<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;marketing&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:44:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Film Distributor Convinced Oscar Nominees To Take Down Their Own Short Films, Because No Real Film Would Be Online</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130225/02341122096/film-distributor-convinced-oscar-nominees-to-take-down-their-own-short-films-because-no-real-film-would-be-online.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130225/02341122096/film-distributor-convinced-oscar-nominees-to-take-down-their-own-short-films-because-no-real-film-would-be-online.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ While the Oscars already happened this past weekend, we missed this one bit of insanity in the lead up.  Apparently,  Carter Pilcher, CEO of distributor Shorts International, made the rounds last week telling all of the nominees for "best animated short film" that <a href="http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/22/4017024/oscar-nominated-shorts-pulled-from-the-web" target="_blank">they needed to take their films down from any online site</a>.  Why?  Because, apparently, online stuff is too lowbrow, and no serious filmmaker would <i>ever</i> promote their films online.  From the letter:
<blockquote><i>
The fact that all the films were put online is perplexing as Academy voters have other and better means of viewing the films, including through the Academy-provided DVDs of all the Live Action and Animated short film nominees sent to all voting members.  Making the films available online creates no competitive advantage.
<br /><br />
Unlike Webbies or Ani's, the Academy Award is designed to award excellence in the making of motion pictures that receive a cinematic release, not an online release.  Since 2006, we have built theater audiences significantly and created widespread interest in the films themselves and their place in the movie theater.  This release of the films on the Internet threatens to destroy 8 years of audience growth and the notion that these film gems are indeed movies--<b>no feature length film would consider a free online release as a marketing tool!</b>
</i></blockquote>
First off, that last statement is pure hogwash.  A large and growing number of feature length films have been <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091231/1228027568.shtml">released</a> online for free as a marketing tool.  There's a whole company called <a href="http://vodo.net/" target="_blank">Vodo.net</a> that has helped filmmakers do that.  All the way back in 2008, we wrote about director Wayne Wang (who has directed movies like <i>The Joy Luck Club</i>, <i>Smoke</i> and <i>Maid in Manhattan</i>) releasing his latest feature length film... <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081017/1517022575.shtml">free and online</a>.  Another success story involved a relatively unknown indie filmmaker who got his film on Hulu (for free), where it became <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100210/0108248107.shtml">the most watched</a> thing on Hulu for a while.  And, of course, Nina Paley famously released <a href="http://www.sitasingstheblues.com/" target="_blank"><i>Sita Sings the Blues</i></a> for free online.  The idea that no maker of a feature length film would ever use the internet to release it for free is simply untrue.
<br /><br />
And, in many ways, it seems even dumber to remove <i>these</i> short animated films from the internet.  As many people have noted, obscurity is a much bigger threat to most content creators than anything else, and one way to guarantee further obscurity is to make sure your work cannot be found or seen easily.  Somehow, I doubt that any of these animated short filmmakers are seeing that much money from whatever limited theatrical release Pilcher is able to give them.  And yet, by taking their works offline, they may be missing out on building a much bigger and more loyal fanbase, which can help support future projects (Kickstarter, anyone?). The idea that no real filmmaker would promote their films online is something that comes from the viewpoint of an obsolete industry, not someone who is looking out for today's filmmakers' best interests.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130225/02341122096/film-distributor-convinced-oscar-nominees-to-take-down-their-own-short-films-because-no-real-film-would-be-online.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130225/02341122096/film-distributor-convinced-oscar-nominees-to-take-down-their-own-short-films-because-no-real-film-would-be-online.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130225/02341122096/film-distributor-convinced-oscar-nominees-to-take-down-their-own-short-films-because-no-real-film-would-be-online.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wtf</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130225/02341122096</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2013 16:29:27 PST</pubDate>
<title>Dish Turns CBS' Actions Against It; Touts Its Revoked 'Best In Show' Status With A Damning Footnote</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/16123721746/dish-turns-cbs-actions-against-it-touts-its-revoked-best-show-status-with-damning-footnote.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/16123721746/dish-turns-cbs-actions-against-it-touts-its-revoked-best-show-status-with-damning-footnote.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Dish Network&#39;s Hopper DVR has certainly made more than a few broadcasters uncomfortable. One of them, CBS, decided last week that it would rather drag its own brand <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130111/00145421637/just-how-dumb-is-it-cbs-to-block-cnet-giving-dish-award.shtml" target="_blank">through the mud</a> (CNET) and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130114/10270121658/cnet-reporter-resigns-over-cbs-interference-dish-ces-award.shtml" target="_blank">lose a reporter</a> than give its current lawsuit target a bit of favorable press. CNET named the Hopper "Best in Show" at CES, only to have CBS unceremoniously strip Dish&#39;s DVR of the title, a decision CBS likely now regrets.<br />
<br />
The Consumerist reports that <a href="http://consumerist.com/2013/01/18/dish-gives-itself-the-award-that-cbs-stopped-cnet-from-giving/" target="_blank">Dish is taking a well-deserved swing at CBS, this time on its own website</a> where its touts the Hopper being named Best in Show, along with a very noticeable asterisk.
<center>
<img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/2o6spBE.png" style="width: 500px; height: 255px;" /></center>
<p>
The wording after the asterisk reads:
<blockquote>
<i>*What&rsquo;s an asterisk doing in our award? CBS will go to any lengths to keep you from enjoying ad-skipping technology &ndash; even censoring its own writers and throwing out their decision to name Hopper &lsquo;Best In Show.&rsquo; Your vote is the only one that really matters. </i></blockquote>
Dish is also doing its part to keep print journalism alive, <a href="http://instagram.com/p/Ut8q-RuoKa/" target="_blank">taking out full page ads in several newspapers</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<center><a href="http://instagram.com/p/Ut8q-RuoKa/" target="_blank"><img alt="" src="http://i.imgur.com/KnGethq.png" style="width: 500px; height: 461px;" /></a></center><br />
So, what did CBS gain from freezing its legal foe out of an award? Absolutely nothing.
<blockquote>
<i>The broadcaster was reportedly worried that having one of its subsidiaries give an award to a Hopper DVR would possibly hurt its case in court. However, now that it&rsquo;s been revealed that the device did indeed win the award &mdash; even if will never receive the actual accolade &mdash; it has only turned into a public relations boost to Dish and the Hopper. </i></blockquote>
If people weren&#39;t already aware of the product, they certainly are now. And for many of those, technology that time-shifts AND skips ads is right up their alley. In addition, more people are publicly aware of the legal battle, which seems to boil down to the networks&#39; insistence that customers watch every ad. Bad news all around, and CBS needs look no further than the still-smoking gun in its hand to explain all the brand-new holes in its foot.
</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/16123721746/dish-turns-cbs-actions-against-it-touts-its-revoked-best-show-status-with-damning-footnote.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/16123721746/dish-turns-cbs-actions-against-it-touts-its-revoked-best-show-status-with-damning-footnote.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130121/16123721746/dish-turns-cbs-actions-against-it-touts-its-revoked-best-show-status-with-damning-footnote.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>CBS-asks-for-more-bullets;-notes-other-foot-'only-lightly-damaged'</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20130121/16123721746</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 28 Dec 2012 18:33:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>SF Wireless ISP MonkeyBrains Tries To Crowdfund $325 Million For A Satellite</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121228/01025121504/sf-wireless-isp-monkeybrains-tries-to-crowdfund-325-million-satellite.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121228/01025121504/sf-wireless-isp-monkeybrains-tries-to-crowdfund-325-million-satellite.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Well, this is amusing.  San Francisco wireless ISP MonkeyBrains (who some friends use and love) has posted an IndieGogo crowdfunding project <a href="http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/300833" target="_blank">in which they're seeking $325,000,000 (yes, that's $325 million)</a> to build a satellite to deliver internet access.  The "tiers" are interesting.  The lowest is $5,000 (two people have claimed those already!) but then quickly escalate to $10 million for the second tier.  Of course, if you pay that, you get a gigabit internet connection for 5 years (only 5? guys, c'mon!).  The full description of the project is worth reading:
<blockquote><i>
<h3>Abstract</h3>
MonkeyBrains is a local ISP in San Francsico.&nbsp; North Korea just launched a satellite; we want to as well.
<br /><br />
<h3>The Cost Breakdown of Launching a Satellite</h3>
<p>A quick internet search reveals that this is the cost for getting a satellite into orbit:</p>
<ul>
<li>Satellite manufacture: $150M</li>
<li>Satellite launch: $120M</li>
<li>Launch insurance: $20M</li>
<li>In-orbit insurance: $20M</li>
<li>Satellite operations (15 years): $15M</li>
</ul>

<div>
<h3>Faster Internet!</h3>
<p>Our initial research seems to indicate having a satellite in orbit may not speed up your internet at all. [<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Geostationary_unsuitable_for_low-latency_applications%5D" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_Internet_access#Geostationary_unsuitable_for_low-latency_applications]</a>.&nbsp; However, if more research doesn't bode well for a geostationary satellite, we will take all of the $325M to fund either:<br /><br /></p>
<ul>
<li>Fiber to the home.</li>
<li>A balloon tethered to the Farallon islands.</li>
<li>a hovering drone over the Bay.</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
<h3>Trust Us</h3>
<p>Some people just can't beleive we want to make the Internet Faster and Cheaper (and more Out of Control) than it already is.&nbsp; Your money will be spent well, and San Francisco (and possibly -- if funds allow) the entire Bay Area will benefit.&nbsp; We have set this fundraiser as Fixed Funding, so there is no risk of sending MonkeyBrains a little bit of money from your wallet without many other people feeling the same way.
</p></div></i></blockquote>
Obviously, this is a joke by MonkeyBrains, but it's still interesting to see.  It appears that they're trying to use this as a bit of a marketing effort -- not all that different from some of the <a href="http://rtb.techdirt.com/products/silence-techdirt/">products we've offered</a> for sale in our store.  The reason people like crowdfunding goes beyond just the money-raising part to the fact that it can also be an effective marketing platform.  Here, it looks like MonkeyBrains is testing out the marketing aspect with little likelihood of actually using the fundraising part.
<br /><br />
Oh, and don't miss the video, in which they explain their plan to use UFOs to deliver little pieces of internet from the satellite to your computer.
<center>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/XuJyHKORcQM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121228/01025121504/sf-wireless-isp-monkeybrains-tries-to-crowdfund-325-million-satellite.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121228/01025121504/sf-wireless-isp-monkeybrains-tries-to-crowdfund-325-million-satellite.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20121228/01025121504/sf-wireless-isp-monkeybrains-tries-to-crowdfund-325-million-satellite.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>or-something</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121228/01025121504</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2012 07:23:48 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Nutella Nastygrams Restaurant Promoting Its Product, Opens The Door For Competitors</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/18114120725/nutella-nastygrams-restaurant-promoting-its-product-opens-door-competitors.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/18114120725/nutella-nastygrams-restaurant-promoting-its-product-opens-door-competitors.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's astounding and depressing how often companies seem to abuse trademark law to pretend it's about complete ownership of a brand, rather than its roots as a consumer protection statute to stop someone from buying a product believing it was made, supported or endorsed by someone else.  The latest ridiculous news comes courtesy of the Citizen Media Law Project in Boston, who notes that their local popular-with-the-college-kids "wraps and smoothies" joint, Boloco, has been <a href="https://twitter.com/bolocoCEO/status/256345431116746752" target="_blank">legal nastygrammed by Nutella</a>.  Why?  Because of this: their Nutella Milkshake, which they've sold for 14 years:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/Oqmif"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/Oqmif.jpg" width=450 /></a>
</center>
Andrew Sellars from CMLP points out that the legal basis for this is... <a href="http://www.citmedialaw.org/blog/2012/no-no-nutella-trademark-dispute-over-hazelnut-milkshake" target="_blank">questionable at best</a>:
<blockquote><i>
Courts have long confronted this unauthorized-but-accurate use of another company's name. In a <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=264+US+359&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,22&amp;case=16403941232347476488&amp;scilh=0" target="_blank">1924 Supreme Court case</a> the court considered a New York company that took a French company's cosmetic powder, blended it with a binding agent, and sold it as a compact including both the New York company's and French company's names on the packaging. The Supreme Court allowed the defendant to do this, provided that the defendant include a prominent disclaimer that the district court in the case initially imposed, informing the public that the two companies are not affiliated. Writing for the majority, Justice Holmes observed:
<blockquote>
[W]hat new rights does the trade-mark confer? It does not confer a right to prohibit the use of the word or words. It is not a copyright. . . . A trade-mark only gives the right to prohibit the use of it so far as to protect the owner's good will against the sale of another's product as his. . . . When the mark is used in a way that does not deceive the public we see no such sanctity in the word as to prevent its being used to tell the truth. It is not taboo.
</blockquote>
<p>
Many courts have adopted this case's approach to this question: you can use the trademark so long as you are not misleading the public into there being an affiliation between you and the company, other than your use of the company's product in your product. For example, <a href="http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?q=Bumble+Bee+Seafoods+LLC+v.+UFS+Industries+Inc.&amp;hl=en&amp;as_sdt=2,22&amp;case=9201911469881584435&amp;scilh=0" target="_blank">a 2004 case</a> from the Southern District of New York allowed a company that makes tuna salad display on the lid of its container &#8211; in letters about as large as the company's own brand name &#8211; that the salad was "Made with Bumble Bee Tuna," over objections from the famous tuna company.
</p></i></blockquote>
In response, Boloco has decided to cave and is instead looking for <a href="https://twitter.com/boloco/status/256777908373303297" target="_blank">alternatives</a> to Nutella for their shake, even to the point of <a href="http://ow.ly/i/118PO" target="_blank">showing some of the other brands they're considering</a>:
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/250Ca"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/250Ca.jpg" width=450 /></a>
</center>
In the end, it's difficult to see how any of this helps Nutella.  They show themselves to be a bully, pissing off fans, and Boloco goes looking for competitors to promote in their place.  As Sellars concludes in his article:
<blockquote><i>
...when I was in Boloco today (field research!) I couldn't help but see the dozens of jars of Nutella in the back, and thinking about the dozen-or-so other locations around Boston with similar stacks of Nutella jars. Those will be replaced by a competitor's product, in a chain that seems to be growing with each passing month. Not to mention the thousands of Bostonians who have heard about this case and will naturally root for the local guy; you get the feeling that this whole experience is going to leave a bitter taste in [Nutella's] mouths.
</i></blockquote>
Perhaps, next time, they'll realize that bullying may be legal, but it's often not a particularly smart business strategy.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/18114120725/nutella-nastygrams-restaurant-promoting-its-product-opens-door-competitors.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/18114120725/nutella-nastygrams-restaurant-promoting-its-product-opens-door-competitors.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121016/18114120725/nutella-nastygrams-restaurant-promoting-its-product-opens-door-competitors.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>i-drink-your-milkshake</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20121016/18114120725</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 1 Oct 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Make The Logos Bigger, Better</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Logos can convey all kinds of messages -- and instill a sense of confidence or demonstrate a lack of attention to detail. Some logos are fun. Others are serious. Some company logos don't change very much over a long period of time, but others seem to change with every passing design fad. Some logo <a href="http://branddunk.com/2008/10/31/can-pepsi-afford-to-spend-1-billion-on-a-butt-crack/">re-designs</a> are more successful than others. Here are just a few interesting logo collections of some branding campaigns that you might recognize.

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/its_a_sports_nation_we_are_only_living_in_it.php" href="http://bit.ly/URsF7M">SB Nation's network of 300 blogs redesigned all their logos for a re-launch -- with just a single designer, Fraser Davidson, in 7 weeks.</a> Designing 300 logos is hard enough, but add in the complication that none of these logos should in any way infringe upon their related sports teams' official trademarks.... [<a href="http://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/its_a_sports_nation_we_are_only_living_in_it.php">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://hipsterbranding.tumblr.com/" href="http://bit.ly/SkvQo3">Imagine some popular corporate logos redesigned for a hipster blog or startup.</a> You don't have to imagine it, there's a Tumblr blog for it. [<a href="http://hipsterbranding.tumblr.com/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://best-ad.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolution-of-logos.html" href="http://bit.ly/P2cYFv">The evolution of corporate logos is kinda fascinating.</a> Apple's first logo in 1976 is really different from its current minimalistic logo. [<a href="http://best-ad.blogspot.com/2008/08/evolution-of-logos.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.graphicdesignblog.org/hidden-logos-in-graphic-designing/" href="http://bit.ly/OSHUxm">Some logos have hidden messages in them.</a> The Big Ten collegiate conference logo has a little nod to the fact that there are actually eleven teams in its organization. [<a href="http://www.graphicdesignblog.org/hidden-logos-in-graphic-designing/">url</a>]</li>

</ul>

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101007/10185011324/dailydirt-make-logos-bigger-better.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20101007/10185011324</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 5 Sep 2012 20:07:34 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Just Because You Don't Like What People Say About You, Doesn't Mean You Get To Sue For Defamation</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120901/00472120236/just-because-you-dont-like-what-people-say-about-you-doesnt-mean-you-get-to-sue-defamation.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120901/00472120236/just-because-you-dont-like-what-people-say-about-you-doesnt-mean-you-get-to-sue-defamation.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've written plenty of times about public interest organization <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&cof=FORID%3A9&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=public+citizen">Public Citizen</a>, mainly concerning efforts by its litigation group to protect those who have been sued in bogus lawsuits that would impact the internet's openness.  However, every so often Public Citizen <i>itself</i> gets sued.  Late last week, it <a href="http://pubcit.typepad.com/clpblog/2012/08/distributor-of-magic-machine-that-melts-away-your-fat-threatens-libel-claims.html" target="_blank">revealed all of the details</a> of a defamation lawsuit filed against it, concerning its <a href="http://www.citizen.org/hrg2044" target="_blank">letter to the FDA</a> arguing that a certain product -- the LipoTron -- was being illegally marketed and promoted.
<br /><br />
One of the organizations mentioned in the letter took exception to the claims in the letter and discussion on the web, and <a href="http://www.citizen.org/documents/aac_response.pdf" target="_blank">sent a cease-and-desist</a> arguing that the claims were defamatory.  In response, Public Citizen sent back <a href="http://www.citizen.org/documents/pc_response_to_aac.pdf" target="_blank">a long letter backing up all of its claims</a> (and also noting that they had never named the principal in the company, Mark Durante, so having him claim defamation personally didn't make much sense).  This is the point where it makes sense to give up, but Durante's company, Advanced Aesthetic Concepts LP, <a href="http://pubcit.typepad.com/files/aac-v-peterson-amended-petition-and-application-for-tro.pdf" target="_blank">sued anyway</a> for libel, and asked the court for a temporary restraining order (TRO).    When Public Citizen signed up a top local lawyer in Texas, pointed to Texas' new anti-SLAPP law (which would allow them to seek lawyers' fees), and told the lawyer that they were prepared to show up in court to contest the TRO, they were told that the case against them would be dropped.
<br /><br />
At the very least, this yet again highlights the value of good anti-SLAPP laws in protecting those who are sued.  But, once again we're amazed at how many people seem to think that filing defamation lawsuits in situations like this could possibly bring about a good result.  In this case, all it's serving to do is call significantly more attention to the original claims that Public Citizen made in its original letter to the FDA (and then backed up in the legal filings).<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120901/00472120236/just-because-you-dont-like-what-people-say-about-you-doesnt-mean-you-get-to-sue-defamation.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120901/00472120236/just-because-you-dont-like-what-people-say-about-you-doesnt-mean-you-get-to-sue-defamation.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120901/00472120236/just-because-you-dont-like-what-people-say-about-you-doesnt-mean-you-get-to-sue-defamation.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>nuisance</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120901/00472120236</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2012 08:35:30 PDT</pubDate>
<title>North Face Wants Court To Spank Butt Face</title>
<dc:creator>Timothy Geigner</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/10470219979/north-face-wants-court-to-spank-butt-face.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/10470219979/north-face-wants-court-to-spank-butt-face.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember South Butt? They&#39;re the relatively small and vulgarly-named clothing manufacturer North Face <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091001/0442586390.shtml">took to court</a> over trademark infringement. Soon after, South Butt decided to use the lawsuit as a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091222/1030157472.shtml">marketing ploy</a> and then responded in court with a hysterical <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100202/0325398008.shtml">legal filing</a>. We said at the time that moving forward with a lawsuit was a poor choice by North Face, serving only to fuel publicity for what it misguidedly saw as a competitor.
<br /><br />
Proving that learning a lesson is very, very difficult, North Face has <a href="http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/08/09/49143.htm">taken the former owners of South Butt to court</a> again. What happened at the conclusion of the original lawsuit was South Butt agreed to drop their brand entirely as part of an injunction. Then, according to North Face, they jumped right back into their old shenannigan ways, forming the company Why Climb Mountains LLC and registering for a trademark on their new brand Butt Face. As if all of this wasn&#39;t funny enough, the following is taken from North Face&#39;s filing, in which they are asking for WCM LLC to be held in contempt, to recover costs, and for disgorgement for trademark violations:
<blockquote>
<i>"A survey conducted by plaintiff shows that approximately 35 percent of respondents identify The North Face as being associated with The Butt Face trademark when shown a sample of contempt respondents&#39; T-shirts. Not only are contempt respondents now engaged in the widespread sale and promotion of The Butt Face branded goods, but Why Climb Mountains, LLC also has filed for registration of The Butt Face trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office."</i>
</blockquote>
<br />
If this is alledging brand confusion, I&#39;m at a loss as to exactly how North Face went out and managed to collect what has to be the world&#39;s most hurried morons in a single room as a method for getting 35% of them to think Butt Face and North Face were the same thing. WCM&#39;s lawyer seems to feel similarly skeptical:
<blockquote>
<i>""The South Butt and Olop [South Butt&#39;s sister line] are genuinely committed to the fundamental concept that the consuming public is perfectly capable of discerning the difference between a direction point on a compass and that part of the body from which solid waste is evacuated," [Albert] Watkins said in a statement."</i>
</blockquote>
<br />
The other interesting tidbit in North Face&#39;s complaints is that they believe...wait for it...that WCM&#39;s owners are simply using the lawsuits filed against it as publicity. They reached the same conclusion as we had years ago. But, in an apparent attempt to test a theory called "litigation through stubborness", they filed suit and gave their adversaries more ammuntion for publicity. It would be as though I had an ant problem in my kitchen because I left some honey out on the counter and my response was to <i>cover</i> the counter in honey while complaining about the ants marching in.
<br /><br />
In the end, North Face likely would have been far better served to ignore South Butt along with its new iteration, Butt Face. On the other hand, if they had, I never would have had the pleasure of writing the headline for this article. So, you know, thanks for that I guess.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/10470219979/north-face-wants-court-to-spank-butt-face.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/10470219979/north-face-wants-court-to-spank-butt-face.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120809/10470219979/north-face-wants-court-to-spank-butt-face.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>rear-ended-by-the-law</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120809/10470219979</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 6 Aug 2012 13:34:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Indian Filmmaker Anurag Kashyap: 'Piracy Helps Deliver The Filmmaker's Message To The Masses'</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120805/20045519937/indian-filmmaker-anurag-kashyap-piracy-helps-deliver-filmmakers-message-to-masses.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120805/20045519937/indian-filmmaker-anurag-kashyap-piracy-helps-deliver-filmmakers-message-to-masses.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There have been plenty of artists inside and outside the system recognizing that, yeah, it sucks to not get paid for every copy of your work, but on the bright side, at least people are watching/listening/reading. Hit <strike>children&#39;s</strike> book <i>Go The F**k to Sleep</i>&nbsp;built buzz with&nbsp;<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/04081614319/perhaps-sequel-can-be-dont-fking-worry-about-piracy.shtml" target="_blank">unpaid copies</a> roaming the internet. A former WB record exec claims "<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120518/17381918980/former-record-label-exec-ethan-kaplan-duh-course-more-file-sharing-leads-to-more-sales.shtml" target="_blank">File sharing leads to more sales</a>." Canadian rap star Drake&nbsp;<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110624/10313514841/drake-tells-universal-music-to-stop-taking-down-music-hes-leaking.shtml" target="_blank">leaking tracks</a> all over the internet to get fans listening and talking.&nbsp;Why? Because the more people you can expose to your art, the better. But if you ask Hollywood about file sharing you get the alphabet in response: SOPA, PIPA, E-PARASITE, TPP, ACTA. Piracy is killing the motion picture industry, full stop.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/bollywood/news-interviews/Piracy-made-me-popular-Anurag-Kashyap/articleshow/15293808.cms" target="_blank">Contrast that with this statement from Indian filmmaker Anurag Kashyap</a>, who works in a country where piracy is omnipresent, rather than just an over-inflated set of numbers to wave at easily impressed Congressmen:
<blockquote>
<i>While chatting about his experiences in Kanpur, where he&#39;s spent some part of his life while he was studying for the IIT entrance test, the topic veers to the menace of piracy in Indian cinema. But surprisingly, Anurag is one of the few filmmakers who feel that piracy is justified. "Main aaj jo kuch hoon, piracy ki wajah se hi hoon. <b>It was through pirated versions of my movies that people got to see my work</b>," he says and goes on to elaborate, "<b>I feel that cinema is something that should reach the maximum number of people. If the audience does not get to see affordable cinema, it will turn to cheaper, pirated entertainment</b>."</i></blockquote>
Unlike the hysteria we&#39;re used to, often conflated with <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120110/08593817365/firefighters-sopa-again-congressional-fire-services-institute-rehashes-cliches-debunked-anecdotes.shtml" target="_blank">knockoff fire extinguishers</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111201/14195416946/lamar-smith-tries-to-defend-sopa-suggests-that-infringement-is-equivalent-child-porn.shtml" target="_blank">child pornography</a>, Anurag views piracy as more than simply a necessary evil, but an actual necessity. That is, if your aim is to have your work seen by as many people as possible. Obviously, if your aim instead is to do everything in your power to make sure that every set of eyeballs that come in contact with your work have paid upfront, then you&#39;ll take a much dimmer view of file sharing.<br />
<br />
Anurag&#39;s not done yet, either:
<blockquote>
<i>"If we want to see a successful Hollywood today, often we have to take the help of piracy because it&#39;s not necessary that that film is legally available in your city. That&#39;s why filmmakers need to understand that their work should reach more and more people, because today cinema is not all about entertainment. In fact, I feel that we filmmakers should use cinema as a tool to make a strong impact on society. <b>And if people are watching such meaningful cinema through piracy, I believe it only helps to deliver the filmmaker&#39;s message to the masses</b>."</i></blockquote>
All very good points. First and foremost: sometimes you don&#39;t have a legal option because of licensing issues, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120319/08404018158/why-do-labels-continue-to-insist-that-your-money-is-no-good-here.shtml" target="_blank">regional blocking</a>, "<a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120405/16421518396/former-cybersecurity-czar-thinks-dhs-should-spy-all-internet-traffic-crossing-our-borders-because-chinese-pirates.shtml" target="_blank">you people are all pirates</a>," <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110714/00141315084/why-sita-sings-blues-is-perfectly-legal-germany-you-still-cant-watch-it-youtube.shtml" target="_blank">GEMA wants its cut</a>, etc. But beyond the logistics is the fact that if you&#39;re an artist and you want to have an impact on people, it behooves you to get your creations in front of as many people as possible.<br />
<br />
Here&#39;s a filmmaker working in a country where piracy is an absolute given, so much so that the government has taken some <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120504/10553718789/indian-isps-told-to-block-access-to-vimeo.shtml" target="_blank">very surprising steps</a> in an effort to curb it, including blocking file lockers and video sites at the ISP level. And yet, despite massive infringement, all he sees is the upside. He&#39;s doing this for a living and yet he&#39;s not loudly wondering where his boom mike operator will get his next meal or saying something asinine about a future full of cat videos, all the while attempting to recast <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111102/23363116605/warner-bros-right-after-announcing-record-profits-pleads-poverty-asking-people-to-support-grassroots-campaign-e-parasite-act.shtml" target="_blank">record box office receipts</a> as the Fifth Horseman of the Creative Apocalypse.<br />
<br />
And before you write off Kashyap as just some dude you&#39;ve never heard of from somewhere else, here&#39;s a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anurag_Kashyap" target="_blank">brief recap of his work</a> (via the Wiki):
<blockquote>
<i>As a filmmaker, he is known for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(2004_film)">Black Friday</a>&nbsp;(2004), a controversial&nbsp;and award-winning <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollywood">Hindi film</a> about the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1993_Bombay_bombings">1993 Bombay bombings</a>, followed by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Smoking_(2007_film)">No Smoking</a> (2007), <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dev_D">Dev D</a> (2009) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulaal">Gulaal</a> (2009) <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That_Girl_in_Yellow_Boots">That Girl in Yellow Boots</a> (2011) and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gangs_of_Wasseypur">Gangs of Wasseypur</a> (2012).</i><br />
<br />
<i>As a screenwriter, he wrote the scripts for the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filmfare_Award">Filmfare Award</a>-winning <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_(film)">Satya</a> (1998) and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award">Academy Award</a>-nominated Canadian film <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(2005_film)">Water</a> (2005).</i><br />
<br />
<i>In 1999, Kashyap won the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Screen_Award_for_Best_Screenplay">Best Screenplay</a> award for Satya at the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Screen_Awards">Star Screen Awards</a>. The next year, his short film <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Train_to_Mahakali">Last Train to Mahakali</a> won the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Screen_Award_Special_Jury_Award">Special Jury Award</a> at the same awards.&nbsp;His feature film debut <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(2004_film)">Black Friday</a> won the Grand Jury Prize at the 3rd Annual <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Film_Festival_of_Los_Angeles">Indian Film Festival of Los Angeles</a> (2005),&nbsp;and was a nominee for the "Golden Leopard" (Best Film) at the 57th <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locarno_International_Film_Festival">Locarno International Film Festival</a> (2004).</i><br />
<br />
<i>He was listed on the The DNA power list: Top 50 influentials, a list of 50 most influential Indians in 2011.&nbsp;Kashyap currently serves on the board of Mumbai-based NGO, Aangan Trust, which helps protect vulnerable children around India.</i></blockquote>
It seems that those who value their own work as art over commerce are the ones who see how file sharing can pay dividends in the long run. Those who tend to view their work as a P&#038;L sheet can only see the negative. You don&#39;t have to like or condone piracy to see the possible upside. Kashyap almost seems to view it as a distribution system that reaches places he can&#39;t, free of charge. Hollywood, however, seems to be too busy playing the victim to draw that same conclusion.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120805/20045519937/indian-filmmaker-anurag-kashyap-piracy-helps-deliver-filmmakers-message-to-masses.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120805/20045519937/indian-filmmaker-anurag-kashyap-piracy-helps-deliver-filmmakers-message-to-masses.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120805/20045519937/indian-filmmaker-anurag-kashyap-piracy-helps-deliver-filmmakers-message-to-masses.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>Kashyap-has-never-seen-a-half-empty-glass-in-his-life</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120805/20045519937</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 2 Aug 2012 01:56:40 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Sometimes The Business Model Is The Marketing</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120611/02550419265/sometimes-business-model-is-marketing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120611/02550419265/sometimes-business-model-is-marketing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ When we talk about cool new business models, one thing we often hear from critics is the attempt to dismiss some of the more creative ideas as mere "gimmicks."  I think that severely misses the point.  For new business models to work, they need to also reach fans/customers in an effective way.  And, sometimes, that means that <i>the business model <b>is</b> part of the marketing campaign</i>.  In fact, I'd argue that much of Kickstarter and its success stories is based (in part) on this premise.  The business model and the marketing campaign bleed into each other -- which is why it's often useful to have parts of your business model be <i>things that will get people talking about you</i>.  It's also why we have a <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php?tid=100000000">$100 million offer</a> in our (soon to be relaunched!) store.  While no one bought it (yet!), it was definitely the item people spoke about the most.
<br /><br />
And, of course, none of this has to be purely digital.  My friend Tom sent over this great story about Neal Gottlieb, who runs an ice cream business that has some stores and a factory -- most of which involves your everyday ice cream sales.  However, he's also <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/06/02/BUC21OQ95E.DTL&#038;utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&#038;utm_medium=sfgatenewsletter Top%20O'%20The%20Bay%20Newsletter&#038;utm_campaign=Top%20O'%20The%20Bay%20Newsletter" target="_blank">got some offerings for some... higher end clientele</a>:
<blockquote><i>
<b>Q: So what's the deal with the $3,333.33 banana split you have on the Napa store's menu? Are you out of your mind?</b>
<br /><br />
A: I put it up not really as a joke, but for something fun for people to read while they're waiting in line.
<br /><br />
I really hate the most expensive (dot dot dot) when most of the expense is for the serving dish, like the most expensive cocktail that comes in a crystal chalice. We serve the most expensive sundae, but the food cost is one-third of the price. It's three scoops of organic ice cream; a banana, organic of course; and is topped with three syrups made from three extremely rare dessert wines - a 1960s vintage Port, a Chateau D'Yquem and a German Trockenbeerenauslese. It also comes with a cellist who will play anything you want while you eat the sundae.
</i></blockquote>
Ah, yes.  Don't forget the cellist.  Though, I'd argue that if his complaint about others is the price of the serving dish, there may be a valid complaint when part of the cost is the musical accompaniment.  That said, this is not the most expensive item on the menu:
<blockquote><i>
<b>Q: What other expensive ice cream packages do you offer?</b>
<br /><br />
A: We offer a trip to Mount Kilimanjaro with a real guide and me. Once we climb the mountain, we will chip away at the glacial ice and carry it back to camp, where we will churn as much ice cream as the customer can eat. The trip includes first-class airfare, five-star accommodations, a $10,000 donation to a nonprofit African environmental charity and a souvenir T-shirt for $60,000 for one and $85,000 for two.
<br /><br />
So far we've had no takers.
<br /><br />
However, one person has purchased our "100 pints personally delivered." That's when I wear a green tuxedo and deliver the ice cream anywhere in the U.S. for $3,333.33.
</i></blockquote>
The full article has a bunch more details and is well worth the read, so go check it out.
<br /><br />
Now, of course, some people will (again) say that this is merely a "gimmick."  And perhaps you can dismiss it as that.  But I think it goes much deeper.  It's showing how the business model itself can be both a part of the marketing and how you connect with fans and customers.  In this day and age, part of succeeding is in standing out.  Doing the same thing that everyone else does won't get you that far, so why not innovate and be creative on the business model side of things as well?  I'm sure Gottlieb makes great ice cream (I've heard good things, though I haven't tried it), and so our usual critics will insist that he absolutely must only focus on that and that alone.  But I think most sensible people realize that you can create a great product <b>and</b> do a good job marketing it while also being creative with your business models.  And none of those things take away from any other part.
<br /><br />
Anyway, should anyone decide to take us up on our $100 million offer, I plan to use some of the money to go to Mount Kilimanjaro with Mr. Gottlieb.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120611/02550419265/sometimes-business-model-is-marketing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120611/02550419265/sometimes-business-model-is-marketing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120611/02550419265/sometimes-business-model-is-marketing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>and-that's-not-a-bad-thing</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120611/02550419265</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:44:22 PDT</pubDate>
<title>If This Is What Big Publishers Call Promotion, No Wonder They're In Trouble</title>
<dc:creator>Tim Cushing</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120717/22485119738/if-this-is-what-big-publishers-call-promotion-no-wonder-theyre-trouble.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120717/22485119738/if-this-is-what-big-publishers-call-promotion-no-wonder-theyre-trouble.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Uber-successful blogger Penelope Trunk took the long route to self-publishing, beginning as a blogger before being picked up by an unnamed major publisher before making the decision to self-publish (and cashing a large advance check along the way). As more and more authors <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20110321/00183913568/best-selling-author-turns-down-half-million-dollar-publishing-contract-to-self-publish.shtml" target="_blank">have discovered</a>, the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101229/02190512445/have-we-reached-tipping-point-where-self-publishing-is-better-than-getting-book-deal.shtml" target="_blank">advantages</a> of self-publishing (control of their work; more profit) are increasingly outweighing the disadvantages (handling your own promotion; sourcing your own editing, etc.). <br /><br /> In a blog post on July 9th, Trunk announced she had a new book coming out, a situation not remarkable in itself (bloggers crank out books all the time). However, two years ago, <a href="http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2012/07/09/how-i-got-a-big-advance-from-a-big-publisher-and-self-published-anyway/" target="_blank">Trunk had sold this same book to a major publisher, and that's where her trouble began</a>:
<blockquote>
<i>So I sold my book to a mainstream publisher and they sucked. I am going to go into extreme detail about how much they sucked, so I'm not going to tell you the name of the publisher because I got a lot of money from them. I'm just going to tell you that the mainstream publisher is huge, and if you have any respect left for print publishing, you respect this publisher. But you will not at the end of this post.</i>
</blockquote>
Now, we've all heard how major publishers can be annoying to deal with. Between pushing back release dates, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100723/17020410345.shtml" target="_blank">locking up</a> parts of writers' catalogues, <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110307/14190413389/librarians-readers-against-drm-updated.shtml" target="_blank">lacing e-books with DRM</a> and other such dickery, major publishers have earned just about as much respect (around these parts, anyway) as the major labels and major studios. While many authors have become successful within the system, the evidence points to the sad fact that the "system" is sorely in need of drastic change. Sadder still is the fact that there seems to be no rush to meet that need. <br /><br /> Trunk's experience with the major publisher didn't take a turn for the worse until the discussion of promotion began. What follows are some of the most unintentionally hilarious "promotion" ideas I've ever heard bandied about by people specifically tasked with the job of promotion:
<blockquote>
<i>To be clear, I wrote my book, and they paid me my advance, in full. Three months before the publication date, the PR department called me up to "coordinate our efforts." But really, their call was just about giving me a list of what I was going to do to publicize the book. I asked them what they were going to do. They had no idea. Seriously.</i>
</blockquote>
Well, that's just terrible. A PR department, whose <i>very existence</i> is predicated on public relations, drawing a blank when asked directly what they, as employees of the power major publisher, were going to do. And then, they had "ideas" -- the kind of ideas that are fully deserving of the quotation marks around the word:
<blockquote>
<i>They did not have a written plan, or any list, and when I pushed one of the people on this first call to give me examples of what the publishers would do to promote my book, she said "newsgroups."</i> <br /><br /> <i>I assumed I was misunderstanding. I said, "You mean like newsgroups from the early 90s? Those newsgroups? USENET?"</i> <br /><br /> <i>"Yes."</i> <br /><br /> <i>"Who is part of newsgroups anymore?"</i> <br /><br /> <i>"We actually have really good lists because we have been working with them for so long."</i> <br /><br /> <i>"People in newsgroups buy books? You are marketing my book through newsgroups?"</i>
</blockquote>
There's nothing like holding a conversation in 2012 with someone who still thinks it's two decades earlier, especially if this is the first idea that comes to mind with all the other social media options available. Maybe if Trunk's book was targeted towards the interests of newsgroups or had sprung from there, this <i>might</i> make sense. (And it might even give the PR team a bit of street cred, if they did still hold some sort of grassroots power in 20-year old newsgroups.) But this sounds more like a case of blowing the dust off the floppy and running a copy of "The List" off on the nearest dot matrix, rather than a savvy move based on years of carefully cultivating an online following.<br /><br /> There's more:
<blockquote>
<i>At the next phone call, I asked again about how they were going to publicize my book. I told them that I'm happy to do it on my blog, but I already know I can sell tons of books by writing about my book on my blog. So they need to tell me how they are going to sell tons of books.</i> <br /><br /> <i>"LinkedIn."</i> <br /><br /> <i>"What? Where are you selling books on LinkedIn?"</i> <br /><br /> <i>"One of the things we do is build buzz on our fan page."</i> <br /><br /> <i>I went ballistic. There is no publishing industry fan page that is good enough to sell books. No one goes to fan pages for publishers because publishers are not household brand names. The authors are. That's how publishing works.</i>
</blockquote>
Something that the major publishers seem to have in common with other artistic venues saddled with the word "major" is the fact that these entities tend to greatly overvalue their brand and undervalue the artists signed to it. Major studios still seem to believe that people give a single damn what studio produced their favorite movie, failing to realize that people are drawn to movies for the actors, directors, writers, stories, explosions, etc. -- <i>anything</i> but the studio itself. No one not employed by the studios themselves walks around talking up the latest "Sony Pictures Studio" film. The same goes for the recording industry. While certain labels have gained (and sometimes lost) cachet over the years based on their stable of artists, it's still about the artists. People may love Sub Pop, but if Sub Pop began cranking out albums by just anybody, it would swiftly lose its respectability. Obviously, the same goes for major publishers, who somehow believe that readers care whether it's Random House or Harper-Collins that just put out a book by their <i>favorite author</i>. <br /><br /> Oh. Yeah. There's more. Trunk was asked to meet one more time with the publicity team. This culminated in a long Powerpoint presentation where Trunk learned all she wanted to know about major publishers -- none of it good. Here's what she learned: <br /> <ul><li><b>Print publishers have no idea who is buying their books<i>.</i></b></li></ul><p>Amazon knows their customers. Publishers don't. Amazon won't give them the information and what little the publishers can draw together demographically comes from brick-and-mortar sales. This is a handicap, to be sure, but the publisher Trunk dealt with compounded this problem by performing impossible mathematics: 
<blockquote>
<i>When I pointed this out to my publisher, they told me that for my book, they expected to sell more than 50% of the books in independent bookstores. And then they showed me slides on how they market to people offline. They did not realize that I ran an independent bookstore while I was growing up. It was the family business. I ran numbers for them to show them that if they sold 50% of the sales they estimated for my book, they would single-handedly change the metrics of independent booksellers. That's how preposterous their estimates were</i>. <br /></blockquote><ul><li><b>Print publishers have no idea how to market online.</b></li></ul>Without access to online data or the interest in using what they do have, publishers fly blind, relying on what <i>used</i> to work to continue working, including such Pleistocene-era tactics as "TV spots and back-of-book blurbs." They also seem blas&eacute; about actually connecting with their readers, something that is proven to leave you on the outside in a digital, connected world.
<blockquote>
<i>Print publishers have been too arrogant to learn how to run a grassroots, metrics-based publicity campaign online. They cannot tell which of their online efforts works and which doesn't because they can't track sales. They don't know how many people they reach.<br /></i> </blockquote><ul><li><b>The profit margins in mainstream publishing are so low they are almost nonexistent</b>.</li></ul>This remains a problem when your flagship product is a physical item with limited distribution points and the associated costs of printing, distributing, warehousing, remainders, etc. Digital products carry none of these costs, allowing authors (and publishers) to make more per book even at a fraction of the price. How bad are the margins? Consider this factoid:
<blockquote>
<i>The most breathtaking example, I think, of how terrible margins are, is that if I sell my own book with a link to my publisher, I make a little less than $1 per book. If I sell <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/1591843790/?tag=brazecaree-20+kawasaki">Guy Kawasaki's book </a>&nbsp;on Amazon, I get a little more than $1 per book in their affiliate program. So it's more profitable to me to use my blog to sell someone else's book than to sell the book I published with a mainstream publisher.</i>
</blockquote>
No matter how much you might believe in the power of a major publisher, it's got to knock a little wind out of your sails to realize that authors can make more selling <i>other</i> people's books through the much-hated Amazon. Whatever power remains in old school publishing is swiftly being undercut by their inability to move forward at the pace of their market. <br /><br /> This whole debacle culminated with the PR peacemaker threatening to dump Trunk's book if she didn't play nice with the clueless promotional team. So much for calling her bluff.
<blockquote>
<i>I said, "Great. Because I think you are incompetent. And also, you have already paid me. It's a great deal for me."</i>
</blockquote>
Trunk went off, did six months of research on the ebook industry, and took her book to Hyperink, an independent publisher which specializes in helping bloggers convert their blogging into books. Click through for <a href="http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2012/07/09/how-i-got-a-big-advance-from-a-big-publisher-and-self-published-anyway/" target="_blank">her whole post</a>, which contains some more devastating insights into the publishing industry as well as a rundown on the "New Rules of Book Publishing."</p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120717/22485119738/if-this-is-what-big-publishers-call-promotion-no-wonder-theyre-trouble.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120717/22485119738/if-this-is-what-big-publishers-call-promotion-no-wonder-theyre-trouble.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120717/22485119738/if-this-is-what-big-publishers-call-promotion-no-wonder-theyre-trouble.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>take-the-money-and-run-(your-own-business)</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120717/22485119738</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jul 2012 22:11:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Content Is Advertising, Advertising Is Content: Media Company Buys Ad Firm That Makes Good Content</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120703/18002719574/content-is-advertising-advertising-is-content-media-company-buys-ad-firm-that-makes-good-content.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120703/18002719574/content-is-advertising-advertising-is-content-media-company-buys-ad-firm-that-makes-good-content.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There's an interesting Technology Review article about a new YouTube video campaign <a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/thnkrtv" target="_blank">called ThinkR</a>, which is trying to create videos of smart people talking about interesting things (think sort of TED-like, but a little flashier. and at least of the ones I've seen, with less substance).  However, the Tech Review article <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/view/428407/ted-has-competition-from-an-advertising-firm/" target="_blank">highlights the oddity of an ad firm owned by a media firm making interesting content</a>:
<blockquote><i>
<p>Here's how Radical Media describes its "entertainment" division:</p>
<blockquote><p>AS THE LINE BETWEEN advertising and entertainment blurs, our Entertainment division is a solution to a changing media landscape. In conjunction with our Design + Digital Group and Integrated Marketing team, we work closely with our agency, network, and brand partners to integrate their visions into the DNA of the content we create.</p></blockquote>
<p>In addition to films and music videos, Radical Media also makes television commercials and, well, "<a href="http://www.radicalmedia.com/Design__and__Digital" target="_blank">transmedia</a>."</p>
<p>Here's where it gets really confusing: While Radical Media is essentially an advertising firm, it was purchased in 2010 by the <a href="http://www.rtlgroup.com/www/htm/home.aspx" target="_blank">RTL Group</a>, which owns 46 television channels and 9 radio stations and is Europe's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTL_Group" target="_blank">largest mass media company</a>. In other words, a media company owns an advertising firm that moonlights as a media company. Huzzah!</p>
</i></blockquote>
It goes on to note that some of their videos... have advertisements before them, and it's possible that "Radical Media produced both the "advertisement" and the "content"!"  Of course, I'm not so sure why or if that's all that surprising.  As we've been pointing out for years, it's not just that advertising is content, but that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080318/004136567/advertising-is-content-content-is-advertising.shtml">content is advertising</a> as well.  Good content always advertises something.  Bad content doesn't advertise anything, even if it's designed as an "advertisement."
<br /><br />
Having an "ad agency" that knows how to make good content, first and foremost, is a lot more important than having a firm that knows how to make a "good advertisement."  If you can make good content, you can figure out how it advertises something and act accordingly.  If you're just focused on making a good advertisement, you'll often make bad content.  So I actually think it's a good thing that ad companies and media companies are focusing on content first.  I recognize the risk that many people worry about: that this makes "content" into something that's more "advertorial," but that's not what we're discussing here.  It's the exact opposite.  Purely "advertorial" content isn't good content.  It's deceptive and annoying.  When the mix of content and advertising works, it's because people <i>want</i> the content and actively seek it out (think <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100222/1028568252.shtml">Old Spice Man</a>) rather than "hiding" an ad in the content -- which is more likely to turn people off.
<br /><br />
Somehow, these two ideas too often get conflated.  But if everyone's focused on creating good content first and foremost, that seems like a good thing -- even if that content comes from "an advertising" firm.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120703/18002719574/content-is-advertising-advertising-is-content-media-company-buys-ad-firm-that-makes-good-content.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120703/18002719574/content-is-advertising-advertising-is-content-media-company-buys-ad-firm-that-makes-good-content.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120703/18002719574/content-is-advertising-advertising-is-content-media-company-buys-ad-firm-that-makes-good-content.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that's-how-it-works</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120703/18002719574</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 9 Jul 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Advertising Mistakes; Hilarity Ensues</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/10212510707/dailydirt-advertising-mistakes-hilarity-ensues.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/10212510707/dailydirt-advertising-mistakes-hilarity-ensues.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Advertising is a tricky business. Not only do you not know where <a href="http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/1992.html">half your marketing budget goes</a>, but it's possible to waste 100% of your advertising with an innocent mistake. It's tough to try to make funny and catchy ads, and not everyone has the same sense of humor. Here are just a few examples of some ads that have backfired.
 
<ul>

<li> <a title="http://tushnet.blogspot.ca/2012/06/today-in-hilarious-advertising-misfires.html" href="http://bit.ly/M5zqkq">Automatically serving ads without a human editor to judge the appropriateness of the content can be a really bad idea -- especially when placing ads on news items.</a> Yahoo News recently inserted ads for Express clothing on a news photo -- unfortunately the photo pictured a distraught man who survived an attack by Taliban militants. [<a href="http://tushnet.blogspot.ca/2012/06/today-in-hilarious-advertising-misfires.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/britons-call-kfc-ad-finger-lickin-awful-20642" href="http://bit.ly/LBVvFK">KFC ran a commercial in the UK a few years ago that set a record for complaints -- because viewers thought it encouraged bad manners and mocked people with speech impediments.</a> This commercial has <a href="http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/britain-reveals-most-hated-ad-countrys-history-140869">held on to its record</a> to this day, but there probably aren't many agencies vying for the title. [<a href="http://www.adweek.com/adfreak/britons-call-kfc-ad-finger-lickin-awful-20642">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IK6lanScSs" href="http://bit.ly/LBUYng">Pizza Hut knows its customers love pizza, but does a love of pizza correlate with disliking math?</a> This commercial needs to show its work on how it arrived at its conclusion. [<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IK6lanScSs">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/30/kenneth_cole_gets_schooled/singleton/" href="http://bit.ly/OyqdCP">Kenneth Cole is trying to raise "awearness" with some edgy ad campaigns.</a> But one of its billboards generated some backlash from teachers when it suggested that teachers' rights were at odds with student interests. [<a href="http://www.salon.com/2012/04/30/kenneth_cole_gets_schooled/singleton/">url</a>]</li>

</ul>


If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/10212510707/dailydirt-advertising-mistakes-hilarity-ensues.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/10212510707/dailydirt-advertising-mistakes-hilarity-ensues.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100820/10212510707/dailydirt-advertising-mistakes-hilarity-ensues.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100820/10212510707</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Deconstructing Social Networking</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100817/03255410654/dailydirt-deconstructing-social-networking.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100817/03255410654/dailydirt-deconstructing-social-networking.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Social networks are clearly a very fashionable field of study right now because they provide an unprecedented volume of records for human interactions that can be mined for trends and correlations... and marketing strategies. Figuring out how viral messages spread could teach us how to educate our peers or to notify people about emergencies or to advertise caffeinated beverages. Here are just a few studies on how people behave in online communities. 

<ul>

<li> <a title="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/how-facebook-contagion-spreads.html" href="http://bit.ly/Mqb8Bc">If you're looking to create the next Facebook, it might help to know that it's not the absolute number of friends on a social network that encourages new users to join, but the types of friends who are already signed up.</a> A user who gets an invitation to join Facebook is more than twice as likely to join if he/she sees more than 4 of separate groups of friends are already signed up. That's real peer pressure at work. [<a href="http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/04/how-facebook-contagion-spreads.html">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.technologyreview.com/news/426668/twitter-bots-create-surprising-new-social/" href="http://bit.ly/LPaHfy">Twitter bots can influence the behavior of online communities and help speed up human-to-human communications.</a> These bots don't have to pass a rigorous Turing test to fool people into following and tweeting more frequently. [<a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/news/426668/twitter-bots-create-surprising-new-social/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://misrc.umn.edu/wise/papers/1b-3.pdf" href="http://bit.ly/LP7Lzn">[PDF link:] Another research abstract discusses work on identifying influential and susceptible people on Facebook by looking at how viral messages spread.</a> Influentials are thought to be critical people in disseminating information, but where would they be without their susceptible audiences?  [<a href="http://misrc.umn.edu/wise/papers/1b-3.pdf">url</a>]</li>

</ul>



If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt post</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100817/03255410654/dailydirt-deconstructing-social-networking.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100817/03255410654/dailydirt-deconstructing-social-networking.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100817/03255410654/dailydirt-deconstructing-social-networking.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100817/03255410654</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 19:39:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Is It A Problem If People Only Discover A Musician Because They Have A Cool Kickstarter?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/02442219057/is-it-problem-if-people-only-discover-musician-because-they-have-cool-kickstarter.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/02442219057/is-it-problem-if-people-only-discover-musician-because-they-have-cool-kickstarter.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the things we've heard for years, whenever we talk about awesome marketing campaigns and business models that musicians and other artists have put together, is that it's somehow a "shame" that the artists are getting attention for the campaign/business model, rather than the art itself.  Even Amanda Palmer  <a href="http://blog.amandapalmer.net/post/23551030051/where-all-this-kickstarter-money-is-going-by-amanda" target="_blank">expressed some concern about this</a> in a recent blog post:
<blockquote><i>
the weirdest thing right now is that everybody KNOWS about it. i&#8217;m now famous for my kickstarter.
<br /><br />
which is a little depressing. i wish that i could steal all that enthusiasm and high-fiving i&#8217;ve getting from strangers in the street (literally) and re-route it to the album when comes out.
i don&#8217;t want this album to be remembered as &#8220;the kickstarter record.&#8221;
<br /><br />
i do want this record to explode. and i want this record to explode because it is awesome. 
</i></blockquote>
There were definitely similar concerns about things like Radiohead's <i>In Rainbows</i>, where some said it's only known as the "pay what you want album."  That said, Palmer immediately points out that she's not too hung up on this, and discusses repeatedly what a "fucking game-changer" Kickstarter is for the music business.
<br /><br />
However, it did seem worth focusing in a bit on this point to think about it some more.  Is it really that big a problem if people know you for doing something innovative that is indirectly connected to the art?  I don't think so.  The biggest challenge for many (probably most) artists these days is obscurity.  They need ways to stand out from the crowd -- and often that goes beyond the music.
<br /><br />
But none of that <i>eclipses</i> the music entirely.
<br /><br />
Sure, some people may focus on the business model or the marketing efforts, but that's <i>a fantastic conduit to the music</i>.  The only reason I learned about Amanda Palmer in the first place, years ago, was her efforts to get out of her major label recording deal, after the label (Warner Music) took her own videos down as part of their fight with YouTube.  And, obviously, she's done lots of other interesting things that matter to the community here as well.  Since first learning about her, however, I've become a huge fan of her music as well (and discovered that she puts on a fantastic live show).
<br /><br />
Basically, everything that you do as an artist to stand out still leads back to the work.  And the best gimmick in the world isn't that effective if the art isn't amazing too.
<br /><br />
It's what we've said in the past: no marketing, no gimmick, no trick will "work" if you're not also producing awesome content.  Sure, there will always be some people who support you for doing something cool in how you present yourself.  But, as our critics always like to remind us, the art itself is still central.  And no one's denied that.  But we take it for granted that if you're going to make any of these new things <i>work</i> you also have to make good content.  And if you make good content, but attract attention for a successful Kickstarter, it's quite likely that a bunch of those people will become true fans of the music (and the artist) as well.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/02442219057/is-it-problem-if-people-only-discover-musician-because-they-have-cool-kickstarter.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/02442219057/is-it-problem-if-people-only-discover-musician-because-they-have-cool-kickstarter.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120524/02442219057/is-it-problem-if-people-only-discover-musician-because-they-have-cool-kickstarter.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>uh,-nope</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120524/02442219057</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 22 May 2012 17:00:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: What's In A Name?</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20100528/0853219616/dailydirt-whats-name.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20100528/0853219616/dailydirt-whats-name.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There are plenty of marketing gurus who will advise company founders to choose names and logos very carefully -- making sure to avoid confusing names or names without the appropriate gravitas. Then again, there are several companies with names that break the rules. 

<ul>
<li> <a title="http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2012/04/22/before-naming-your-startup-read-this/" href="http://tnw.co/KkOANz">If you're starting a new company, and you need a name (other than some silly placeholder like NewCo), read through this article to avoid some obvious pitfalls.</a> Digg is a great name -- but execution matters, too. [<a href="http://thenextweb.com/entrepreneur/2012/04/22/before-naming-your-startup-read-this/">url</a>]</li>

<li> <a title="http://www.thenameinspector.com/six-naming-myths-to-ignore/" href="http://bit.ly/L8Only">The Name Inspector gives his advice on company names -- and debunks some common naming myths.</a> He also analyzes a few familiar company names (eg <a href="http://www.thenameinspector.com/apple/">Apple</a>) -- and hates the branding term "empty vessel" because he thinks it's silly. [<a href="http://www.thenameinspector.com/six-naming-myths-to-ignore/">url</a>]</li>


<li> <a title="http://stocklogos.com/topic/how-famous-companies-got-their-names" href="http://bit.ly/IWQD9c">If you've ever wondered how some big company got its name, here are a few examples.</a> Lego means "I put together" in Latin, but the company says that's only a coincidence. [<a href="http://stocklogos.com/topic/how-famous-companies-got-their-names">url</a>]</li>

<li><b>To discover more interesting business-related content, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:61" href="http://bit.ly/ht6Uq9">check out what the deal is on StumbleUpon.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:61">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20100528/0853219616/dailydirt-whats-name.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20100528/0853219616/dailydirt-whats-name.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/startups/articles/20100528/0853219616/dailydirt-whats-name.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100528/0853219616</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 2 Mar 2012 16:00:02 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Secret To Brand Engagement Is For Brands To Support The Creative Process, But Not Meddle With The Creative Process</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120302/13170617970/secret-to-brand-engagement-is-brands-to-support-creative-process-not-meddle-with-creative-process.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120302/13170617970/secret-to-brand-engagement-is-brands-to-support-creative-process-not-meddle-with-creative-process.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've talked an awful lot about the intersection between advertising and content over the years, and have been especially interested in how brands can and do interact with various content offerings.  But, we always hear fears about how this can equate to "selling out" or somehow weakening the content for creators.  And, it should be admitted that this is a legitimate fear <i>if the brand demands too much control</i>.  For our media partner, Say Media, I recently wrote up a column pointing out how <i>the problems</i> for brands and content come in when the brands get involved in the actual creative process.  However, when they <a href="http://saydaily.com/2012/03/the-art-of-great-brand-engagement.html" target="_blank">let the content creators create what they want</a>, and simply act as <i>supporters</i> of that process, rather than <i>drivers</i> of it, the creators can retain the artistic integrity, and there's no issue of "selling out."  Then it becomes a case of brands supporting an artist -- which fans love -- rather than <i>co-opting</i> an artist, which fans hate.
<br /><br />
Over the years, we've noticed that this is definitely a struggle for some brands.  As soon as they dump money into a campaign, it's their natural inclination to want to control every aspect of the content that comes out of that campaign -- and that's a huge mistake.  We've seen that the more involved a brand is in the campaign, the less effective the campaign is <i>for absolutely everyone</i>.  Brands sponsor content creators because they know those content creators have built up a following and can create great content.  They need to extend that trust to the point that if they sponsor content creation, the give the creators the free will to do something amazing.  Brands may be good at "branding," but if they meddle directly in content creation, the end result doesn't really help anyone.
<center>
<a href="http://imgur.com/1TUVf"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/1TUVf.jpg" width=400 /></a>
</center><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120302/13170617970/secret-to-brand-engagement-is-brands-to-support-creative-process-not-meddle-with-creative-process.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120302/13170617970/secret-to-brand-engagement-is-brands-to-support-creative-process-not-meddle-with-creative-process.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120302/13170617970/secret-to-brand-engagement-is-brands-to-support-creative-process-not-meddle-with-creative-process.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that-would-be-ideal</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120302/13170617970</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:00:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>DailyDirt: Faster Food, Faster!</title>
<dc:creator>Michael Ho</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110909/04304315878/dailydirt-faster-food-faster.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110909/04304315878/dailydirt-faster-food-faster.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ There are a lot of food options out there, and fast food is certainly one of the more popular choices for people on the go. Not surprisingly, though, fast food establishments usually don't have the best reputation for healthy dining, but some of them are trying to change their image. Here are just a few stories on fast food news.
<ul>
<li> <a title="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2012-01-12/burger-king-delivery/52604104/1" href="http://usat.ly/wSyOS8">Burger King is testing out a home delivery service for its food in the DC area.</a> Best sentence in the coverage: <i>"There are some real food-quality issues here," says Ron Paul, president of research firm Technomic.</i> [<a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/food/story/2012-01-12/burger-king-delivery/52604104/1">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://mashable.com/follow/videos/1411894424001-it-all-started-with-this-vague-hashtag-mcdstories-which-set-off-a-p/" href="http://on.mash.to/AiMols">McDonald's tried a social marketing campaign on Twitter, asking for customers to tell some of their #McDStories.</a> Oops. They didn't expect the #McSnideRemarks -- which is par for the course on the internet. [<a href="http://mashable.com/follow/videos/1411894424001-it-all-started-with-this-vague-hashtag-mcdstories-which-set-off-a-p/">url</a>]</li>
<li> <a title="http://www.wlky.com/health/28099231/detail.html" href="http://bit.ly/x3v6JO">Yum! Brands restaurants (eg. Taco Bell, KFC, Pizza Hut...) in Kentucky lobbied to accept food stamps -- but some people don't think that's a good idea.</a> Others argue that it's a step up from getting food from a gas station. [<a href="http://www.wlky.com/health/28099231/detail.html">url</a>]</li>
<li><b>To discover more food-related links, <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102" href="http://bit.ly/iaJVJd">check out what's floating around in StumbleUpon.</a></b> [<a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/topic:102">url</a>]  <a title="what's this?" href="#" class="whatsthis help_ddstumble">&nbsp;</a>
</li>
</ul> 

By the way, StumbleUpon can also recommend some good <a title="http://www.stumbleupon.com/to/stumble/stumblethru:www.techdirt.com" href="http://bit.ly/fagV8c">Techdirt</a> articles, too.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110909/04304315878/dailydirt-faster-food-faster.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110909/04304315878/dailydirt-faster-food-faster.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110909/04304315878/dailydirt-faster-food-faster.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>urls-we-dig-up</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110909/04304315878</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jan 2012 11:25:37 PST</pubDate>
<title>Major Media Owning SOPA/PIPA Supporters Whine That They Had No Way To Have Their Message Heard</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120123/04014617509/major-media-owning-sopapipa-supporters-whine-that-they-had-no-way-to-have-their-message-heard.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120123/04014617509/major-media-owning-sopapipa-supporters-whine-that-they-had-no-way-to-have-their-message-heard.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We've been pointing out that one of the big reasons why the MPAA/RIAA and others failed in their efforts to rush through SOPA/PIPA was that they have been totally and completely <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120119/21092917484/why-chris-dodd-failed-with-his-sopapipa-strategy.shtml">tone deaf</a> to what's happening online.  And it appears that's continuing.  The LA Times had a bizarre article over the weekend, where people were suggesting that the MPAA needed to <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-ct-hollywood-post-sopa-20120121,0,300154.story" target="_blank">"do a lot of test messaging,"</a> to see what would work in convincing the public that censoring the internet is a good thing.  <i>Test messaging</i>?  Seriously?!?  They still seem to think that this is about a lobbying or PR campaign, rather than actually engaging and hearing what people have to say.
<br /><br />
Even more ridiculous is the new talking point that both the MPAA and the RIAA are apparently "test messaging" currently.  And it's that they -- who own all of the major media outlets around -- are somehow at a disadvantage in communicating their views to the public.  I'm not kidding.  In that article above, Chris Dodd from the MPAA is quoted as saying:
<blockquote><i>
"You've got an opponent who has the capacity to reach millions of people with a click of a mouse and there's no fact-checker. They can say whatever they want."
</i></blockquote>
Yup, that's the new MPAA talking point: "if only you moron internet kids couldn't actually say what you want!"  Does anyone actually brief Dodd about how best <i>not</i> to make it totally transparent that he wants to censor the internet?
<br /><br />
But the RIAA is passing along the exact same message.  Dodd's counterpart at the RIAA, Cary Sherman, is quoted as saying <a href="http://pogue.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/put-down-the-pitchforks-on-sopa/?ref=personaltechemail&#038;nl=technology&#038;emc=cta1" target="_blank">basically the same thing</a> in the NY Times:
<blockquote><i>
&#8220;It&#8217;s very difficult to counter the misinformation when the disseminators also own the platform.&#8221;
</i></blockquote>
First of all, this is ridiculous on all sorts of levels.  Was it true that some of those against the bill weren't completely up on the facts?  Yes.  But, lots of us were clear on our facts, cited specific language in the bill, and were quick to correct those who stated things that were incorrect.
<br /><br />
But much more to the point: we're talking about all of the major media companies in the world who were in support of this thing, and they're seriously claiming that they <i>didn't have the means to get their message out</i>?  Who the hell do they think they're fooling?  They own all the major TV networks, all the cable news networks, the majority of top magazines, a bunch of top radio stations... and most of those media outlets refused to give critics of these bills the time of day.    But suddenly they're claiming they couldn't get their message out?  Give me a break.
<br /><br />
Even worse, let's compare the two platforms: SOPA/PIPA supporters completely own TV.  But TV is a broadcast medium.  They could put on whatever propaganda they wanted, and there'd be no way to guarantee a right to a response on TV.  The internet, however, is a communications medium, where anyone can take part.  So unlike the reverse situation, the supporters of the bill had <i>every opportunity</i> to counter the claims of people online if they felt they were being misrepresented.  The real problem was that, for the most part, they weren't being misrepresented.  The problem was that people were saying what the bill would actually do, and Hollywood wanted people to focus on what they wanted people to believe the bill would really do.  Reality, it seems, has a strong anti-Hollywood bias.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120123/04014617509/major-media-owning-sopapipa-supporters-whine-that-they-had-no-way-to-have-their-message-heard.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120123/04014617509/major-media-owning-sopapipa-supporters-whine-that-they-had-no-way-to-have-their-message-heard.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120123/04014617509/major-media-owning-sopapipa-supporters-whine-that-they-had-no-way-to-have-their-message-heard.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>oh-come-on</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120123/04014617509</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:48:58 PST</pubDate>
<title>Network TV Execs Discover What Pirates Always Knew: Making Stuff Available Online Is Good Marketing</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/22155517428/network-tv-execs-discover-what-pirates-always-knew-making-stuff-available-online-is-good-marketing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/22155517428/network-tv-execs-discover-what-pirates-always-knew-making-stuff-available-online-is-good-marketing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Want to understand just how tone deaf and clueless the legacy entertainment industry players are these days?  It appears that network TV execs have just discovered the brilliant idea of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/16/business/media/networks-embrace-cables-way-of-introducing-new-shows.html?_r=2&#038;scp=1&#038;sq=network%20marketing%20an%20cable&#038;st=cse" target="_blank">using the internet to pre-release TV shows</a> in an effort to build up buzz and an audience who will watch the full series.  The stunning thing here is that these are the very same companies who go absolutely <i>ballistic</i> if their works get "leaked" early online -- and insist that <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111220/18294817149/guy-who-uploaded-early-version-wolverine-which-appears-not-to-have-hurt-movie-all-gets-1-year-jail.shtml">criminal penalties</a> are needed to stop this kind of action.  It's really quite amazing how these execs are coming to the same conclusion that pretty much every internet user came to years ago: just make the damn stuff available.  Instead, they're acting like it's some big revelation:
<blockquote><i>
The networks have embraced the idea &#8212; originally hatched by cable networks &#8212; of introducing initial episodes of their shows through other distribution outlets like YouTube before they have their premiere on their own schedules. 
</i></blockquote>
Yes, the same YouTube that Viacom is still trying to sue out of existence.  The same YouTube that supporters of PIPA and SOPA still insist is really a den of "piracy" from which Google unfairly profits.
<br /><br />
So, here's a simple question:  How much are these networks <i>paying YouTube/Google</i> for the use of YouTube's software, bandwidth and audience?  Nothing?  Damn those TV networks... just wanting all that stuff for free.  But, more to the point, if laws like PIPA and SOPA were put in place a few years ago, the networks wouldn't even have a YouTube to do this.  This is what's most stunning about all of this.  They seem to think that they've come up with something brilliant and new here, when this is all that "pirates" were doing earlier: putting stuff online to make it accessible.  When "pirates" do it, it's theft?  And when companies do it, it's some brilliant marketing scheme?  How's that work?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/22155517428/network-tv-execs-discover-what-pirates-always-knew-making-stuff-available-online-is-good-marketing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/22155517428/network-tv-execs-discover-what-pirates-always-knew-making-stuff-available-online-is-good-marketing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120116/22155517428/network-tv-execs-discover-what-pirates-always-knew-making-stuff-available-online-is-good-marketing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wait,-what?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120116/22155517428</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Dec 2011 10:32:56 PST</pubDate>
<title>Paul Christoforo Doesn't Seem To Know How To Stop Digging A Deeper Hole Of Internet Infamy</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111229/02504317222/paul-christoforo-doesnt-seem-to-know-how-to-stop-digging-deeper-hole-internet-infamy.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111229/02504317222/paul-christoforo-doesnt-seem-to-know-how-to-stop-digging-deeper-hole-internet-infamy.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Remember Paul Christoforo?  The "marketing rep" for the Avenger gaming controllers who caused quite a stir this week by doing <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111227/12593617206/latest-entrant-how-not-to-do-marketing-online-world-ocean-marketing-fail.shtml">just about everything wrong</a> in responding to a customer service request, and then missing no opportunity to make the situation worse at every turn -- especially after Gabe (aka Mike Krahulik from Penny Arcade) got involved.  It involved pretty much everything: dreadful customer service, false claims, anger, curses, bravado, promises that couldn't be kept, an absolute refusal to back down, and an apology for getting caught (rather than an apology for the actual actions).
<br /><br />
You might think that, after the widespread backlash and a couple days to reflect (especially after getting fired from handling the Avenger account), Paul might come back a bit more humble and with a bit more perspective on what he did.  In fact, that's exactly what I expected when I saw the headline of Kotaku's interview with him: <a href="http://kotaku.com/5871656/chastened-gaming-rep-paul-christoforo-responds-to-internet-infamy" target="_blank">Chastened Gaming Rep Paul Christoforo Responds to Internet Infamy</a>.
<br /><br />
Then I read it.  And, all I can say is that Paul doesn't seem to know how to stop himself from digging himself a deeper hole.  A recommendation: in the future, maybe just don't speak up.  Even as he <i>claims</i> to have learned his lesson, his words show that he still wants to blame others and doesn't seem to recognize why what he did was wrong.  He makes additional questionable statements, such as contradicting himself <i>in the same interview</i>.
<blockquote><i>
A chastened Christoforo is now looking for forgiveness from the Internet community he unwittingly antagonized, saying in an interview with MSNBC.com's In-Game he was "caught on a bad day" and that he hopes they will "let sleeping dogs lie."
<br /><br />
"They've pretty much ruined me in the past 24 hours," Christoforo said. "It was humbling a little bit, but life goes on. I'm not going to die."
</i></blockquote>
"Life goes on" and "I'm not going to die" are actually good mantras for getting through a tough situation, so I won't begrudge him those statements, but the overall sentiment that comes across here is that he's brushing off what happened, as if he needs to just ride out the storm, rather than fix what he did wrong.  As for that first statement, about how he was ruined... just hang onto that one for a second, because soon after that, we get:
<blockquote><i>
Yet despite all the drama, Christoforo said he hasn't lost any of his other accounts, aside from Avenger. "It hasn't affected my business yet," he said. "Clients have brought it up, but they've mainly laughed about it. I haven't lost any clients."
</i></blockquote>
Wait, what happened to him being "ruined"?  Then almost immediately after that he says it "hasn't affected" his business?  I'm curious how many of his clients actually "laughed" about it.  But really that's not the worst of it.  As the interview goes on, Paul seems to show less and less understanding of what happened here.
<blockquote><i>
"I didn't know who that guy at Penny Arcade was," he admitted. "If I had known, I would have treated the situation a little better. PAX is a great show. What he does is what I've been idlolizing since I was a kid. It's admirable he's put that together. He has a lot of connections, ones I want too."
</i></blockquote>
Who Gabe is really is kind of meaningless here.  Paul seems to be suggesting that it's okay to be a complete asshole to people so long as they're not important or don't have "connections."  But if someone has "connections" then you should be nice to them.  This certainly fits with Paul's claims during the email exchange, where he kept claiming that he had some special "connections." 
<br /><br />
As for all those "connections" he claimed?  Yeah, not so much...
<blockquote><i>
Regarding the litany of names Christoforo's e-mail called up as potential supporters - a list that included everyone from Epic Games' Cliff Bleszinski to the mayor of Boston - he said the tactic was meant to "impress, not to threaten" and didn't come through correctly because "you can't see tone of voice in email."
<br /><br />
"I don't know the mayor of Boston," he admitted. "That was taken totally out of context, I was just joking around. I am from Boston, though, and I know a lot of people people who own clubs. I know some influential people, like the guy who runs the door at the convention center.
</i></blockquote>
Saying something you wish you didn't isn't others taking something "totally out of context."  It just means you made up stuff and got called on it.  And, um, the guy who runs the door at a convention center isn't generally considered "influential."  Finally, nothing in the email suggested that naming those "connections" was meant to "impress, not to threaten."
<br /><br />
And then there's this part, in which he shows that he's not really apologetic at all:
<blockquote><i>
"He called me a bully, but he was being a bully ... especially when he emailed me out of the blue, saying 'That's f***ing s***ty, you're banned from PAX,' I was like 'Who the f*** are you? That's how you introduce yourself? ... I dont want to call him out, but he could have gone about that a totally different way, he could have said, 'Hey, I run the show, that email was a little unprofessional, if you don't do something to apologize I don't want you at my show.' But he just came at me and said, indirectly, 'Hey, f*** you, you're banned from PAX.' Is that what you'd call professional? I wouldn't."
<br /><br />
Christoforo also said his response was driven in part by what he saw as the disrespectful tone of the messages that came before it. "Not that I don't have respect for anybody, but if someone's badmouthing me or being a little punk or being a jerk, they don't deserve respect," he said. "You can't expect to go up and say 'Hey you piece of s***,' and expect respect. Send an email, introduce yourself. ... I trust everybody until they give me a reason not to respect them. I'm not a tough guy, not a bully, but at same time not going to take s*** if it's uncalled for.
</i></blockquote>
Basically he's still blaming the others in the conversation, and even suggesting that <i>they</i> should have gone about things differently.  In fact, he seems to suggest that they provoked <i>him</i> into his reaction.  At this point, it might be worth going back to <a href="http://penny-arcade.com/resources/just-wow1.html" target="_blank">the original email thread</a>, to see who started the hostilities.  The customer, Dave, was nothing but polite through a series of perplexing emails.  It's Paul who kicks off the hostilities with a totally uncalled for email that first tells Dave that his order will be cancelled if he dares to try to reorder at the new, cheaper price, and then pulls out: 
<blockquote><i>
You placed a pre order just like any software title the gets a date moved due to the tweaks and bugs not being worked out and GameStop or any other place holds your cash and im sure you don&rsquo;t complain to activision or epic games so put on your big boy hat and wait it out like everyone else. The benefit is a token of our appreaciation for everyone no one is special including you or any first time buyer . Feel free to cancel we need the units were back ordered 11,000 units so your 2 will be gone fast. Maybe I&rsquo;ll put them on eBay for 150.00 myself.
</i></blockquote>
Sorry, but I don't see how that's anyone's fault by Paul's.
<br /><br />
Then there's this:
<blockquote><i>
"Ultimately, if I was able to control the customer, it never would have happened. I've dealt with thousands and thousands of customers with similar complaints, they were all asking the same question. When is it big enough that it hits the news? When it hits Penny Arcade, when it hits a guy who has the biggest affiliations in the industry."
</i></blockquote>
He still thinks it's about <b><i>controlling</i></b> the customer, not responding to Dave's very legitimate and real requests. 
<br /><br />
Finally, at the end, he seems to admit that perhaps he was really at fault here:
<blockquote><i>
So what lessons has Christoforo taken from his brush with Internet infamy? "I'll definitely stay away from customer service emails," he said. "I could have nipped this all in the bud by being a little nicer. You never know who knows who, and lesson learned. We all have bad days and they caught me on one."
<br /><br />
"At the end of the day, I'm a human being, and it feels like the entire world was bullying me," he said. "I want people to like me, I don't want people to think I'm a bad person. ... I made a mistake. ... I hope I can make something positive out of it."
</i></blockquote>
We agree, and hope that he <i>can</i> make something positive out of it, but it's got to start with ditching the claim that he's somehow the victim in all of this and trying to excuse his behavior.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111229/02504317222/paul-christoforo-doesnt-seem-to-know-how-to-stop-digging-deeper-hole-internet-infamy.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111229/02504317222/paul-christoforo-doesnt-seem-to-know-how-to-stop-digging-deeper-hole-internet-infamy.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111229/02504317222/paul-christoforo-doesnt-seem-to-know-how-to-stop-digging-deeper-hole-internet-infamy.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111229/02504317222</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 Dec 2011 09:52:43 PST</pubDate>
<title>Cee Lo Green: Making Millions Even If His Albums Don't Sell</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111227/03144517198/cee-lo-green-making-millions-even-if-his-albums-dont-sell.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111227/03144517198/cee-lo-green-making-millions-even-if-his-albums-dont-sell.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A whole bunch of you have been sending in the recent NY Times article that details how singer Cee Lo Green is <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/26/business/media/cee-lo-green-strikes-pop-star-gold-without-a-gold-album.html?_r=1&#038;pagewanted=all" target="_blank">making $20 million this year</a>, even as the sales of his album have been considered just so-so, based on traditional industry metrics.  The article is <i>really</i> much more about Primary Wave Music, a music publisher/management firm that seems to totally get the <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070503/012939.shtml">economics</a> of the music business today -- that by selling the <i>scarce</i> they can make a hell of a lot more money than just by selling music. 
<br /><br />
We've actually talked about Primary Wave's work in the past, in some of the things they've done to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20091115/1833556944.shtml">help Mariah Carey</a> make money.  And the story with Cee Lo is pretty similar: focus on selling the things you <i>can't pirate</i>, the real scarcities.  And we're not talking (as our critics always insist) about <i>tangible</i> goods like t-shirts, but selling <i>the person</i>.  Primary Wave may be positioned as publishing and management, but it's real business is <i>marketing</i>.
<blockquote><i>
When Primary Wave took over Cee Lo&rsquo;s management, shortly before the release of &ldquo;The Lady Killer,&rdquo; he still had a relatively low profile as a solo artist. But the company seized on the early viral success of &ldquo;Forget You&rdquo; to make Cee Lo a ubiquitous face.
<br /><br />
His over-the-top performances at half a dozen award shows -- performing with the Jim Henson Company puppets at the Grammys, playing a piano that spun 360 degrees above the crowd at the Billboard awards -- proved highly successful. His television campaign for the year has also included &ldquo;Saturday Night Live,&rdquo; an appearance on the NBC comedy-drama &ldquo;Parenthood&rdquo; and his own talk show on the cable channel Fuse (&ldquo;Talking to Strangers&rdquo;).
<br /><br />
Primary Wave also booked numerous commercial endorsements for Cee Lo, in traditional TV spots like a 7Up commercial that has been running since October, as well as a Web video series for Absolut Vodka and personal appearances for Duracell and Pretzel M&#038;M&rsquo;s.
</i></blockquote>
And, no, this doesn't just mean complete selling out (I can already hear the critics...), but finding campaigns that match Cee Lo's personality.  They note they've turned down a ton of deals that didn't fit.
<br /><br />
Either way, it looks like Cee Lo is earning a ton of money from all of this: commercials, sponsorships, TV appearances and (of course) tons of live performances.  The article notes that actual direct music sales are the smallest slice of the pie.
<br /><br />
But the key point here is that these and many other opportunities are much more wide open to artists today, and it helps if their music is more widely known.  That is, artists like Cee Lo, with the help of companies like Primal Wave, are recognizing that if you use the infinite goods -- such as the music -- to make the scarce goods (like Cee Lo himself or his endorsement) much more valuable, you can make a lot more money than ever before.  And when you look at the overall market that way, you realize that there's lots more money to be made in the <i>music industry</i> today than ever before.  The only part of the industry that's <i>hurting</i> is the part that was based on selling plastic discs, which has become obsolete.  Everything else is booming.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111227/03144517198/cee-lo-green-making-millions-even-if-his-albums-dont-sell.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111227/03144517198/cee-lo-green-making-millions-even-if-his-albums-dont-sell.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20111227/03144517198/cee-lo-green-making-millions-even-if-his-albums-dont-sell.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>how-it's-done</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111227/03144517198</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 27 Dec 2011 16:16:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>The Latest Entrant In 'How Not To Do Marketing' In An Online World: Ocean Marketing Fail</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111227/12593617206/latest-entrant-how-not-to-do-marketing-online-world-ocean-marketing-fail.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111227/12593617206/latest-entrant-how-not-to-do-marketing-online-world-ocean-marketing-fail.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ One of the key points that we've been making for years is that, in an online world, pissing off (or simply not caring about) customers is no longer a viable business strategy.  A good business today recognizes that the customers' best interests are also the company's best interests.  If you don't realize that... well, then you get into a situation like Paul Christoforo and Ocean Marketing that's taken the internet world by storm today.  It begins with a <a href="http://penny-arcade.com/resources/just-wow1.html" target="_blank">must read email thread posted at Penny Arcade</a>.  Seriously, just go read the whole thing.
<br /><br />
The short version for those who don't read it, is that a guy, Dave, who pre-ordered some gaming controllers that hadn't arrived, emailed Ocean Marketing and got back less than optimal customer service from Christoforo, who runs Ocean Marketing.  Actually, he got back obnoxious customer service.  Beyond not being helpful Christoforo is outright insulting of the customer (who has already paid for the item not yet delivered) and bragging about how "connected" he is.   In response, the customer (Dave) wrote back explaining why this was totally unacceptable, and cc'd some various gaming websites/blogs.  Gabe (aka Mike Krahulik) from PA chimed in, especially when he saw Christorofo brush off Dave by mentioning PA's own event PAX East.  After replying to both that Christoforo won't be allowed to exhibit at PAX, Christoforo (apparently not realizing who he was dealing with) simply makes a bad situation worse:
<blockquote><i>
We&rsquo;re not renting a booth at pax east this year , bigger and better shows to be at we got nothing from the show . Oh so you know this guy has sold over 500 thousand dollars of product in Dec and is my main distribution arm landing us in GameStop , fry&rsquo;s , Myers , Best buy , Activision , MLG , play N trade and a lot more . Were in 6 countries and you&rsquo;re not going to take my money for a booth that&rsquo;s a crock I can guarantee I&rsquo;ll get a booth if I want one money buys a lot and connections go even further.  He&rsquo;s a native Bostonian from Little Italy . Who are you again ? 
</i></blockquote>
Amazingly, this actually comes after Dave had told Mike "Please don&rsquo;t cancel their booth on my account.  As much as I hate this asshole, I still WANT his product and think it should be out there."  Mike explains to Christoforo that he runs PAX, but Christoforo still doesn't get it:
<blockquote><i>
OK Mike whatever you say lol , are you sure hour not in Boston I spoke to the person who ran the show in Boston last year. If you let some little kid influence you over a pre order then we don&rsquo;t want to be a your show ,Ill be on the floor anyway so come find me , I&rsquo;m born and raised in Boston I know the people who run the city inside and out watch the way you talk to people you never know who they know it&rsquo;s a small industry and everyone knows everyone. Your acting like a douchbag not that it matters pax east pax west , e3 , CES , Gamer Con , SSXW ,Comic Con, Germany I&rsquo;m all over the place. If we want to be there we will be there with industry badges or with a booth you think I can&rsquo;t team up with turtle beach , Callibur or Koy Christmas , I can&rsquo;t get Kevin Kelly to pull some strings or G4 , Paul Eibler Ex CEO of take 2 ,  Rich Larocco Konami , Cliff Blizinski Epic who were working with on a gears version , Activision who were working with on a MW3 and Spider man Bundle , The Convention Center Owners themselves , Mayor of Boston come on Bud you run a show that&rsquo;s all you do and lease a center in Cities you have no pull in its all about who you know not what you do.  I&rsquo;ll see space where ever I want , with who I want when I want and where I want so many ways around you and so many connections in this industry its silly. Anyway , I have no issue with you Sean Buckley Engadget, Scott Lowe IGN and the list goes on and on. Little kids unhappy with a PRE ORDER starting trouble and you email that to us , he&rsquo;s a customer unless you&rsquo;re his boyfriend then you should side with the company not the customer. Be Careful 
</i></blockquote>
And it gets worse from there.  Of course, once Gabe posted it to Penny Arcade, it started to get picked up elsewhere including (of course) <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/ns2pu/pa_makers_of_avenger_controllers_take_money_and/" target="_blank">Reddit</a>, and from there it just began exploding.  Popehat has <a href="http://www.popehat.com/2011/12/27/outsource-your-marketing-outsource-your-reputation-and-ethics-applies-to-every-industry/" target="_blank">a bunch of links</a> including the fact that Christoforo <a href="http://twitpic.com/7zb9gk/full" target="_blank">went ballistic</a> on Scott Lowe from IGN, after Lowe told Christoforo to stop saying IGN supported him.  Christoforo responded on Tiwtter calling him a "douchebag" and suggesting that because he sent IGN review units he should support him.  That tweet has since been removed, but the screenshot lives on.
<br /><br />
Separately, people have turned up <a href="http://www.natesnetwork.com/Poor-customer-service" target="_blank">more examples</a> of poor customer service experiences involving Ocean Marketing and Christoforo, as well as claims that Ocean Marketing has been <a href="http://www.examiner.com/video-game-industry-in-national/ocean-marketing-gaming-pr-rep-to-avoid-at-all-cost" target="_blank">plagiarizing a ton of articles from around the web</a> on its own blog.  Andrew Galbraith from Examiner.com has the details:
<blockquote><i>
It seems the plot has thickened a bit further. Apparently, <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/williambgoss/status/151690994339942402" rel="nofollow">as</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/williambgoss/status/151676459826679810" rel="nofollow">pointed</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/williambgoss/status/151676681751511040" rel="nofollow">out</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/williambgoss/status/151676931337748481" rel="nofollow">by</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/williambgoss" rel="nofollow">@williambgoss</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/williambgoss/status/151677773105209344" rel="nofollow">on</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/popmortem/status/151683071568125952" rel="nofollow">twitter</a>, Ocean Marketing has been lifting articles from across the web for their blog with little to no attribution of sources whatsoever. An article <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/lisaarthur/2011/05/17/study-marketers-reporting-social-media-roi-of-100-200-even-1000-percent/" rel="nofollow">published on Forbes</a> is clearly posted wholesale on the <a href="http://oceanmarketinginc.com/blog/?p=461" rel="nofollow">Ocean Marketing blog</a> with no sourcing roughly two weeks after initially hitting the web. Moreover, the same is done with a <a href="http://www.bizreport.com/2011/04/social-marketing-goal-is-to-get-likes.html" rel="nofollow">BizReport article</a>, appearing as <a href="http://oceanmarketinginc.com/blog/?p=450" rel="nofollow">Ocean Marketing's "original work"</a> no less than two days later. &nbsp;
</i></blockquote>
The story has been getting picked up in a ton of places, but you have to wonder why anyone would hire Christoforo to market any of their products ever again.  The Popehat link above notes that when you outsource your marketing, you're outsourcing your reputation.  And that can be dangerous...
<br /><br />
In the meantime, it appears that Christoforo, beyond digging himself a deeper hole, has also tried to <a href="http://penny-arcade.com/2011/12/26/an-update1" target="_blank">well, dig himself a deeper hole</a>.  He first threatened to have his "lawyers" contact Penny Arcade, followed up by some begging:
<blockquote><i>
"You have the power Mike Please make it stop"
</i></blockquote>
Of course, as Gabe/Mike points out, he really doesn't have the power.  Once these things are out there, they're out there.  Then comes the non-apology apology, where Christoforo apologies for not knowing how big Penny Arcade/PAX are and for getting exposed -- but not for his actual actions:
<blockquote><i>
I just wanted to apologize for the way our emails progressed I didn&rsquo;t know how big your site was and I really didn&rsquo;t believe you ran Pax , So for what&rsquo;s its worth I am very sorry. Your post has obviously made my life very difficult and I have not slept yet dealing with all the spam and personal information intrusion as well as my family being smeared on the internet.
</i></blockquote>
That's not a real apology at all.  That's someone digging even deeper.
<br /><br />
<b>Update</b>: Ah, and now reports of <a href="http://kotaku.com/5871400/cut-paul-oceanmarketting-christoforo-a-breakhe-probably-just-has-roid-rage" target="_blank">pretending to be someone else</a>.  Kotaku apparently reached out to <strike>Bruce</strike> Brandon Leidel, who had been their contact in the past on the controller in question, and they noticed something odd in the response -- which suggested that it actually came from Christoforo.  Then Leidel apparently reached out to Kotaku separately saying that he no longer works with that client, in part because of Christoforo...<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111227/12593617206/latest-entrant-how-not-to-do-marketing-online-world-ocean-marketing-fail.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111227/12593617206/latest-entrant-how-not-to-do-marketing-online-world-ocean-marketing-fail.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111227/12593617206/latest-entrant-how-not-to-do-marketing-online-world-ocean-marketing-fail.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>easy-to-boil-this-ocean</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111227/12593617206</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 9 Nov 2011 22:57:05 PST</pubDate>
<title>Epic Games On The Future Of Triple-A Game Development Marketing And Pricing</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111027/06460016537/epic-games-future-triple-a-game-development-marketing-pricing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111027/06460016537/epic-games-future-triple-a-game-development-marketing-pricing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In a pair of interviews with Develop, Epic Games' Mike Capps shares his thoughts on some of the problems the industry faces by having focused on AAA game development for so long. According to Capps, this focus on AAA games, or games with large budgets and high production values, has led to the death of lower quality but still good AA games. <br /><br /> In the first interview, Capps was asked if the <a href="http://www.develop-online.net/features/1450/Mike-Capps-on-finding-the-next-Cliff-Bleszinski" target="_blank">death of AA game development and the rising costs of AAA game development is good for the gamer</a>.
<blockquote>
<i>No, no I don't think so at all. Certainly as a gamer I don't think what's going on is a good thing. Triple-A is as much about marketing these days as it is about production values. <br /><br /> Take a game like BulletStorm, for example. That game was supported and well reviewed but just didn't break out. It wasn't a failure, but it wasn't a success that could fund a series of projects either. That's a game that I think people loved but it's not one that gets the $100 million marketing budget, because that amount of money is only spent on a few sure-fire hits and annualised sequels. <br /><br /> There's a lot of great games out there that don't take off. How many games have you loved that sell less than three million units? There's probably dozens. Those games can't get made in today's games economy. So no, I don't think it's a good thing that the middle-class of games have gone away. </i>
</blockquote>
Here he lays out some of the concerns over marketing allocation for games. While publishers will release a number of games during the year, the vast majority of the marketing budget is spent on only one or two hits. However, he feels that this is changing in gaming. Capps feels that there is a marketing shift from direct marketing to building a community behind games.
<blockquote>
<i>I'm not an expert here, but there is a huge impact from non-commercial marketing these days with things like Facebook and Twitter. If you don't spam people then you can be very useful to your customers. We were not forward-thinking in that area, but we're really driving in this space now and have more than one million Facebook fans. <br /><br /> But other forms of marketing and PR are starting to change things. The focus is changing from shoving TV ads in people's faces to actually building a community. <br /><br /> I don't know if there will be the same amount of TV adverts in five years' time. No one gets fired for buying TV ads, because they make sense, but soon they will start to make less and less sense. I think what could happen is a lot of money can be saved with less TV adverts and that itself, perhaps, could free up more money to take more risks and be more creative. </i>
</blockquote>
Such a move can certainly help the viability of AA games in the market. Many game developers, specifically in the indie scene, have learned that building a community behind a game increases the word of mouth exposure of the game and the developer. As AAA publishers shift to a community focused marketing strategy, they will be able to focus more on the games themselves. <br /><br /> Moving on to the second interview, Capps feels that <a href="http://www.develop-online.net/features/1462/Epic-Games-next-gen-manifesto" target="_blank">pricing restrictions on consoles are also part of the problem</a> of less viable AA games.
<blockquote>
<i>I think another thing that's changed is the way people are willing to spend their money. Consoles need to adapt to this. Game revenue has moved to the service model and the microtransactions model. Consoles need to start being comfortable with that. They need to be able to do something where small virtual items can be sold and bought for 20&cent; without a long certification process and a price approval process. <br /><br /> Right now we're not even allowed to change the prices of virtual content. We're not even allowed to set the prices. I just don't think this protectionist approach is going to be successful in a world where the price of virtual items changes on a day-today basis. <br /><br /> Double-A games will never come back unless we get rid of this notion of a game being $60 or not released. The console manufacturers need to let this happen. The best way of driving developers to PC is telling them they have no freedom in what prices they can set for virtual items. It would be great to have the level of freedom that, say, Steam gives you. </i>
</blockquote>
On the surface, this may seem contridictory to comments Capps made earlier in the year about how <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110420/18014913980/more-video-game-makers-fear-free-market-dont-know-how-to-compete.shtml">$1 games are destroying the games industry</a>. Hopefully, Capps is just seeing the folly of that view point and instead feels as he is expressing now, that console manufacturers need too allow more price flexibility. While they probably don't need to let prices drop to $1, having more available pricing options will only <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110216/23141213139/maybe-super-cheap-video-games-are-helping-not-destroying-video-game-industry.shtml">help some games</a>.<br /><br /> As game development further moves into the realities brought by the digital age, there will be companies lost as they try to hold onto old business models that may have worked in the past but do not work today or will not work tomorrow. As Capps has shared, marketing and pricing are two aspects that will change the fastest. As gamers rely less and less on television and print media for gaming announcements and move more toward social media for that information, game publishers will need to adapt or they will be left behind. As console manufacturers continue to insist on complete control over game pricing, gamers will move toward platforms that allow for less expensive fare that provides just as much enjoyment. Times change and so do markets. Epic Games seems to be on a path toward success in this new age, how many other developers and publishers will join them?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111027/06460016537/epic-games-future-triple-a-game-development-marketing-pricing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111027/06460016537/epic-games-future-triple-a-game-development-marketing-pricing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111027/06460016537/epic-games-future-triple-a-game-development-marketing-pricing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>the-future-is-inevitable</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111027/06460016537</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Fri, 7 Oct 2011 09:00:50 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Microsoft's $844 Million Software Giveaway To Nonprofits: Pure Charity Or Cheap Marketing?</title>
<dc:creator>Glyn Moody</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/09505916234/microsofts-844-million-software-giveaway-to-nonprofits-pure-charity-cheap-marketing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/09505916234/microsofts-844-million-software-giveaway-to-nonprofits-pure-charity-cheap-marketing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ <p><a href="http://www.microsoft.com/investor/reports/ar11/index.html">Microsoft has just released its 2011 Annual Financial Report</a>.  But alongside that document's dry facts about its $69.9 billion turnover, and the operating income of $27.2 billion, <a href="https://twitter.com/#!/Codepope/status/121647767285280769">Dj Walker-Morgan</a> pointed us to a more interesting publication, <a href="http://blogs.technet.com/b/microsoft_blog/archive/2011/10/04/sharing-the-microsoft-2011-citizenship-report.aspx"> Microsoft's 2011 Citizenship Report</a>:
</p><p>
<i><blockquote>We release our Citizenship Report at the same time as our Annual Financial Report to give our broad base of stakeholders a full view of Microsoft&rsquo;s financial and non-financial performance. Corporate responsibility means more than returning value to shareholders &ndash; it means engaging with stakeholders to address our responsibilities in the areas of environmental, social and governance issues. We believe all corporations have, as part of their license to operate, a responsibility to contribute positively to society on a global scale. To quote our company&rsquo;s founder, Bill Gates: "It takes more than great products to make a great company."</blockquote></i>
</p><p>
So let's just take a look at the things Microsoft has been doing to "contribute positively to society on a global scale".  Here's one detail:
</p><p>
<i><blockquote>We have increased corporate charitable giving year-over-year since fiscal year 2008, despite economic challenges. Our employees volunteered more time&mdash;more than 380,000 hours in the U.S. alone. We also contributed more cash and in-kind support to nonprofits&mdash;$949 million globally.</blockquote></i>
</p><p>
That's nearly $1 billion of cash and in-kind support to nonprofits &ndash; a big number.  There's <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/en-us/reporting/serving-communities/nonprofits/#doing">a web page devoted to these activities, with this paragraph giving some more information</a>:
</p><p>
<i><blockquote>In FY2011 we donated more than $844 million in software to 46,886 nonprofits in 113 countries/regions.The value of software we have donated globally since 1998 is more than $3.9 billion. The FY2011 value of software donated now includes employee software donations; previous years&rsquo; in-kind giving numbers do not.</blockquote></i>
</p><p>
This means that of the $949 million dollars "contributed" to nonprofits, $844 million -- 88% &ndash; was actually software, presumably Microsoft's, since it's unlikely it went out and bought it from competitors.
</p><p>
What's harder to judge is how much that $844 million worth of software actually <b>cost</b> Microsoft: the specific phrase used is "fair market value".  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_market_value">This has quite a well-defined meaning in US tax law</a>:
</p><p>
<i><blockquote>The fair market value is the price at which the property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of relevant facts. </blockquote></i>
</p><p>
Now, I'm not suggesting that the people who put up the web page about Microsoft's contributions to nonprofits were following that definition exactly.  But equally, it seems likely that the gist is the same: it's a kind of rough price that you'd usually find in normal markets selling the products in question.  And those prices are almost certainly well above the cost of manufacturing, especially if the software was delivered online, or if multiple installations were permitted.
</p><p>
So the actual cost to Microsoft of that donated software is likely to be only a small fraction of the $844 million "fair market value" cited.  This inevitably tempers our admiration for Microsoft's ten-figure generosity somewhat.
</p><p>
But there's something else.  Microsoft wasn't just handing out a bunch of any old products: it was giving away mostly Windows and Office, judging by <a href="http://www.microsoft.com/about/corporatecitizenship/en-us/reporting/serving-communities/nonprofits/#doing">a table showing a breakdown by region</a>.  Both of these are well-known for the lock-in effects they produce: once you start installing applications and creating documents with them, it's quite hard to move to a completely different platform like Apple or GNU/Linux.  Most people don't even try.
</p><p>
So these free copies not only cost Microsoft considerably less than the $844 million figure it used to calculate that near-billion dollar total for its corporate brochure, but it wasn't really altruistic at all.  With hundreds of thousands of copies of Windows being distributed (417,030 were supplied for refurbished computers alone),  there is a very high probability that Microsoft will be benefiting financially &ndash; and not just in terms of goodwill -- from upgrades and follow-on sales for many years to come.
</p><p>
Making copies available at zero or very low prices is something that Microsoft has done time and again whenever there was any danger of customers "defecting" to open source. For example, in 2009, Russia planned to deploy free software throughout its education system.  That didn't happen, in part because Microsoft offered to license Windows for $30 a copy (<a href="http://liberatum.ru/news/linux-ne-doekhal-do-shkol">article in Russian</a>.)  It's part of the rough and tumble of the highly-competitive software business.
</p><p>
Still, it's a little rich for a company as profitable as Microsoft to try to dress this up as &ldquo;corporate charitable giving.&rdquo; It's really nothing of the kind: it's marketing, pure and simple, and Microsoft should be big enough to describe it as such.
</p><p>
Follow me @glynmoody on <a href="http://twitter.com/glynmoody">Twitter</a> or <a href="http://identi.ca/glynmoody">identi.ca</a>, and on <a href="https://plus.google.com/100647702320088380533">Google+</a></p><br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/09505916234/microsofts-844-million-software-giveaway-to-nonprofits-pure-charity-cheap-marketing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/09505916234/microsofts-844-million-software-giveaway-to-nonprofits-pure-charity-cheap-marketing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111006/09505916234/microsofts-844-million-software-giveaway-to-nonprofits-pure-charity-cheap-marketing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>free-now-pay-later</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111006/09505916234</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Thu, 29 Sep 2011 05:11:44 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Success Of Mixtapes Finally Making Major Labels Realize That 'Free' Can Be Useful Marketing</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/02432316060/success-mixtapes-finally-making-major-labels-realize-that-free-can-be-useful-marketing.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/02432316060/success-mixtapes-finally-making-major-labels-realize-that-free-can-be-useful-marketing.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ We were amazed a few years ago when the RIAA, with the help of law enforcement, started <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070119/092311.shtml">going after</a> DJs who <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110401/02592413723/why-are-police-going-after-mixtapes-why-are-they-bringing-along-riaa-reps.shtml">made mixtapes</a>, even though those same mixtapes were considered a huge part of the promotional infrastructure of certain parts of the music world (mainly hip hop, but certainly elsewhere as well).  Of course, after shutting down and arresting a bunch of mixtape DJs, a bunch of artists just started making and releasing their own damn mixtapes, and doing so for free online.  And even though we still see some stories of the RIAA <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110908/13510715850/riaa-sending-dmca-takedowns-free-music-being-distributed-directly-off-universal-music-website-promoted-artist.shtml">going after</a> "officially released" mixtapes, it seems that <a href="http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/genre/randb-hip-hop/the-economy-of-mixtapes-how-drake-wiz-khalifa-1005361172.story" target="_blank">even the labels are starting to recognize that free mixtapes help promote artists</a> and aren't worth freaking out about:
<blockquote><i>
"The game favors people that can produce quality music and then turn right around and produce more quality music-which is not a given," Atlantic Records VP of A&#038;R Zvi Edelman says. His signee, Wiz Khalifa, leveraged free, original mixtapes like 2010's "Kush &#038; OJ" and 2011's "Cabin Fever" into the building of a dedicated fan base that helped, along with an intensive touring strategy, make his Atlantic/Rostrum Records debut, "Rolling Papers," one of the few hip-hop debuts to sell more than 500,000 copies (it's now at 570,000, according to Nielsen SoundScan) in 2011.
<br /><br />
A batch of newcomers -- such as J. Cole, Big Sean, Dom Kennedy, Mac Miller and Smoke DZA -- has adapted to the consumer demand for free, original rap music. The philosophy is often described this way: As a reward for artists remaining loyal to them (by giving away original music), fans return the favor by buying concert tickets, merchandise and "real" albums from record labels. The result is a give-and-take relationship that keeps rappers in control of their brand and marketing, and iTunes playlists full of free albums disguised as "mixtapes." The payoff is an active fan base, which labels and management hope stimulates retail purchases.
</i></blockquote>
This might be about as close as you can come to big record labels officially admitting that free music actually has value that is monetized elsewhere.  But, still, apparently, we need special new laws to shut down the very same marketing that they now want to use to build a stronger fan base.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/02432316060/success-mixtapes-finally-making-major-labels-realize-that-free-can-be-useful-marketing.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/02432316060/success-mixtapes-finally-making-major-labels-realize-that-free-can-be-useful-marketing.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110923/02432316060/success-mixtapes-finally-making-major-labels-realize-that-free-can-be-useful-marketing.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>not-so-awful</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110923/02432316060</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>