It’s like spam that you can’t avoid.  In many cases, that’s because the people who send it to you are part of your social network.  For me, it means that I may have to ‘unfriend’ myself from people within my network to avoid the clutter.

I’m talking about ‘press releases’.  I get a lot of them and do my best to ignore them.  Every now and then I skim through one to see if I am indeed missing out on something.  It appears I have not.  In fact, earlier this week I received a 495-word press release about a social media site that’s been redesigned yet maintains its original purpose.  The rest of the release is filled with quotes and information that was refreshing three years ago.

Here are my two ‘not-new’ pieces of advice about press releases:

1) Have something to say. Before you create your release, ask yourself if the release is of interest to the public or just of interest to you. If there’s no story to latch on to in your release it will be a pointless exercise for you.

2) Know your target audience and deliver to them.  If your release is largely for your own network/community, most of which you have a real connection to, use a mailing list service to write a more personal and concise note that provides an update.  I’d much rather get a note saying something along the lines of “Hey Mark!  After three years of the same look-and-feel, I decided to update my site to make things more interesting for me and my community.  I relaunched it this morning.  It looks great and I’m really excited about it.  If you haven’t been by my site in a while, you may be interested in seeing how things have evolved over the last few years.  I’m also interested in your feedback.  Take care!”  There, 73 words delivering a more concise version of the message and I’m more likely to be follow-through.

Do you have any advice on press releases?

The first Social Media Breakfast Ottawa took place at the offices of Ramius Corporation this morning. It was a great inaugural event and attendance exceeded expectations. There always seems to be new people to meet in the Ottawa social media community.

The guest speaker was Adrian Salamunovic of DNA11.com, a company that creates custom art based on their client’s DNA — fingerprints, lip-prints, DNA samples, etc… (”From life comes art“). That means that each piece or art they create is unique to the individual who orders it.

Adrian’s talk traced DNA11’s creative yet simplistic approach to marketing and promotion that harnessed the power of social media to make inroads into mainstream media including Wired and Playboy — something he referred to as turning a spark into an inferno. In his talk he gave examples of how the fire can burn with both positive and negative results.

Simon Chen asked that I do a podcast of the event and I couldn’t resist. I thought I’d do something a bit different this time and dovetailed voices of the community with excerpts of Adrian’s speech.

For good measure, I threw in Stevie Z’s promo for Podcasters Across Borders at the end of the show. Don’t forget to register!

 

 How they started the fire [18:47m]: Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

I was recently invited to a social media gathering in Ottawa. In fact, I received two invitations from the host within ninety minutes of each other; one from Meetup.com, the other from Facebook.

Unfortunately, I don’t believe I can attend the event. Nevertheless, I checked both sites to gauge response and determine if there is any consistency to the responses between the sites. I noticed that Meetup.com indicates 6 confirmations, 4 maybes and 1 regret, and Facebook indicates 17 confirmations, 41 maybes and 55 regrets.

While I appreciate the need to cater to the ‘online styles’ of all invitees, I wonder about the fractured nature of our online reservation systems. I realize that we cannot dictate the online habits of the members of the community, yet I wonder about the administrative efforts imposed on event organizers to promote their events and manage communications with the participants.

If we can get the physical location, date and time figured out for the real-life interaction, can we not do the same for the way we coordinate ourselves in the online world?

It was CC Chapman who connected me with Holger Eilhard when I announced I was going to Germany.  Holger lives in Cologne (the city to which I would be traveling) and is part of CC’s Twitter network.  We made arrangements to meet.

Because we’re social media enthusiasts from different countries, Holger and I spent a fair bit of time discussing cultures, values and tools.  Specifically, we talked about the community that revolves around a G4-like television program Holger is an editor for at giga.de.  It’s a technology show with an active online community that started as far back as 1998.  The program uses forums, online comments and feedback to help guide the show — even during live broadcasts.

To giga.de, the Internet is just another channel to distribute the program (they also use satellite and digital cable).  The power of the Internet as a channel for Giga isn’t so much the reach it offers, but the fact that it is a bi-directional channel.  That key differentiator may have played a significant role in the survival of the program during a series of business decisions, network purchases and broadcast license transfers over the last several years — events that saw the relocation of the show and its productions team between three cities.

I was intrigued by the premium service package offered by Giga.  For a small cost, they offer video-on-demand and a few other small features. The truth is, though, the premium service is not in high demand and therefore represents a tiny revenue stream.

Holger offered some insight on why programs like G4 and giga.de appeal to people so much.  He suggests that the absence of a teleprompter means that the hosts must be more genuine, energetic and engaged.  They need to be real, not contrived, and people relate to people.

Social networking in Germany is still finding its legs.  Some of the more popular sites include:

• xing.de (a professional social network like LinkedIn)
• studivz.net (like facebook)
• niimo.com (like Twitter)

I spoke with a blogger/new media producer friend of mine this morning. Mr. X, I’ll call him, told me that he has been asked to create a viral campaign for an organization and present it later today. It’s worth noting that the organization used their own variation of “viral campaign” that suggested a lack of understanding of how social media works. Actually, their whole “invitation” suggested a general lack of knowledge and respect.

Two issues come to mind.

You can’t create viral. Viral is organic and while it depends on many elements to actually realize its potential, viral only happens because the subject is something that is wanted or needed by, and/or appeals to, the target audience. You can plant the seeds, water them and make sure they get plenty of sunshine; they’ll only grow if the conditions are perfect. And another thing… you can only talk about something being viral in the present or past tense. Everything else is a best-case scenario in the plans.

Of greater concern is the way Mr. X was approached. The invitation was crafted to specifically exclude any compensation for his time. Many companies want to capitalize on the excitement of social media and the power that it holds to generate influence and wealth. That influence and wealth has grown, organically, from the experimentation and activities of the grassroots community. Companies believe that the grassroots community is available to be exploited and is thrilled when the phone rings. When you answer that call, remember that your time, experience, knowledge and creativity are worth something — if not for you, for the company that wants you.

Mark Ramsey (Hear2.0) has published a great post (Beware the Insider’s Perspective) in which he challenges radio stations to reconsider their thought process to be outward, not inward, looking. It’s worth a read by anyone (including podcasters) who may be looking for ways to reinvigorate their own projects.

While I generally haven’t participated in awards nominations or votes in the Podcast community, I must admit that, at first, I thought that the idea behind the Podcast Peer Awards was great. The initiative appeared to be set up in a way that would allow the community to identify those that stand out among us — in a positive way.

In practice, the Podcast Peer Awards are becoming divisive. The voting is set up in a way that requires each nomination to be accompanied by a nomination poll. While voters can vote in favour of those shows that they feel deserve the vote, they can just as easily vote NO, anonymously, against a peer — no constructive comments are required. Each NO vote cancels a YES vote which means that voters can take away the props that have already been given to them by their peers. In theory, NO votes can outnumber YES votes. Further, those who vote YES for one peer and NO for another in the same category have managed more than a single vote for the favourite peer in that category.

To prevent the potential of insult, some people set up nomination polls with two YES options. Those polls have been locked by the administrator of the Podcast Peer Awards, without warning, which essentially voids the nomination and disqualifies votes to that point. In at least some cases, this was due to a complaint, apparently by someone who wanted to vote against a peer.

I’m not sure what motivates people to vote against a peer in this community — perhaps a personal dislike of a Podcaster or a fear of competition. It’s sad to think that while we all work hard to share our passions through our hobby/craft, there are some among us who have such little respect for their peers — and themselves.

In most elections, the dislike of one candidate is expressed by voting for another candidate, or abstaining from the vote. When the Podcast Peer Awards have a similar structure — or a more positive one — they will be a great contribution to the community.

Tod Maffin said that the problem with being a futurist is that people hold you to account when you “get it wrong”. So, I will say that this post is a combination of my (ahem) predictions and hopes for 2007.

In no particular order…

1) Podcast and RSS distribution networks will become more influential

They have separated indie bands from those signed to major labels, and they will start to increase the gap between the basement Podcasters and those who produce “gold” or have connections or money — distribution networks will bridge the gap between the producers and consumers via those who can repackage and mass-circulate content to those with influence and large audiences.

2) Apple’s M4A will become widely available

Whether through affordable licensing options or released to the public domain, Apple will make its proprietary M4A file format widely available. In fact, this will be the first step towards Apple making it possible for any portable player to hook into iTunes thus increasing the profile of its powerful online music store.

3) Tracking tools will be developed

Some genius will develop a tool to track and report on Podcast listen details (time of listen, length of listen, fast-forwards, etc…) from a portable or computer player to the creator. Who will be the first? iTunes? Microsoft? iRiver? PodPress?

4) Google will index audio

Google will launch an extremely accurate speech-to-text translator that will index audio content from RSS feeds, leaving PodScope and Podzinger in its wake.

5) Powerful commenting functions

It will become easier for listeners to participate in the conversation when someone rolls out a feature that makes it possible to cache a text or audio comment that will be sent to the Podcast producer the next time the device is synced with a computer.

6) Taking managing the media to the next level

Political parties and companies will eliminate press releases and refuse interviews, replacing them with internally produced Podcasts (audio and video) as a way to manage their public image and press relations. They will create their own reports and sound-bites and publish them through RSS using an open license for reuse by media organizations.

Here’s to the year that was, and the year that will be!

People choose the Podcasting delivery channel because it’s convenient. Podcast creators can push content out easily, and listeners can choose the content they wish to receive and listen to it when it’s convenient for them to do so. At its heart, Podcasting is about the subscription mechanism and those who embrace it.

So, why do I, a Podcaster, advocate the use of embedded media players on, and the ability to download Podcasts directly from, Podcast websites?

The vast majority of people understand what audio and video content is. They know how to search for it and how to click play or download in a browswer window. An even greater majority of people don’t know what subscribe means and, by extension, have not yet realized the power that they have to make choices and to not have to chase what they want. By making your content easy to find and easy to consume, you have the opportunity to attract listeners and convert them into subscribers.

If you give your audience the power and permission to choose, they will probably choose you.

Several weeks ago I posted an entry entitled The responsibility of being pioneers in which I talked about the online trend of making invalid and unverified claims of being first to achieve something.

A Podcast named Children’s Book Radio was launched on October 26, 2006. Its website claims “Childrensbookradio is the first independent Podcast dedicated to discussing children’s books” [update 2006-12-12: the screen capture of the Children’s Book Radio website which included this quote was removed from this post at the request of that site owner citing that I am not licensed to use it. You can find a cached copy from Google (thanks, Bob).] and the spoken introduction of the two Podcast episodes published to date claim it is “the only independent Podcast featuring entirely children’s books”. Perhaps these statements are part of a marketing strategy to attract advertisers to Teachtopia.com, the network behind Children’s Book Radio.

These claims are inaccurate. There are many independent Podcasts that are exclusively about children’s books. My own independent children’s book Podcast, Just One More Book, launched in July and, as of this writing, shows up second on a Google search of the words children’s book podcast, and is embedded in the first result when those words are bound in quotes. Just One More Book has never claimed to be the first Podcast of its specific type, though we have found no evidence to the contrary - of course, we have only searched in English.

Children’s Book Radio was notified via email on November 27 that their claims are inaccurate. They have not yet responded.

As tempting as it may be and as good as it may feel to be seen as the first to achieve something, we have a responsibility to be good neighbours in the new social media. Let’s eliminate all doubt before we make our claims.