and media types on Twitter, I often lose sight of the profession's various other dimensions. Information technology has created so many positive industry benefits to help us advance our clients' communications objectives, we have a tendency to get lost in the digital sauce. Just consider:

• How Ford's social media chief Scott Monty can mobilize his sphere of 24,000+ Twitter followers (and their followers and their followers) with less than 140 characters.
  
• How an apologetic Domino's president took to YouTube to quell the employee-fed assault on his brand
• How listening to its customers helped Comcast temper the tenacious taint on its reputation
  

PR observers tend to forget just how much of the profession remains mired in a time sync of off-line connection and gossip fodder. Witness this first-person account of how one NYC publicist helped an unknown writer gain the recognition that qualifies as celebrity nowadays.

The piece posted last week to the (mostly) entertaining and insightful Daily Beast blog:

"One month ago, I was what people who care about the difference would call a nobody—no society connections, no celebrity boss, no trust fund to buy tables next to people who are people."

Jessie Rosen, whose claim to fame is that her blog has been optioned for a TV show, retained Lizzie Grubman PR to open the PRoverbial doors (in exchange, I suppose, for the Daily Beast coverage).

"Kelly Brady—a seven-year LGPR veteran and one of the five MTV PoweR Girls—is my social concierge for the next three weeks. Kelly is a professional introducer. 'This is Jessie Rosen—she has an amazing blog that they’re turning into a TV show!' she tells every single person we come in contact with. Within 20 minutes of our first night out (drinks with InTouch magazine editors and a birthday party for longtime club promoter Jason Kim), I pick up five business cards, a freelance assignment, and some guy."

So instead of advising Ms. Rosen to build her personal brand through the digital tools and channels that have elevated the likes of Gary Vaynerchuk, Tony Hsieh and Robert Scoble -- all relative unknowns prior to jumping on the social media bandwagon -- Ms. Grubman's PoweR Girl leveraged the simple "blog-to-TV" story meme on the vapid NYC party circuit to give her client that 15 minutes of fame (and perhaps more).

Some things change. Many things remain the same. And what's wrong with that?

Green with Twitter Envy

Tweet

Is it cool to leverage an unfolding human tragedy to promote one's product or service? That's the question a Valleywag reporter posed in his "Flackery" column late yesterday.

Apparently, an Israeli-based mobile communications platform that links SMS, IM and Twitter into one seamless interconnected content-sharing app called fring is publicizing its use by the Persian protesters who are risking their lives daily to exercise some semblance of the First Amendment:

"The internet calling startup has enjoyed back-to-back coverage on Sky TV News and on Al Jazeera English, and that's probably not luck: The company's flacks distributed a press release about heavier Fring usage in Iran; they've also been working the press on Twitter."

Here's the opening graph from fring's PR person's pitch letter:

"I’m writing to let you know that there are some interesting news coming out of Sky News related to fring. Following the outbreak of protests in Iran and the communication restrictions imposed upon citizens there, fring’s been seeing a steep rise in traffic coming from Iran in the last couple of days, with thousands of local Iranians using fring to talk (using mobile VoIP), chat, send pictures to friends and family (inside Iran and abroad)."

It can be a dicey proposition to tie one's client to human hardship in the news, even if the client purportedly provides relief to those in pain. In the aftermath of 9/11, some had valid reasons to draw attention to their services - at least those offering respite to victims, e.g., the Red Cross. Others clearly didn't.

I don't see many castigating Twitter for the audacious media coverage it has engendered around #IranElection. Perhaps it's the organic way Twitter was thrust into the headlines or the fact that we don't see Twitter's PR team -- do they even have one? -- priming the PR pump. Or maybe it's because Twitter fills a vital communications void and doesn't stand to profit from its enhanced public prominence...yet.

Hocus Vocus

Tweet

I have nothing personal against Vocus. It's all professional. First, I should say that I'm not a subscriber to this media database management, distribution and monitoring company. I have been known to disseminate a release or two via PR Web, which happens to be owned by Vocus.

I should also disclose that I co-developed with a Vocus competitor the PR search application MatchPoint that helps media relations pros find the most editorially appropriate journalist or blogger for their story queries. (It's based on a journalist's cumulative body of work, not title or reported beat.)

Nevertheless, Vocus does impact my life, and the lives of many of my readers - for good and bad.

On the good side, one has to give them credit for embracing information technology to expedite many of the mundane and time-consuming activities conducted by today's PR professionals. On the bad side, one has to discredit them for embracing information technology to expedite many of the mundane and time-consuming activities endeavored by today's PR professionals.

Pure and simple: the automation of media outreach leads to PR spam. How embarrassing was it when The New York Times's Saul Hansell, sitting alongside his bold-faced named colleagues Andrew Ross Sorkin and Tara Parker Pope on a panel I recently moderated at the Media Relations Summit, actually called out Vocus as a prime purveyor of PR spam before an audience of 500+ PR pros (including the company's sales reps)?

Then today, that meme resurfaced on everyone's favorite microblogging service with some choice tweets by Vindu Goel, deputy technology editor for The Times. Here's the Tweet scan in reverse chronological order. (Goel's colleague at The Times, ad reporter Stephanie Clifford, also twimed in.):

VinduGoel Fellow journalists, @vocuspr agreed to remove me from their database. Do speak up if you find you are being spammed by their clients.
2 minutes ago from web

stephcliff @vindugoel Me too on Vocus. It's equivalent to spam.
6 minutes ago from web

VinduGoel @kpiper When I unsubscribe, I get sent to a Vocus site. Trying to figure out why so many Vocus users essentially send spam.
12 minutes ago from web

VinduGoel On Vocus -- do they sell the e-mail contact lists also? I get more inappropriate pitches through Vocus than any other way.
17 minutes ago from web

VinduGoel To all you PR folks out there: Does anyone use VocusPR's software to send releases to journalists?
42 minutes ago from web

As I said, Vocus has some really good products. I especially like the breadth and functionality of its media monitoring product. Still, when journalists cast the PR profession as nothing more than a bunch of spammers, you can be sure that the cloaked, mass-distributed news releases and pitch letters via Vocus to reporters of inexact title played some role in the characterization.

Oops. I just received my weekly email pitch from The Entertainment Technology Center at the University of Southern California. It is "making available a primer that details the concepts and terms related to 3D movie viewing." I guess Vocus learned that I worked on Diet Coke's 3D Super Bowl promotion back in the 80's. Doubtful.

WH Press Office: thanks, but no thanks

Tweet

Michael Wolff's gonna think I'm stalking him. After attending and posting on his tete à tete last week with Bloomberg's Andy Lack, I stumbled across his piece in the July issue of Vanity Fair in which he extols the virtues of the White House press operation (another favorite subject of this blog).

In the piece, "The Power and the Story," Wolff leads with:

"The Obamas may have the smartest, most finely calibrated press operation in White House history, parceling out scoops (The New York Times), partisan talking points (the Huffington Post), and First Family tidbits (the celebrity mags) to a desperate media. Just don’t ask them to admit it."

Apparently, Mr. Wolff set out to dissect the Press Office's PR process, and was promptly rebuffed.

"Even though I’ve been invited to the White House for a talk with Gibbs, there’s an abrupt cancellation when, after some chitchat with Burton, it becomes clear that my interest is in process rather than, per se, message."

Now this really impresses me. What possible gain can be realized by talking about the machinations of PR versus the messages those machinations are designed to propagate? I once chastised Wal-Mart's agency for inviting a New Yorker reporter to peak under the retailer's PR hood. That piece produced PR pain and no client gain.

To his credit, Bill Burton, the 31-year-old Beltway media relations careerist (pictured at right) who heads the White House press office, disarmingly explained:

"'The process aspect of media, the insider stuff, is not—it’s not our thing,' says Burton, whose entire career in the press offices of Dick Gephardt, Tom Harkin, John Kerry, and Obama during his Senate term has been about nothing but media process. 'We won’t miss it if you don’t do the story.' Big cheesy smile.”

And smartly so.

Mad as Hell: Who're Ya Gonna Tell?

Tweet

Much has transpired since last year's historic U.S. Presidential elections. The dramatic real-time run-up to November 4 kept many of us totally tethered to our digital news screens.

Since then, that frenetic and insatiable state of political engagement has pretty much dissipated...until last week.

The prospect of a Twitter/SMS/blog-fueled Presidential election to overthrow the Holocaust-denying, WMD-seeking, woman-oppressing, propagandizing Iranian dictator brought back (at least for me) emotions not felt since David Axelrod and co. overthrew the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld-Rice juggernaut.

But unlike in America where the powers-that-be could manipulate, though not silence, the public discourse, the Iranian mullahs and military executed their election coup d'etat while keeping dissidence to a twitterful minimum. Did it work? (Well, let's just say Iran isn't China.)

I honestly didn't hold out much hope for regime change, and tweeted the following on Friday:

PeterHimler Even if Ahmadjinedad gets trounced, will the world ever know? Does anyone believe he'll cede power? Think Zimbabwe.
3:01 PM June 12th Power Twitter

The state-decreed election results set in motion massive demonstrations in Tehran and elsewhere. The media punditry, as expected, ratcheted up the debate on the relative value of competing media for their respective reporting (where possible) and ability to mobilize.

One popular Twitter hashtag was #CNNfail, which alluded to CNN's supposed less-than-stellar coverage of Iran's staged election. A burka-outfitted Christiane Amanpour, the network's star correspondent, was quashed by the defiant dictator during his first post-election presser. Others begrudgingly acknowledged the first-rate journalism emanating from the so-called dying breed of ink-stained journalists, which refreshingly included New York Times executive editor Bill Keller reporting from Tehran.

But most continued their anointment of Twitter (and live bloggers) as the predominant drivers that enabled a disenfranchised electorate to band together after the government shut down the other people (and mainstream)-powered media platforms.

In a Howard Beale moment, it was Twitter that sent Tehranians to their rooftops to proclaim "death to the dictator." And it was Twitter that enabled the oppositon rally on the streets of Tehran today.

There's no denying the power of this microblogging platform. Yet, there's also no denying the power of "trained journalists" doing what they do best to put in perspective the facts that flowed fast and furious from the Farsi fiefdom.

Don Tapscott tweeted his take today:

DonTapscott Iran demos and riots: Demographics (huge youth pop) and tech (web 2) = access to secular information = social explosion. Just the beginning

Four New Yorkers on Media & Technology

Tweet

I had a chance to attend Digital Hollywood's Advertising 2.0 confab these last two days -- or at least two of the three keynotes that interested me. (I missed The Daily Beast's Tina Brown.)

Yesterday, Business Week's Jon Fine took IAC's eminently quotable CEO Barry Diller through the paces. Diller must have felt right at home. The conference was held on the ground floor of his company's Frank Gehry-designed world headquarters opposite Chelsea Piers on New York's far west side (photo above).

Today, I caught the spirited discussion between Bloomberg's Andy Lack and Newser founder and Vanity Fair contributor Michael Wolff. The former wore his "Rodeo Drive" black cowboy boots, while the latter, upon close inspection, had an uncanny resemblance to Dr. Evil.

There was much to be gleaned from these tete-a-tetes, especially for those following the transformation of news production and consumption. Here are a few memorable quotes or paraphrases:

Barry Diller: Local is one of the few areas that is not yet colonized.
Barry Diller: Local is very hard to do.
Barry Diller: Citisearch has been a long siege. We're in it for ten years, but it will come through.
Barry Diller: We've seen no pullback on Match.com in this economy. It's not affected at all. Younger users aren't as desperately serious.
Jon Fine to Barry Diller: Why didn't you buy AOL?
Barry Diller: I guess I didn't get it
Jon Fine to Barry Diller: Do you see a business model in Twitter?
Barry Diller: No
Barry Diller: The transference from advertising offline to online will smooth out in the next five years.
Barry Diller: The Internet is passing from its free days to paid. It's going to be paid for. People will pay for content.
Barry Diller: The iPhone is a great example of what's happening -- specifically premium apps and the "uplifting" way they're being paid for.
Barry Diller: Vimeo, with 15 mill uniques, now has 20K subscribers for premium storage apps.
Barry Diller: Even with the bad economy, Expedia will have $300 million in net cash flow this year. Such a tragedy?
Barry Diller: Monetization is a brainless word that should abolished.

The Andy Lack-Michael Wolff session opened with a debate on the merits of quality journalism versus citizen aggregators and regurgitators. Lack argued for The New York Times. Wolff questioned the need for newspaper reporting... and newspapers, in general.

Personally, I side with Mr. Lack in believing that trained journalists play a seminal role in the media ecosystem, let alone a democracy.

The conversation touched Mr. Lack's tenure as president of NBC News and the importance of "screens," especially mobile ones. Here are some outtakes from that session:

Andy Lack to Michael Wolff: What FACTS are you going to get from the blogosphere?
Michael Wolff to Andy Lack: Is Bloomberg going to buy the New York Times?
Andy Lack: I personally would, but it's not in Bloomberg's DNA to buy things...we want to buy the most talented reporters wherever they are.
Michael Wolff: It [The Times] would only cost you $800 million.
Andy Lack: Not a bad deal
Michael Wolff: I started the rumor about Bloomberg's interest in The New York Times.
Andy Lack: I don't think there's anything online that can do what The Times does.
Andy Lack (Pulling out his red translucent PDA): This is as important as the desktop or TV screen.
Andy Lack: Once NBC news had cable infrastructure, it became very profitable
Andy Lack: Bloomberg is a niche business, our audiences want to see the world through a business filter - across all platforms (screens)
Andy Lack to Michael Wolff: Was Murdoch's purchase of the Wall Street Journal a good deal?
Michael Wolff: Ask whether it was the worst deal ever.
Michael Wolff: MySpace was a terrible buy for Rupert Murdoch. Now it's a point of panic within the company.
Michael Wolff: Why would you pay for content?
Andy Lack: I would pay for "60 Minutes." I want to get my news and info from people trained to get the facts.

I realize I didn't capture all the worthwhile bites from these two sessions, so if you're up for some unedited audio (of so-so quality), take a listen here:

Barry Diller-Jon Fine June 10, 2009, NYC (RT: approx. 60 minutes)

Andy Lack-Michael Wolff June 11, 2009, NYC (RT: approx 60 minutes)

(Also, catch the question to Mr. Lack from this PR person on the challenges Bloomberg TV faces.)

The Digerati

Tweet

As the world turned its attention to Apple's WWDC yesterday to hear the carefully crafted news of the $1199 13" Macbook Pro and the "stronger" iPhone 3GS, other influencers, including The Times's inimitable gadget guy David Pogue, opted to attend the suddenly de rigeur Webby Awards in New York City.

He wasn't the only digital luminary who graced the red-carpeted, white table-clothed awards dinner. Other bold-faced digerati included Arianna Huffington, Biz Stone, Gary Vaynerchuk, Nine Inch Nails' frontman Trent Reznor, SNL's Seth Myers (who hosted), Cameron Diaz (who presented Webby Person of the Year to Jimmy Fallon and who follows exactly no one on Twitter), and Charlie Rose who introduced Sir Tim Berners-Lee as winner of the Lifetime Achievement Award. (There were so many others, but not this blogger.)


WSJ.com's "Speakeasy" blog had this headline:

"Webby Awards Recognize Internet’s Weirdest and Wackiest"

...and this lead:

"Tonight, the crème de la crème of the Internet scene will be waltzing down the red carpet at New York’s Cipriani Wall Street to be honored..."

The WSJ post also featured Isabella Rosselini's winning "Green Porno" video clip in which she sprouts an extra long penis to make her point. (Forgive.)

I especially liked the micro-acceptance format in which all awardees were limited to just five words (versus 140 characters). Ms. Huffington used Twitter to crowd-source her five words for winning "Best Politics Site and People's Voice for Best Political Blog:"

"I didn't kill newspapers, okay?."

Other winning quips included:

• The Economist: "Read a fucking newspaper, please!"
  
• Boston Globe: "It's not journalism that's dying."
  
• The Onion: "Free all attractive political prisoners."

Anyway, this sure beats the blah blah blah of the myriad self-aggrandizing social media and future-of-journalism panels. My favorite gadget guy Pogue, who did end up reporting on WWDC, summed it up to Gillian Reagan (@gillianmae) of the New York Observer like this:

"In all seriousness, it looks as though, from the size and prestige of this, that this whole thing about Web 2.0 means that ordinary people will have a stage, that true broadcasting talent doesn't need an organization behind it, has come true!" Mr. Pogue said. "I mean, half of these people, total unknowns, have been discovered purely through merit alone."

Even with the success of the Webby's, the very nature of the medium almost always spawns a dose of digital discerners. This is CNET's Caroline McCarthy's headline from her Webbys post today:

"Do we still need the Webby Awards?"

To her credit, she left the door open to debate on the micro-blogging platform du jour:

"Digital media's triumph is cause for celebration from all sides. And the Webbys team puts on a well-run, enjoyable show every year. But the increasing presence of celebrity is a sign that maybe this is an industry that's outgrown the need for a quirky awards ceremony. Or maybe it isn't. I'm sure there are plenty of people who'd be happy to debate the point on Twitter."

Evan and Biz Verified

Tweet

Nearly two years ago, my blogging buddy Ike Pigott called my cell with a brainstorm. Let's start a service that offers to protect the branded identities of those using the day's popular blogging platforms, e.g., Blogger, WordPress, Typepad... (Twitter was still a twinkle at the time and Facebook was not nearly as ubiquitous as it is today.)

Ike felt that it was too easy for some enterprising and nefarious types to steal online identities and in doing so, destroy reputations. I agreed, but would brand-keepers, celebrities and other notables pay for such a specialized service, and how significant was the problem anyway?

Last week, St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony LaRussa sued Twitter claiming that someone was ignobly tweeting under his name. He wished to put an end to it and promptly took the legal route. Yours truly tweeted a link to the original AP story on it:

PeterHimler Keep an eye on this: StL Cards manager sues Twitter after his name hijacked. http://bit.ly/11yXp0
9:13 AM Jun 5th from Power Twitter

Before I update you on the latest developments, I had a similar client experience that precipitated probably the last direct customer service response from Twitter's founders. A well-known CEO client of mine had his Twitter name plundered, and the stuff being tweeted was, let's say, less than CEO-quality. My contact in corporate communications called to ask for relief.

Not knowing anyone else from Twitter, and suspecting that filling out a form on the terms-of-service page might not elicit a quick response, I decided to dm and email @ev and @biz to apprise them of the problem, but without naming my client.

Both replied (!) with @ev asking me to name the then quite newsworthy CEO. I pinged him back with the name and the fake handle. Ten minutes later, he notified me that the "impersonation" account was suspended. Whoa. Now that's customer service!

Still, I couldn't help but think about the ease with which anyone could fraudulently establish a Twitter handle, and the reputational repercussions that could ensue. Twitter must do something, or face myriad similar schemes. At first, the AP reported that Twitter agreed to settle the LaRussa suit out of court. That was quickly denied on the Twitter blog:

"Twitter has not settled, nor do we plan to settle or pay."

Instead, Twitter (smartly) announced its plans to introduce into beta a system whereby account verification is mandated:

"We do recognize an opportunity to improve Twitter user experience and clear up confusion beyond simply removing impersonation accounts once alerted. We'll be experimenting with a beta preview of what we're calling Verified Accounts this summer. Verified Accounts will feature a special seal.

The experiment will begin with public officials, public agencies, famous artists, athletes, and other well known individuals at risk of impersonation. We hope to verify more accounts in the future but due to the resources required, verification will begin only with a small set."

Boys (@ev, @biz and @jack) -- you're making all the right moves, and nice TIME cover this week too!

Pre Released

Tweet

I was watching Seinfeld the other night. It was the episode in which Jerry and George were biding their time with Elaine's curmudgeonly father while Elaine was nowhere to be found. (<---Jerry was wearing his expensive new suede jacket with the pink-striped liner.)

Seeing Jerry and George fret over the no-show Elaine, I was struck by the fact that Seinfeld may finally be showing its age. Why didn't Jerry just whip out his mobile phone to call her??? Could it be that the brick-sized cordless handset in Jerry's apartment represented the latest in mobile technology during the Seinfeld first-run era? No one had cell phones?

Today, we were greeted with the latest flurry of media coverage surrounding Saturday's consumer debut of the Palm Pre. (I could swear that the Palm brand lived its glory days during those Seinfeld years?) Maybe this why the company tapped Costanza to host and Seinfeld to perform at the Hollywood coming out party for the latest iPhone wannabe.

Nostalgic glitz aside, two conflicting views emerged of the Palm Pre today. The Times's David Pogue, echoing the pre-release sentiment, proclaimed in a column titled "Palm Pre, Elegant Contender"

"...The Pre, which goes on sale Saturday, is an elegant, joyous, multitouch smartphone; it’s the iPhone remixed."

Separately, actually much separately, we caught Silicon Valley insider Henry Blodget's caustic assessment of Palm's wishful return to gadget stardom. Its headline "The Palm Pre Will Bomb:"

"The Pre may be a cool device, but it won't restore Palm to its former glory."

The party itself also elicited some paradoxical coverage.

"Tonight was a night of contradictions, driving to the Palm Pre VIP event in Hollywood, it was raining and the sun was shining at the same time," wrote Lynn Wolford on the Wireless and Mobile News blog.

George Costanza (aka Jason Alexander) gushed:

"This phone has the power to end my marriage and start a new one. It's that powerful."

(I wonder what his appearance fee was?) Still, in an age when product launches have to work double-y hard to gain any kind of broad media awareness, you have to give the Palm Pre engineers and ergonomics folks credit for their good work, and its PR team kudos for seeding the right gadget gurus in a pre-release buzz blitz.

We still can't overlook Blodgett's point about how all those third-party apps for the iPhone may prove an insurmountable hurdle preventing any mass platform defections in Palm Pre's direction. And then of course there's the return of Steve Jobs to Apple with a new iPhone in hand. Did you know that the Palm Pre syncs with iTunes?

Spheres of Influence

Tweet

The Wall Street Journal recently laid down the law regarding its employees' engagement with the social media graph.

In fact, most enterprises, especially news organizations, have refreshed their rules of employee conduct to include sections on what's acceptable and what's not in the indelibly incestuous worlds of blogging, Facebook, Twitter and YouTube.

But rather than spelling out the no-no's of personal brand-building on the company's time and dime, I haven't seen much in the way of a codified corporate approach that actually mandates all rank and file employees to embrace social media to help bolster the company's brand.

Today this happens in a relatively controlled and centralized manner at places like Comcast and Ford. But what if companies expanded the model to include ALL employees? Wouldn't the employer's brand get a boost through te sheer scale of it. Or is there a point of diminishing return when too many voices act as evangelists? After all Tony Hsieh almost single-handedly drives the Zappo's brand.

So does it make sense to cultivate all employees' (already existing) involvement with social media to the betterment of brand and business? And do companies really want employees tweeting about material news, litigation or their belligerent bosses?

Paid Content's David Kaplan reports this week on an EconAffinity panel titled "How do We Manage Twitter":

"As for the issue of whether to restrict staffers from using blogs freely, Jack Rotolo, EVP, North American Sales, Glam Media, said it’s simply unnecessary: 'We’re a Silicon Valley-based company. Everybody has to have that DNA. We have professional editors on staffs and they understand what’s acceptable on Twitter as well as how to entertain and keep an audience there. The WSJ doesn’t seem to be handling it in the best way. A lot of editors on staff are already brands. You need to encourage them to continue the conversation.'"

And last week, my friend Max Kalehoff and I memed on a related topic resulting in his post "The Company is the Marketing" that touches on mass employee empowerment to drive brand:

"What higher calling? On a pragmatic level, why not strategically view your entire company as your internal marketing team? Why limit imagination and opportunity through silos and top-down power structures. Sure, department structures help drive accountability. But if marketing is not fully embraced as part of every employee’s job, then the firm is strategically disadvantaged. Importantly, this idea doesn’t end with employees; it applies to external stakeholders like customers and partners, who should be counted as members of the team as well. As I’ve said before, marketing leadership is shifting from command-and-control to cultivate-and-coach."

In an age of media atomization, the ability to scale a ten-person communications department to efficiently engage detractors, nurture supporters and accommodate journalists may be coming to an end -- out of necessity. In its place: a decentralized, ubiquitous and more organic communications culture (versus function) that knows enough to steer clear of legal, competitive or regulatory matters.

As for who owns the personal sphere of influence/followers built on the back of an employer, and is it portable should the influencer move on? Hey, I always take my Rolodex with me from employer to employer. Don't you?