April 2008

Boston vs. the Valley: Does Geography Matter?

I chose to live in Boston, the city didn’t choose me. That is, I wasn’t born here, I have no family ties here, but instead my wife and I moved here out of love for the location, though not for the weather. 

So I can’t figure out why so many people want to declare this place dead, at least in the technology sense. The latest is Sarah Lacy, journalist of many titles and the woman who drew the ire of “tweeters” at South by Southwest.

The interesting part of this debate is why geography matters at all. Don’t most Web 2.0 companies exist on the premise that geography doesn’t matter? That you can continue to stay in touch with someone on the other side of the world as easily as you can with someone down the street? Sarah's point is that starting a business is difficult and it's better to be surrounded by peolple going through the same experience. If it's easier to start something in the Valley, why not do it?

The Boston Globe's Scott Kirsner has been tackling this question for quite a while, including his very interesting article examining why Facebook went west when it should, by all rights, be a Cambridge-based company. 

Facebook went west because East Coast VCs wanted to see an income model and at the time Mark Zuckerberg couldn’t show them one. West Coast VCs were willing to take the chance based only on the energy and the possibilities. 

A former client of mine who moved to the Valley in order to take over a consumer-oriented company once commented that Boston is great for the intellectual companies, those that will sell to the government or other enterprises. The brainpower at MIT, Harvard, BU, Brandeis (had to throw my alma mater in that list) and other Boston-area schools makes this a hotbed of intellectual talent. 

However, The Hub lacks the energy of the Valley and for those consumer-focused brands that feed on that energy, the Valley is the only place to be. 

Who is right? Today it looks like those in the Valley are brilliant. But when I was a kid Wang, Digital Equipment Corp. and Polaroid were at the top of the heap. Today the Wang Towers house a number of small companies, DEC’s offices belong to HP and Polaroid’s Waltham headquarters is about to become condos. 

Two years ago everyone talked about Friendster. A year ago it was all about Second Life. Today they’re the butt of jokes. Even Peter Shankman joked the other day that MySpace is being dropped "faster than third-period French."

I don’t believe Boston is dead, I believe it’s just in the shadows for a while. These things run in cycles and right now consumer-facing technologies are hot, so the money flows there. Then again, it also takes a lot more money to get a consumer brand off the grounds. Eventually VCs will swing back toward the more conservative investments and Boston will thrive again. 

Perhaps the tech economy will truly become global and the geography won’t matter much, but the fact is, innovation will continue.

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on April 29, 2008 at 10:31 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Say it loud, say it proud!

At Schwartz we counsel our clients that they need to be actively engaged in social media. We also counsel them that transparency is crucial. You can have a point of view, but there is no need to hide where it is coming from. Transparency helps build brand credibility and trust.

Thanks to Twitter, I was made aware of a recent AdAge article that shows transparency isn't just a good idea, in the U.K., it will soon become the law. According to AdAge, "starting May 26, when it will become a criminal offense for brands to seed positive messages online without making the origin of the message clear.

This doesn't just impact U.K. companies, it would impact any company doing viral marketing or online public relations in the country.

There is no long term benefit for a business to hide who they are. There is long term benefit to engaging in conversations, listening to your customers and the market, and being an active participant.

Both the PRSA and Word of Mouth Marketing Association already have ethics guidelines that prohibit this type of activity. This is just another reason to slap down that whisper we occasionally hear from others.

Posted by Mark McClennan on April 28, 2008 at 10:36 AM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

The Utopian Future, or Going Back to It

Peter Shankman gave a wonderful talk at Schwartz this week and he had a lot of interesting things to say about networking, technology and communications, but two pieces caught my attention.

First was an initial concept that everything we predict and know is bulls***. That is, social networking just comprises tools that allow us to do what we should already be doing: meeting, talking and connecting with people. He’s right, of course. But part of that is the concept that prediction is almost impossible. He pointed to Back to the Future Part II as an example, in which everyone in the future (which is closer to today) had a fax machine in every room. Today faxes are passé and inefficient, but in 1985 they were new, exciting and efficient ways to communicate, so it was good comedy to have a future with one even in the bathroom. 

Of course, that same movie featured flying cars. So take it for what it is. 

His second concept was a future in which everything in our house has an IP address and connects to everything else. Hit the snooze button on the alarm clock and it triggers information that starts a chain reaction. Your coffee maker starts, your news downloads, your kids are awoken by gentle singing of angels…. 

Frankly, this sounds a lot like the digital version of Doc Brown’s Rube Goldberg-like machine at the beginning of the original Back to the Future that fed the dog and made eggs, but I digress. 

He goes on, of course, to the point that getting a plane ticket triggers a Twitter (or twitter-like) note to your friends that you’re about to head to another city, then when you arrive your phone registers your location and tells you about local restaurants you may like as well as people who you may want to meet and where they’re dining. 

This utopian ideal sounds great, except I’ve heard it before and we’re supposed to be there by now. I remember hearing about connected refrigerators that read the RFID chips on the food you purchase to tell you when you need more milk or even allow you to run recipes based on what you already have. 

You can buy a fridge that is connected, of course, but it’ll cost you a lot more than a very nice not-so-connected fridge just so you can have a built in TV. And besides, the technology isn’t there to tell you that the foil-wrapped leftover chicken has started to grow something usually reserved for the college chemistry lab. 

But my real problem with this concept is the digital divide. Having an IP address on every electronic item in your house means you have a house-wide network, probably a wireless network. Connecting with people through electronic devices means these people also have electronic devices and are as connected as you. So basically it restricts you to people of similar socio-economic backgrounds. The digital divide is real, municipal wifi networks have failed to take off, so this kind of technology is not available to everyone. We are isolated enough in how we live our lives, I’m not sure that connecting only with people who have similar technological access is the best way to go. 

If we’re going to focus our development efforts anywhere it should be on making sure that those with little or no connectivity get it. Verizon has been great about bringing FIOS to my affluent suburb, but what about less affluent areas? How long will it take for them to get their piece of fiber? Then how long will it take for those people to get on Facebook, Twitter and other communications concepts that may not even exist yet? 

It’s great if I can meet and network with people who can move my business forward, but it’s also great to learn from people who have a very different view on life.  

Posted by Chuck Tanowitz on April 25, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Teeing Off -- PR and Golf

The Masters just ended and my passion for golf is reignited. Unfortunately, like most people, my ability to write about and talk about golf far exceeds my skill at the game.

Therefore, I decided to share words of PR wisdom as golf analogies. But I need your help. Golf may be one of the two most overused analogies in business, only after military themes and slightly beating out baseball and The Godfather .… So share your own PR/golf lessons in the comments section and I will add the best here.

Following are five to get you started:

Don’t be seduced by the driver—The driver is a great club. When you hit it well, there is nothing like watching the ball fly and hearing the “oohs” and “aahs” from appreciative fans (or members of your foursome). But for most people muscling the driver rarely results in a 300+ yard straight drive off the tee. Sure you will hit that perfect drive once in 20 rounds, but you are much more likely to whiff, hit it in the woods or end up in the sand--raising your score and leading to frustration.

The same goes for media relations. Being on the Today Show, the Wall Street Journal or in Parade is outstanding and usually a reason to celebrate. But too often your outreach there won’t connect, or you will neglect other important elements, and put yourself at a handicap. You should go after these outlets, but if all you do is swing the driver … you will be in trouble. This leads to the next point.

Drive for show, putt for dough—All the creative ideas, the flashy presentations and the red Nike shirts don’t amount to anything if you haven’t mastered the short game. Execute flawlessly. Pay attention to detail.
 
Why does Tiger Woods hit 1,000 practice balls?—Focus on fundamentals brings success. A PR campaign needs to be built on solid fundamentals--the trades to bring the key messages to prospects and customers is the solid drive off the tee; lay it up onto the green with user testimonials and analysts, and *then* you are in position to go for the deceptively simple putt with the business media (which is never as easy as it looks), to get the birdie. It’s the little things that add up to success.

Pay attention to the course and your environment—In golf, it's good to have a general plan of how you will play the course. But conditions change, your competitors change, even your swing can change in mid-round. You may have planned to hit a hard driver on the 15th hole, but by the time you get there it's raining and windy ... change of club and plan.
 
Successful golfers plan, but they also adjust and trust their instincts to adapt to the changing circumstances. Successful PR people need to do the same thing to achieve success in the face of changing conditions.

You WILL hit the bunkers—Every golfer hits the sand traps. Hitting them is not the end of the world. The same goes for a PR program. You will hit the rough, the bunkers and even the water. Think about what you will do in those situations and you can recover from it. Have disaster plans in place.

Posted by Mark McClennan on April 14, 2008 at 5:50 PM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

CNN.com Gross Out

We're all well aware that traditional media have been under strain for years, first due to the web and now as a result of competition from "new media."

Some are handling the challenge as gracefully as they probably can, given the situation, and some are not. CNN.com (U.S. Alexa ranking: 19) splashes down into the latter category.

CNN has always, in my mind, been a mix of fluff and serious reporting. You might disagree, but I think that what CNN does well (e.g., some international reporting), it does better than just about anyone.

So that makes all the more stark the contrast with CNN.com. Mixed in with "American cancels 900 flights" and "China says 35 arrested in Olympics bomb plot," we have "Wedding bed found in polygamist temple" (voyeuristic--is this the most important element of the story out of west Texas?), "I'm a sociopath, hiker's killer tells police," "Witness: beheading victim asked for help," "Woman makes gruesome find after mom dies" and "Principal nabbed with teens, porn, pot."

Seriously?

It's depressing to see CNN.com take events that deserve careful treatment and clearly pander to site visitors' desire to read about and view the sordid, the morbid and the just plain gross.

NYTimes.com (U.S. Alexa ranking: 33) manages to pull in huge traffic without upping its eeew factor, but they're the only general news site giving CNN.com a run for their money.

Perhaps when CNN.com readers have their fill of sludge, they're heading to NYTimes.com for a more serious take on events. One can only hope!

Posted by Laura Kempke on at 9:15 AM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Big Night at SC Magazine Awards

Congratulations to Schwartz clients Sentrigo, Fortinet and Qualys, who were recognized at last night's annual SC Magazine Awards Gala, which is held in conjunction with RSA.

Sentrigo, an innovator in database security software, won Rookie Security Company of the Year; Fortinet took home the award for Best Integrated Security Solution for its unified threat management systems; and Qualys was recognized for Best Audit/Vulnerability Assessment Solution.

Congrats to all -- details on the winners are here.

Posted by Laura Kempke on April 9, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

No Substitute for Face to Face

I arrived at RSA, the largest tradeshow in the security industry, and in no fewer than 15 minutes had run into a dozen industry people. The main security reporters, analysts and key vendors (including numerous Schwartz clients) within IT security are here.

It got me thinking about Facebook, Twitter and the other social media applications I have been testing for some time. Without question, these applications have their uses, but when it comes down to it, there is no substitute for seeing someone face to face.

When I first started at Schwartz in 1997, we would organize elaborate tours to introduce companies to reporters and analysts who would follow their wares. Tours would typically involve multiple cities and would be timed to coincide with a company product launch (the news hook).

Such tours are rarely planned now in certain industries. Reporters tend to be far more geographically dispersed than they were in the late 90's. More importantly, reporters are busier than they have ever been--a result of many changes in the publishing industry. It's too hard to coordinate schedules to make a tour worth the effort.

For that reason, tradeshows are the best way to meet and catch up with the influencers in a given industry. They provide central gathering points. Also for that reason, perhaps, have I noticed that many aspects of RSA have not changed much. And perhaps, for just that reason, the show seems more crowded this year than in recent years.

Posted by Ross Levanto on April 8, 2008 at 8:35 PM
Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Clinton, Obama and Social Media: What We Can Learn

Considering how the media have lavished attention on the 2008 Presidential race, it's surprising that it does not show up more on this blog. For me, the reason for not writing on the topic is my personal interest in the race; I have made an effort *not* to write about the campaign here since I am so interested in the contest outside of the office.

But Fast Company, a publication I respect and read to provide guidance to my growing clients, crossed the chasm between tech and politics in this month's issue, and it has pushed me to write about the connection now. Fast Company is not the first to discover how tech can help politics. Many other blogs report on this topic regularly, including how political social media campaigns are eliminating the need for the politicos to advertise online.

A reporter and friend of mine at the Denver Post, Kimberly Johnson, wrote about Facebook and campaign fundraising last month. Interestingly enough, Kim called me and asked for my insight on the topic after notcing a Facebook post I made referencing a previous entry on this blog (a mini-example of the power of Facebook marketing).

A quick summary of my thoughts on the topic: Both Democratic Presidential rivals are using new media to reach important demographics; as it turns out, the audience influeced by social media is a more likely Obama voter, and for that reason, Obama's online efforts have been more extensive. In each case, proper use of social media tactics depends on the strategic target for the overall campaign brand.

The article in the April 2008 Fast Company discussed the Obama brand. I had not heard that the whiz behind Obama's online efforts was none other than Facebook founder Chris Hughes. What he has done to define and extend the Obama brand is a lesson to any company:

-- Giving the power to the supporters. Through a portion of the Obama campaign website, supporters can launch their own Obama blogs. They can also use their Obama websites to organize fundraisers. The key here is the Obama site powers the transactions, and automates receiving necessary contribution information to comply with federal laws. A supporter could set up a mini site and run a fundraiser with zero involvement from the campaign staff.

-- Bringing information directly to other online communities. The article talks about how a post on a Community Connect niche demographic website drove a lot of traffic to the Obama web presence. The Obama team noticed this and responding by reaching out to Communicy Connect and ultimately setting up a presence through the Community Connect online community.

-- Understanding that social marketing is about giving up some control. A lesson to all marketers: The days of having 100-percent control over your message are long gone. While this reality is not new, Obama is the first candidate to embrace this. His team understands that bringing constituents into the process is part of Obama's brand itself---that he is about letting people invest in the campaign in any way they can. Social media is a great platform to let voters exercise this, and at the same time accentuate the campaign's brand and image.

The now-infamous "Yes We Can" video, starring a singer from the Black Eyed Peas and several of his friends, is a perfect example noted in the Fast Company article. The video is extemporaneous and viral, and some have called it the best marketing vehicle for Obama to date, which is ironic given it was made free from Obama campaign involvement or investment.

An online video created by Clinton's campaign is in many ways the exact opposite. "Hillary's Leaving the Band" is a scripted story with hired actors and is described in Fast Company as being too slick to be accepted by the online demographic.

Obama's use of social media reflects his need to connect to one of his crucial demographics-- young and tech savvy voters-- so called "millennials" who want content brought to them in a method of their choosing. One cannot fault Hillary for not catering to this demographic. It's not really her target. For her voters, the scripted, slick actors work just fine.

While Obama is more flashy, new and connected, in reality his brand is just catering to the voters he must influence, while Hillary's brand is far different. In either case, the teams behind the brands are using social media wisely. How the overall brands will impact voters is a separate discussion.
 

Posted by Ross Levanto on April 1, 2008 at 12:18 PM
Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)