Conversations Matter

I'm sure this makes me hopelessly behind the times, but I've just learned about Twitter on Scoble's blog.

According to the Twitter site, the service is "A global community of friends and strangers answering one simple question: What are you doing?"

Seriously, we need this?? I mean, people don't even bother answering that question on the phone...

"Hey, man, what are you up to?"
"Not much. You?"
"Same old. You wanna come over and watch the game?"

But wait, the worst part is...there are more similar services!

This is exactly the type of crap that caused Bubble 1.0 - technical solutions in search of a problem.

For now, this is a project funded by Odeo (the company also came up with the "idea"). If the day comes that a VC funds this..be afraid, be very afraid.

As PR counsel, we spend a fair amount of time not only offering our thoughts on how a company or organization can refine its communications practices and spread the word about what's great, but we also pay attention to the competitive landscape and help identify ways that products or services can be uniquely differentiated from competitors. Of course, that's critical to all messaging and positioning--not just what makes a company or product great, but what makes it different or better than an alternative.

Twice this morning I noticed other voices commenting on the topic of how aggressive one should get, in terms of competitor-focused messaging and competitive-oriented initiatives in general. eWeek's Renee Boucher-Ferguson commented specifically on the well-documented rivalry between Oracle and SAP, two software companies who constantly position themselves based on their relationship with each other. It was certainly interesting to see that in some cases, too aggressive a competitive stance can have a negative effect on a company's profitability. Makes sense, I guess--noone wants to hear too much negativity or immature "I'm better than him!" all the time.

Equally thought-provoking, though, was what Tom Foremski had to say about the subject. Tom wasn't making the same point--but was merely pointing out the mistake some CEO's and spokespeople make when they spend too much time talking about competitors in interviews, and not enough time promoting themselves and how they fit into the marketplace. It's a mistake I've witnessed a few times already, and one that is well worth pointing out to a client after the fact, to avoid it happening in the future.

I discussed my thoughts very briefly with Jesse and he pointed out that there's a clear line between calling out competitors where it's appropriate and "aligning an entire product/corporate strategy around a particular competitor, rather than focusing on your own company and what it’s good at."

I have to say, I agree--do you?

This morning bloggers are reporting that the NY Times has given into pressures of Web 2.0 and added subtle features to its article pages to allow readers to easily share interesting reads via Digg, Facebook, and Newsvine.

It's interesting that trusted, "old" publications like the NY Times are being portrayed as so resistant to embracing social media. On one hand, social media is disruptive to the traditional model of how newspapers make money. It takes the focus off of clicks to the actual newspaper's website by sharing it elsewhere, delivering it via RSS feeds, etc. On the other hand, though, I'm a firm believer that spreading a news story through various blogs, sharing hilarious clips on YouTube, etc. does a lot to revitalize the old brand and drives more people to the publication or TV show to check out the latest and greatest.

Some would say it's a stretch to equate sharing SNL clips on YouTube to RSS feeds of NY Times stories--but I think they're basically the same thing. New media tools are enabling larger audiences to check these items out for themselves, and re-igniting interest in those franchises on some level.

Thoughts?

Over the last couple of days, The Long Tail's Chris Anderson has been exploring how 'Web 2.0' should help bring "radical transparency" to journalism. To his credit, he uses his own mag, Wired, as the real and theoretical guinea pig.

Transparency is concept I support wholeheartedly, but the increasing zealot-like attitude about the power of citizen journalism and the evils of traditional approaches to reporting was really starting to bother me. Thankfully, in today's post, Chris introduces some tenets he says should be self-evident.

Therein lies the true power of social media - to augment, enhance and improve...well, whatever. It could be journalism, marketing, search or office productivity. The point is that many of the new tools - and approaches they enable - are incredibly useful and becoming more so every day. But that doesn't make everything that came before it useless.

As always, the truth will be found somewhere in the middle.