The Hobson & Holtz Report - Podcast #168: August 31, 2006

The Hobson & Holtz Report - Podcast #168: August 31, 2006

Content summary: Wikipedia and PR firms’ participation; New York Times blocks online content in UK; why marketing should make the user manuals; military disruption in Second Life; new social media service from Jupiter Research; Dell’s battery recall: issue known for 10 months?; Eric Schwartzman The Spinfluencer interviews Gregory Galant, CEO, RadioTail; David Phillips reports; listeners’ comments discussion; the music from CC Chapman; and more.

Show notes for August 31, 2006

download For Immediate Release podcast

Welcome to For Immediate Release: The Hobson & Holtz Report, a 75-minute podcast recorded live from Amsterdam, The Netherlands, and almost live from San Antonio, Texas, USA.

Download the file here (MP3, 34MB), or sign up for the RSS feed to get it and future shows automatically. (For automatic synchronization with your iPod or other digital player, you’ll also need a podcatcher such as Juice, DopplerRadio, iTunes or Yahoo! Podcasts, or an RSS aggregator that supports podcasts such as FeedDemon).

Listen to this podcast now:

In This Edition:

FIR Show Notes links
Links for the blogs, individuals, companies and organizations we discussed or mentioned in the show are posted to the FIR Show Links pages at The New PR Wiki. You can contribute - see the home page for info.

If you have comments or questions about this show, or suggestions for our future shows, email us at fircomments@gmail.com; or call the Comment Line at +1 206 222 2803 (North America) or +44 20 8133 9844 (Europe); or Skype: fircomments. You can email your comments, questions and suggestions as MP3 file attachments, if you wish (max. 3 minutes / 5Mb attachment, please!). We’ll be happy to see how we can include your audio contribution in a show.

So, until Monday September 4…

Posted by neville on 08/31 at 01:15 PM
  1. compliments on the PR and wiki report.
    Do a google (news) of Edelman PR today and you will find an interesting item in Noriegaville.com news blog about how this PR sweatshop is “hijacking” the Wikipedia on behalf of its Panama Canal campaign.
    It smells of PR mendacity.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  09/01  at  04:41 AM
  2. Hi, guys.

    Not sure I like the little musical intros to the different sections of the podcast. They feel both too long and too cute.

    I’d love to see more effort put into user manuals. Most things don’t even seem to come with printed manuals these days, and documentation for tech products suffers from a woeful lack of translation from Modern Geek into English.

    Maybe I shouldn’t have been, but I was shocked at the story about the “military action” in Second Life. That kind of thing makes it much less appealing as a business environment. (Not that I’ve tried it yet, but the possibility of encountering illiterate thugs with guns doesn’t increase my motivation.) There are surely better ways to go about asking for increased user participation.

    I listened to Eric Schwartzman’s interview with Greg Galant (it’s pronounced GAL-ant, by the way, not gah-LAHNT) just before FIR 168, and I think I’m starting to get it about CPM. It certainly makes more sense for podcasts than cost-per-click. But I would expect the demographics and/or psychographics of the audience to play a greater part in determining that cost than the actual number of subscribers or downloads.

    I’m very much looking forward to seeing you both at the Podcast Expo, and I’m having fun researching my presentation. There’s still time for your listeners to send their fan stories and criteria for listen-right-away-no-matter-how-long-it-is podcasts to .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

    Posted by Sallie Goetsch (rhymes with "sketch")  on  09/01  at  05:33 PM
  3. A disturbing development?

    A terrorist group?

    I think you guys have lost grip a little on the reality of the world.

    Let’s not forget what we’re still talking about here. It’s an f-ing online community, not a country in the middle of civil strife.

    Your non-stop coverage of Second Life makes me not want to listen anymore. No offense, I normally love the show, but it’s been a one-trick pony in recent episodes.

    Your new music cues are fairly crappy and cheesy to boot. Again, no offense, but let’s not forget it is music and there’s such a thing as good music and bad music, even if it is Podsafe.

    Pick it up guys, you’re slipping a bit.

    Posted by Owen Lystrup  on  09/01  at  08:43 PM
  4. The Second Life item shouldn’t have existed. Mainly because Linden Labs aren’t acting on the violation of their terms of service.

    “you agree that you shall not:
    (iv) take any action or upload, post, e-mail or otherwise transmit Content as determined by Linden Lab at its sole discretion that is harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, causes tort, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;...
    ...(x) “stalk”, abuse or attempt to abuse, or otherwise harass another user. Any violation by you of the terms of the foregoing sentence may result in immediate and permanent suspension or cancellation of your Account.”

    Considering the SLLA “has no complaint with American Apparel” preventing users from purchasing their store is surely harassment. 
    The terms of service quite clearly gives Linden Labs the right to disband SL militia/terriorist groups. If they cared about the threat to business these groups represent then they will be taking action shortly.

    Posted by Dan Hill  on  09/02  at  12:38 PM
  5. Surely anyone who calls this a militia or a terrorist group has never experienced real terror or terrorism.

    It’s not a band of rebels. It’s not a violent activist movement.

    It’s a modern form of a petition.

    Posted by Owen Lystrup  on  09/02  at  01:10 PM
  6. Owen, comparing the Second Life equivalents to real terrorists is indeed a joke if you’re considering taking it seriously.

    There is an immeasurable gulf between what masquerades as a terrorist outfit in a virtual landscape and the real deal. No-one is going to say they are a like for like comparison. Don’t let Neville going all Orson Welles on us fool you.

    Posted by Dan Hill  on  09/02  at  01:51 PM
  7. No one’s fooling anyone here. That’s the problem.

    The program, despite everyone’s best efforts, is still exactly what it’s always been.

    Posted by Owen Lystrup  on  09/02  at  02:56 PM
  8. There’s my problem right there - it’s a big joke, yet Shel and Neville seem to have taken it seriously. Oops.

    Come on, guys! Have a laugh about it on 169 and all will be forgotten.

    Posted by Chris Clarke  on  09/02  at  04:02 PM
  9. The incident with the SLLA is one very strong reason why: a. Second Life can’t be taken seriously and b. Why Second Life is a very risky undertaking for businesses.

    I have a friend who runs a non-profit organization that has spent quite a bit of time creating a presence in Second Life. And I can’t help but think that the time, effort and money spent in SL would have been better spent in the real world where you have a little more control over what you’ve created.

    I hope that’s not the case because if these kooks start holding more businesses hostage then a whole lot of time, money and effort will have been wasted.

    Posted by Rob Safuto  on  09/04  at  06:05 AM
  10. Rob, that sounds just like the folks 10 years ago who said business should stay off the Web because people can perpetrate attacks on your site and create “Sucks” sites to damage your reputation. Whether SL becomes THE virtual world that businesses and people populate or it’s some successor, a virtual world WILL become a routine venue for interaction and commerce; it’s inevitable. We’ll have to learn to cope with the negative aspects the same way we learn to cope with negative elements of the real world.

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  09/04  at  11:45 AM
  11. There are many differences between the web and Second Life Shel. The primary one being that the web is a distributed network that allows for full backup and redundancy of site. Second Life is controlled by one company that can be bought or sold to anyone at anytime. That’s just one of the issues that I have with investing time in Second Life.

    The whole SLLA thing is just weird. It’s weirder than anything I’ve heard of on the internet.

    Call me a dinosaur, but if anyone asks me about it I tell them to avoid Second Life and focus on the many other options for leveraging the social internet.

    Posted by Rob S  on  09/04  at  04:28 PM
  12. Rob,

    I’m a young guy by probably half Shel’s age and even I think Second Life is creepy.

    Posted by Owen Lystrup  on  09/04  at  04:34 PM
  13. Thanks, Owen. I’ll just cover myself with a comforter and sit out on the porch in my rocking chair. ;-)

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  09/04  at  05:36 PM
  14. Good heavens, of course there are many differences between SL and the web. The engineers behind SL are planning to make them seamless, though, so access to the full web through SL is just an integral part of the environment.

    I’m not sure ownership here is a big deal, and I’m not sure SL is going to become the preferred enviornment or if it will migrate to something more organic. But of two things I’m certain. One is that people will engage routinely through this kind of 3D space because of its flexibility; the other is that SL is the current dominant player and institutions are flocking to it. Consider that a legitimate presidential candidate has established a presence in SL, that Adidas and Toyota are establishing presences, that Harvard professors are teaching classes in SL, Duran Duran is just one of several acts performing in SL and and Starwood chose SL as the channel for showing off its Aloft hotels, destined to launch in RL in 2008.

    If you find SL creepy, that’s fine. But it’s tough to deny that businesses are going there, and to go there without communication counsel is just plain foolish. Consequently, communicators need to figure it out and be prepared. (If businesses weren’t setting up presences in SL in droves, I’d shrug it off.)

    I recommend reading Jeremy Pepper’s posts on the SL business conference:


    * http://pop-pr.blogspot.com/2006/08/second-life-convention-intro-and-mitch.html
    * http://pop-pr.blogspot.com/2006/08/second-life-convention-rl-business-in.html
    * http://pop-pr.blogspot.com/2006/08/second-life-convention-building-your.html
    * http://pop-pr.blogspot.com/2006/08/second-life-convention-sl-views-and-my.html

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  09/04  at  05:45 PM
  15. I don’t know Shel; I gotta disagree with you again.

    I think the ownership of this thing is incredibly important. The best part about the Internet is that no one owns it.

    If SL is to replace the Web and how surf it, we’re going to need much more competition to prevent autonomous control. I’m sure as popularity grows, the competition will come. But ownership is incredibly important.

    Posted by Owen Lystrup  on  09/04  at  06:25 PM
  16. Apples and oranges, as far as I’m concerned. The Net wouldn’t work under private ownership (although CompuServe thrived pretty well in the days before the Net). SL is working just fine. I agree, this whole concept has to evolve to a more democratic model, but for now, this is where businesses are going. It would be irresponsible for communicators to ignore it and fail to provide appropriate counsel so companies can maintain and even maybe enhance their reputations as long as they’re there. In some cases—think competition—it will be appropriate to suggest companies and clients establish a presence. Not because it’s cool, but because its business relevance is fast becoming established. Like it or don’t like it, I really don’t care. I have nothing invested in SL. I just recognize that it’s becoming important to business.

    You don’t?

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  09/04  at  07:31 PM
  17. Owen, it’s also worth noting that the Internet wasn’t always an open system. It was owned by the US Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency (and was called ARPANet), which maintained its ownership for far longer than Linden Labs has owned SL (which just had its third birthday).

    Posted by Shel Holtz  on  09/05  at  04:32 AM
  18. Catching up on my FIR listening, I had a good laugh on the morning commute whilst listening to the millitary occupation tale of SL. 

    First things first.  There is no way to be killed in Second Life.  You can be pushed off of a sim, or sent back to whatever point you have set as ‘home’ but your Avatar can take a licking and keep on ticking.  Not even the Second Life Mafia can physically harm you.

    Second.  They are occupying the store with the understanding - if not explicit permission - of the land owner.  But the landowner had the sense to turn off ‘create’, ‘push’ and other ‘scripts’ so the SLLA can’t interfere with any of the other users.

    I think SL is a fascinating and wonderful platform for entertainment and communications.  I see great potential in it and its ilk.  What keeps me hesitant about SL for any long term business use is that the entire workings of the world are based upon the whims of a dictatorial government (aka Linden Labs).  Granted they are a benevolent dictatorship and it is in their best interest not to abuse their position - but I see setting up shop in SL the same as doing business abroad, in a foreign nation where there is no set constitution and no impartial court of justice.  Keep yourself

    Posted by Rob Clark  on  09/08  at  04:13 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


<< Back to main