Blame Tina Fey if you want.  I do.

The SNL alum had the nerve (along with her cohorts) to call out the mainstream media and seriously question their objectivity on the Obama vs Clinton primary battle for the Democratic nomination for President.  It does seem the media has been taking it easy on Mr. Obama and the SNL folks don’t seem to like it much at all.  (View Fey’s editorial rant here.)

There’s more to review by visiting a blog set up to provide the video YouTube won’t show.  Give it a look (here) and let me know what you think.

Over the last few election cycles, it’s been late night television that has offered the most revealing insights into the Presidential candidates.  Whether it’s Jon Stewart, David Letterman, Jay Leno or SNL, the candidates have been willing to “let their hair down” and give people a look at something other than the overly-polished cliches they become on the stump.

Of course, there are dangers in doing this kind of thing.  Dennis Kucinich appeared on the Steven Colbert show and had to empty his pockets and Mike Huckabee’s appearance on the same show eventually lead to a battle royal between Conan O’Brien, Stewart and Colbert that could only be politely called “unique” in the anals of late night, talk television (misspelling intended).

But this Obama love-fest as exploited by SNL has taken everything up notch.  Last weekend, SNL was openly critical of NBC’s own news division.  And that after Brian Williams turned in a good showing as a guest host.  Doesn’t seem very fair or objective, does it?  Then again, I guess that Fox News’ standing gag line, isn’t it.

Welcome to Stage 9.

Disney has just launched their first (?) on-line production studio, Stage 9 Digital Media (summary, article).  And with the launch of their studio, they also introduced their first of twenty made-for-web series.

That’s right, twenty.

This first show, Squeegees, is a comedy series about a group of slacker window washers that can now be found on abc.com and YouTube.  The first Stage 9 production, Voicemail, was a one-off episode and is now being developed into a full series.

The online episodes are short (YouTube length), and at 3-5 minutes each only have space for a solo sponsor/advertiser.  Toyota has signed on to sponsor the Squeegees production and will be using the program to hold viewers to its pitch for the Corolla.

Online video viewing has grown tremendously over the past few years.  Comscore estimates for December put online viewing at over the 10,000,000,000 videos watched online (article).  And that number continues to trend upwards.

YouTube has also just announced another foray into the live video business again, trying to break the online video business wide open.

From a studio perspective, Disney is just jumping into waters already being tested by other major television networks and production companies.  The cost of producing an online series is significantly less than producing pilot episodes for broadcast (or cable) and the metrics are much more granular.

Where will this probably lead?  I’m sure more than one executive has considered the benefits of developing and testing series ideas online and then “evolving” franchises from the online medium to television once fan bases have been established, characters have been developed and a solid demographic can be measured and “pre-sold” to sponsors.

It’s a bold new world and definitely one worth watching.

Side Note: Here’s my little production for consumption in the online world.  Enjoy.

The Bulldog Reporter’s “Daily Dog” newsletter reports (here) that Richmond, VA-based AgencyFinder.com is launching an agency rating system for the agencies registered with its service.  The rating system helps rank agencies that meet the criteria required by the searching client or consultant.

As a disclaimer, let me say that I’m friends with the folks at AgencyFinder and have used their service to conduct a search for a new agency for a client.  The service is free to those who are looking for a new agency - the cost of the service is borne entirely by the agencies registered in the database. 

From my point of view, AgencyFinder’s new rating service will help keep things fair and objective (the first round of evaluations is done “blind” - meaning the client doesn’t know the name of the agencies they’re reviewing).  Keeping everything on an “apples to apples” basis will put small and large agencies on a relatively level playing field.

Congratulations to Chuck and his team on this new innovation.  I can’t wait to see it in action.

There’s an interesting piece in AdWeek this week that talks about a demographic class I hadn’t seen before … the “working wealthy.”  This group of consumers (also known as “middle class millionaires”) is defined by authors Lewis Schiff and Russ Alan Prince as having the following attributes:

Middle-class millionaires — the 8.4 million households in America with $1 million to $10 million in net worth — are setting the pace for innovation in new and fascinating ways. Although the word “millionaire” may conjure up images of first-class lifestyles and financial peace of mind, middle-class millionaires work exceptionally long hours to maintain their expensive lifestyles and most think of themselves as just plain “middle class.”

Though the working wealthy share many of their values with the rest of the middle class, they also exhibit traits that set them apart. For example, they consider themselves to be influential in their community. They are 50 percent more likely to say that they “tell lots of other people about products or services they like” than middle-class survey respondents. They also report “being asked for advice on what to buy” five times more often than our middle-class survey respondents.

I encourage you to read the whole article - you’ll find the information to be helpful in your marketing planning and of interest to your clients, as well.

Forty is too young to die.

I can say that now, as I’m all of forty-five.  Last week’s news of the death of DDB’s creative chief, Paul Tilley, hit home for me.  Here’s a guy about my age with a bunch of kids and a wife and (apparently) all the upside in the world.

But with the upside comes pressure.  And with the pressure, a darkness.

Ad Age had a very solid piece on Paul Tilley and the reactions to his suicide.  You can read it here.

One line in the Ad Age piece referred to a New York Post story (found here) that referred to the “Blogs of Death” - specifically AgencySpy and AdScam.  The “Blogs of Death” epithet is more the result of bad headline writing than any claim staked by either blog.

Do yourself a favor.  Don’t get caught up in the self-indulgent introspection of trying to figure out who’s to blame for this tragedy.  It won’t bring Paul Tilley back and it won’t make life any easier for his wife and kids.  Just morn the all-too-soon loss of a husband and father who, as it just so happens, was a creative director that did some excellent work.

Godspeed, Paul Tilley.

The irony of writing this post the day after an on-going e-mail exchange with a guy who wrote a post about the lack of civility in advertising hasn’t passed me by, but …

I received an e-mail from a friend of this blog today who filled me in on an interesting online exchange between a blogger and the president of a company he blogged about.  As it turns out, the post written by the blogger provides a less-than-friendly portrayal of the president’s company. 

Nineteen months after the fact (Tuesday, as a matter of fact), the president contacts the blogger with more than one nasty e-mail message.  Threats of lawsuits follow and the ‘libel’ word is thrown around liberally.  The blogger was sufficiently po’d to contact another blogger, who wrote about the exchange and then passed the information on to me.

And now I’m blogging about it - albiet third-hand and without using names or quoting accusations.  You see, I don’t know either party involved in this broughaha and can’t vouch for them.  But that’s not my objective here.  Instead, I’d like to dive into the tactics employed and their ramification on reputation and, eventually, market share.

First off, consider the actions of the blogger who wrote about his personal experience with the company in question.  He wrote what he knew from personal experience and linked to information he found on the Internet.  His criticisms in his blog post, in fact, didn’t seem to be out of line.  Most of his post was opinion and direct observation.

Where things may have crossed the line is in the comments area - where readers commented on their experiences and the blogger responded.  The number of posts to the blog seem to have helped drive its placement in search engines like Google, putting this less-than-flattering review of the company directly under the listing for its web site.

Unfortunate but not intentional.  And even if it was, so what?

In fact, neither the post nor its placement in a Google search results page seems to have mattered to the company (or its president) until more than a year and a half after the fact.  Infer what you will from this fact, the appearance is that no one with the company was aware of this online negative impression (at best), or no one cared.

Point Number One: Pay attention to what people are saying about you and your brand(s) online by actively looking with some regularity.

Next, the president of the company acted - probably before seeking counsel from either his legal counsel or, most certainly, his PR counsel.  Threatening lawsuits via e-mail is rarely a good idea.  In fact, I can’t think of an occassion when it would EVER be a good idea.

Point Number Two: Don’t threaten lawsuits by e-mail.  Ever.

Next, the blogger gets his dander worked up and starts quoting from the U.S. Constitution to defend his right to free speech.  He may be right, but this could hardly be considered a constructive tactic.  Then again, it’s pretty obvious by the bulk of his post, there isn’t a whole lot of respect left in this relationship anyway.

But the point is, quoting the Constitution and correcting grammar and spelling in e-mails is almost certainly leading you down the road to conflict.

Point Number Three: Don’t poke the bear.

Now if “poking the bear” wasn’t enough, the blogger went on to share his experience (or possibly vent) to a fellow blogger who has picked up the cause and reported on the incident in his blog.  The quote at the end of blogger #2’s post is, I think, quite telling:

“Big no-no, Mr. Buchan. If you’ll look in the revised 21st century PR handbook, it says to never send angry emails to bloggers and expect them not to post them. Actions like that tend to come back and bite you in the ass.”

So, I suppose in a way, passing the news on to me is part of the ass-biting process.  Okay, I’ll bite.  Just maybe not as expected.  And that’s my next point.

Point Number Four: When you decide to stir up the shit, beware of the splashback.

Now I’m not critical of either of the bloggers in this case.  The fact is, they’re doing what bloggers do.  The first is writing what he knows or has learned.  For the most part, he’s sharing an opinion and there appear to be a number of folks out there who appreciated his insights.

The second blogger is also doing what bloggers do - he’s passing on an interesting story.  And he’s right.  This little firefight between blogger and company president is an intersting study in how NOT to react to a negative blog.  But by passing the story on to me, this second blogger runs a risk of fanning the flames of controversy with an (apparently) litigous adversary.

I’m not making any assumptions about intentions here.  What I am trying to do, though, is point out one of the inherent dangers of this social media we work within.  Rumor and inuendo are so easy to pass around in the blogosphere that we all have a responsibility to keep that in mind as we read, write and respond.

This is, in much the same way, at the heart of the big eBay controversy concerning seller feedback.  In a two-way medium like this, both parties need to have a channel that allows for civil and transparent dialog.  Inflamatory e-mails (like the kind sent by the company president) or the practice of holding positive feedback hostage (a very real fear for eBay sellers) certainly aren’t civil or productive.

Maybe thinking first before firing off that e-mail is a best practice all of us should follow.

Maybe there’s something to this “social marketing” thing.  I mean if a bunch of drunk rugby fans with a fast Internet connection could do this, why not us hopeless Cubs fans?