Although it’s tempting to dogpile, instead of commenting on the commentary, I wanted to read the bill myself. So, I slogged my way through all 78 pages of H.R. 3261 to arrive at my own conclusions.

Although most of the bill’s criticism comes from a civil liberties perspective, I have a more fundamental problem with it–the bill’s details, or specifically the lack thereof. The bill describes a detailed process–from the moment a property rights holder makes a copyright claim all the way through how to stop the offense–yet it does nothing to clarify what an infraction is. Therefore, with a clearly defined punitive process and no clear definition of a violation, a deep-pockets plaintiff can wreak havoc on a shallow-pockets defendant. Considering the present economic climate, where advances in digital media technologies have allowed David to go toe-to-toe Goliath, this bill–as written–opens dark new competitive options for Goliath.

I’m a staunch supporter of the intellectual rights of content creators. I’m also a staunch supporter of innovation. If the goal of this bill is truly “To promote prosperity, creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation by combating the the theft of US Property…” then shouldn’t it be able to define what constitutes an actual theft? The bill references our present copyright laws as a start, but those still do nothing to clear up the murky issue of fair use.

Let’s take two very simple cases:

1) A website owner rips a copy of “Star Wars” from their DVD and puts it on their server for anyone to download.

2) One author quotes another author, with full attribution according the the Chicago Manual of Style.

Most people will agree that case #1 is a clear violation. By the same token, case #2 demonstrates a generally accepted writing practice.

But case #2 gets foggy when we step out of the text domain and into that of rich media, where no concept of an acceptable excerpt exists. For example, what constitutes fair use for a song? A few notes? A phrase? A hook? The entire chorus? Or what about a feature length film?

A 90 minute film shot at 24 fps consists of 129,600 frames. Is it acceptable to use one frame with full attribution, without asking for permission, or could the film’s copyright owner claim a violation through the Stop Online Piracy Act? For the sake of argument, let’s assume that a single frame is acceptable. If so, at what point do we cross the violation line?

Take this example. If one book author attributes 100 words of another book author’s 75,000 word work, 0.13% of that book is being used under fair use. If 0.13% is an acceptable for a text-based work, couldn’t an argument be made that 7.14 seconds of a feature length movie could be used in a similar way?

The problem is that H.R. 3261 contains a long list of punishments for a crime that the government has still yet to define.

Or can it?

The last few pages of the bill describes a responsibility to train property attachés, those agents who are tasked with defending U.S. intellectual property rights abroad.

“The Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce shall ensure that each intellectual property attaché appointed…is fully trained for the responsibilities of the position before assuming the duties at the United States embassy or diplomatic mission to which the attache is assigned.” (74:13-18)

“Such training and technical assistance programs shall be carried out in consultation with the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator.” (75:11-14)

So, if I’m reading this correctly, the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator is responsible to train these property right defenders. If so, shouldn’t training guidelines exist? What are they? Where are they? Is this training available to the public? If not, why not? Content creators would fill these classes in droves.

My problem with H.R. 3261 is that it can’t “…protect the creativity, entrepreneurship, and innovation…” of new works without defining what parts of the old works are allowed to be used legally.

Until such a definition exists, the bill will hang like the sword of Damocles over those who seek to innovate through legally building upon the works of others.

Photo Credit (CC): bulletproofbra

Crab boat captains are responsible for catching their legal quota of crab within a small window of time. Through the use of sophisticated GPS technology, experience, superstition and a little luck, captains decide where to drop their crab pots–800 pound steel and mesh baited crab-traps. Sometimes, they’ll “set a string” of over one hundred pots, which will lie on the ocean floor awaiting crabs to crawl into them. After several hours “soaking,” the pots are retrieved and the crabs are harvested.

The first pot in a string is an indicator of what the rest will contain. That’s when the producers of the show capture the most dramatic moments, because the first pot sets the morale of the entire crew. Sometimes it’s full of crab. Other times it isn’t. Low crab-counts mean longer times out at sea, and longer times at sea means both increased danger and lower prices at the dock.

*  *  *

Many similarities exist between crab fishing and creating compelling content for our companies. As corporate storytellers, our goal is to create content that attracts audiences in the form of prospects and customers. Sometimes prospects and customers flock to our content. At other times, we pull-up our own empty pots.  When audiences don’t resonate with the content that we’ve spent so much time creating, our morale may wane. We question our actions, defend them to upper management, and question whether or not we’re doing the right thing.

It’s at times like these that we need to learn from the fishing crews of the Cornelia Marie, Northwestern, Time Bandit, Seabrooke, Ramblin’ Rose, Wizard, and Kodiak. Just because one particular blog post, podcast episode, or video piece doesn’t gather the audience that we expected, we can’t stop fishing. Just as crab boat crews re-bait and return empty pots to the ocean floor, we must continue to punch those keyboards, speak into those microphones, and look into those video cameras. Just as the crab boat captains learn from each set-and-retrieve cycle, so must we. With each piece of content, whether it is popular or not, our job is to learn something that we can apply to the next story.

The creation of serial content is hard work. Sometimes it draws prospects and customers to us, and sometimes it doesn’t. The trick is to keep on fishin’. Without doing so, we’ll never meet our quotas.

Photo Credit: Slightlynorth

And so, last Wednesday I found myself standing next to Ann before sixty content creators, who were all there to participate in: “Content Rules: How to Create Content People Really Care About.” I was very excited to speak to this group for one simple reason: they already know the value of content. Unlike traditional marketers who see content creation as a threat to their jobs, or old school PR folks who see it as a threat to their cushy monthly retainers, the corporate storytellers in front of us represented the new guard of this digital communications era.

At the beginning of the session, Ann asked everyone to jot down three things that they each wanted to learn. We collected 117 questions from 48 participants.

The figure to the left represents the seven categories that we divided them into. Almost sixty percent (60%) of the questions fell into two categories: Finding and Telling Stories and Executive Education. The largest vote-getter wasn’t much of a surprise considering the name of the presentation and the audience. The second one, however, was. No matter how much we in the social media fishbowl pontificate about how far we’ve gotten with “social media,” we still have a long way to go. The fact that “managing up” is the second-largest concern for those tasked with creating corporate content proves that we haven’t yet made a dent in the problem.

For example, here are some of the Executive Education questions:

• How to get an organization to see content as an opportunity (exciting!) rather than a burden?
• How to get execs to respect content development as a skill (and non-execs too)?
• How to develop organizational discipline around writing i.e. get everyone onboard with starting with the story.
• Focus execs so they/we can prioritize which story to tell

I love the last one. You know that things have changed when the creatives are trying to get the executives to focus!

Thirty percent (30%) of the questions revolved around Content Strategy and Best Practices — again, not surprising considering we were at a Content Strategy conference. However, the next two categories, which accounted for twenty-five percent (25%) of the questions, identified a need to connect stories to business and to find ways to balance voice and the corporate brand.

Some of those questions included:

• How do you use those stories to help make sales goals?
• How to tell a brand’s stories without being too salesy–but still achieve business objective.
• How do you balance the goal of making the voice of your content informal/accessible with the goal of making the “voice” professional quality?
• How do you keep your brand story consistent and powerful across multiple content creators? Over time?
• We want to do more video content but our brand manager wants it to look “perfect.” What’s your take on this?Does video need to look super duper professional?
• Practical ways to convert brand messages into engaging, compelling content.

These are the questions that companies contemplating new media self-publishing must ask. They form the conversation-starters for serious discussions around water coolers, in break rooms, meeting rooms, cubicles, and on all rows mahogany.

Over the next couple of months, I’ll draw blog posts from some of these questions/categories. Are there any that you want me to prioritize?

When asked to describe how effectively social media is integrated with their firm’s overall and marketing strategies, 421 CMOs gave it a resounding meh (3.4 on a scale of 1-to-7). More specifically, 25% described their activities as not effective at all–the lowest ranking on the chart–compared with only 6% who described their program integration as very effective.

It’s clear that CMOs still don’t understand the ramifications of the massive communications revolution happening around them. Instead of building integrated strategies on top of powerful new content delivery systems, they’ve opted for a Frankenstein approach to marketing–bolting disparate social media appendages awkwardly onto their traditional processes.

What’s even more disheartening is how excited various social media experts are about CMO bullishness, as respondents plan to grow social media spending from 5.6% of their overall corporate budgets today, to 9.9% next year, and a whopping 18.1% in five years! But where do they plan to spend this money?

• Marketing research and intelligence
• Marketing consulting services
• Developing knowledge about how to do marketing
• Integrating what we know about marketing
• Marketing Training

We have such a long way to go. Until companies can integrate social mediums into their overall communications strategies, they’ll continue to live through a horror movie best described as Frankenstein meets Groundhog Day.

The entire CMO Survey can be downloaded here.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Insight. Isn’t that what we’re all looking for? Wouldn’t it be great to have a crystal ball that guides us to make all of the right decisions? Well, when it comes to the development of online content, we actually do. Let’s take a look at two insight generators: Facebook Insights and YouTube Insights.

Facebook Insights

Facebook Insights offers a broad view of a company’s Facebook fans (audience), ranging from traditional demographics such as “age,” “location,” and “page views,” to unique Facebook measurements such as “active users,” “likes,” and “unlikes.” If you have admin privileges to a Facebook page, give it a try. Download your entire historical data into a spreadsheet and take a look. Such insight is gold when determining the type of content that satisfies audiences.

Like most analytics packages, Facebook Insights collects its information at the content-level, such as a wall post, a video, or a picture. At the content-level, we learn how many people liked a particular wall post or clicked on an individual photo or a video. But what about data at the sub-content level? Is there a way to find out what piece of the content that people liked best?

YouTube Insights

Youtube has determined a way to subdivide the data that it collects on individual videos. Therefore, in addition to gathering aggregate data at the content-level such as “discovery,” “demographics, “total views,” “comments,” and “responses,” its YouTube Hotspots feature offers insight into what viewers are interested in at various times throughout an individual video. Here’s YouTube’s description of its Hotspots feature:

Youtube Hotspots: The ups-and-downs of viewership at each moment in your video, compared to videos of similar length. The higher the graph, the hotter your video: fewer viewers are leaving your video and they may also be rewinding to watch that point in the video again. Audience attention is an overall measure of your video’s ability to retain its audience.

I’ve chosen an iconic example that many people (well at least those over 40) can relate with to demonstrate the power of Hotspots.  The example, courtesy of The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library (client), is a video of President Reagan speaking before the Republican National Convention on August 15, 1988. To put the clip into context, this is the convention that nominated then Vice President George Bush as the Republican nominee to run against Massachusetts governor and Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis.

Below is the Hotspots data for this 46 minute video.

The user interface for Hotspots is an interactive graph/video combo. The graph shows viewer-interest over time. If you want to see what part of the video corresponds to a particular measurement on the graph, simply drag the triangle pointer at the bottom of the graph and the video will advance to that spot…much like a video scrubber.

Now let’s look at the data. From left-to-right, we can see the ebb and flow of the viewership’s attention:

• it starts low then builds during the first third of the video
• then it plateaus in the middle
• before it spikes at about the three-quarter point
• and then finally wanes.

Understanding the content of the actual video puts the data into context.

The first third of the video consists predominantly of introductory formalities, such as the President thanking the hosts, the chair, the delegates, etc… Attention then starts building as he hits his speech points, peaking at the 3/4th mark, and then declining as he wraps up.

So, what exactly is happening at that peak? Why does audience interest spike at that time and then diminish as quickly as it rose?

Wouldn’t it be useful for you to learn what part of your content resonates with your audience? How valuable would it be for you to know exactly what your audience is “vibing” on? Wouldn’t such information give you great insight into the type of new content that your company should focus on?

The peak in audience attention comes from one of Ronald Reagan’s most memorable lines. To set it up, here is a transcript of what leads up to and culminates int the exact peak:

“George, I’m in your corner. I’m ready to volunteer a little advice now and then and offer a pointer or two on strategy–if asked. I’ll help keep the facts straight or just stand back and cheer. But George, just one personal request: go out there and win one for the Gipper.”

What is your company using to gather insights into its content?

Photo Credit: C.C.Chapman

YouTube HotSpots Data Courtesy Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Library

Before the advent of New Media, companies required third parties to deliver information to prospects and customers. This reliance on third parties forced companies to budget for the distribution of content as opposed to development of it.

As a result of being subservient to those who own the channels, companies have honed their skills for “messaging” as opposed to “communicating.” And they’ve funded entire armies of professional communicators who can deftly stay “on-message.”

Take the term “media training,” for example. Media training is an example of how companies work within the limitations of those who own the distribution channels. With media training, we’re taught to hammer the same trite messages over and over in hopes that a journalist either capitulates and uses the information, or that the captured audio and video is so contaminated, that it’s impossible for a journalist to edit it out.

But the introduction of New Media channels such as blogging, podcasting, online video, Facebook, Twitter, and even location-based services like FourSquare have changed everything. These technologies have dropped the price of distribution to where it is too small to measure. But instead of seeing this economic shift as something to take advantage of, most execs prefer to look a gift horse in the mouth. Instead of shifting budgets from the distribution of messaging to the creation of relevant content, they continue hiring those same old message mongers.

The end of the year offers a time of reflection. It’s also the time to start planning next year’s budget. If you’re an executive who is responsible for corporate communications, consider looking at the process through a different lens. Should you fund messaging through third parties, or communicating through your own channels? No need to be draconian about it–what if you did both, shifting significant money from messaging to communicating?

Be careful though. Those trained in the art of messaging won’t take too kindly to your taking food out of their mouths.

Photo Credit: anitakhart

This fundamental shift in focus–from interrupting people to helping them–is something that most businesses aren’t ready for. As someone who has played the corporate game for more than a quarter century, I’ve witnessed first hand the nasty corporate politics that ensue when budgets are discussed.  Nothing is more dangerous than a middle manager with a threatened budget.

But there’s something more important than corporate politics that execs must consider with such a shift. Past advertising budget transfers have simply shifted money from one way of interrupting people to another. But “giving” instead of “paying” is a totally different animal, requiring a shift in employee skills. Advertising requires lots of creative and media-buying skills. Philanthropy requires those skilled in administration.

Philanthropic projects come with added responsibilities. Anyone who gives to a social cause must also ensure that the money is being spent wisely. Philanthropy requires a long term commitment, something that companies with big ad budgets have never had to worry about when simply writing a check for advertising services.

This trend to combine philanthropy and advertising (philanthrotizing?) is worth watching. Will it work? Only time will tell. But in a tough economy, where corporations are viewed as pariahs and shoddily run local governments are filing for bankruptcy, philanthrotizing may create an opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

Photo Credit: Wonderlane

According to strict interpretations of copyright law, mashups like these are considered illegal. Therefore, it’s probably only a matter of time before Myren the Beancounter launches a cease and desist letter, claiming that the robots are hurting Beyoncé financially.

As someone who wears two hats–content creator who supports artist compensation and businessman who supports the bottom line–I’m left with the following question: ”Is Beyoncé being harmed financially or benefitting from said video?”

On one hand, she’s not receiving direct revenue from each time the video is played. On the other, she’s benefitted from 41,000 new earworm opportunities to send fans to iTunes.

Content creation and distribution technologies are changing the way we do business. They cause us to question fundamental assumptions that formed the cornerstones of entire industries. Ten years from now, we’ll probably look back on these issues and laugh. Until then, we’ll sit on the sidelines watching Myren protect the top line while ignoring the bottom line.

What sayeth you?

Tags: fair use copyright Ron Ploof Orange County Public Relations Marketing Social Media

During the presentation, I said, “Online, people have the attention spans of gnats. Keep it short.”

Then, I wrapped-up the presentation with a couple of questions. “What’s the most important skill that an online content creator should develop? “What’s the most important skill that any company considering to be an online publisher should acquire?”

A few people took a stab at the answer before I let them off the hook.

“The ability to tell stories,” I said.

That’s when a woman in the back of the room raised her hand and asked a brilliant question:

“So, can we use storytelling to extend the attention span of the gnat?”

“Yes!” I answered instinctively, having never really thought about it that way before.

Story extends attention span. That’s why we’ll spend $10 to sit willingly in a darkened movie theater with strangers. We enjoy watching characters in conflict. We love our heroes and love to hate our villains. We wait anxiously for them battle out a resolution. We love to be entertained. We love to be taught.

The best online content creators combine the power of storytelling with education to tap into a reservoir of dormant attention.

Extend attention spans. Be a storyteller.

Photo Credit: Macten

• Customers won’t beat a path to your doorstep
• You must spend money to make money
• You need a logo
• You need a fax machine, telephone, mailing address, and business cards
• You need to buy advertising
• You need to get press coverage

Sixteen years later, the professional communicators are still chanting the same mantra, omitting new options such as:

• we now have access to digital communications technologies that reach internationally–for a nominal hosting fee.
• we now have access to our own international radio stations (podcasting) for nominal hosting fees.
• we now have access to our own international television stations (YouTube)–for FREE
• we now have access to a worldwide focus group that can be observed through search.twitter.com–for FREE
• we now have one of the largest companies in the world, Google, that will not only cut digital pathways to our doorsteps, but it will pave them, drawing customers directly to us– for FREE

Are you still driving your 2010 communications plans using 1994 advice?