Call me Mr. Cleo.

I’m sitting here taking a peek into my crystal ball and predicting – in my humble opinion – the three most popular sites when the year 2010 arrives.

Listed in no particular order, the three sites are:

• Google/YouTube - they are already one and the same. Google "the brand" will continuously acquire relevant properties as the internet evolves which will keep their site relevant.

• Wikipedia - already the most quoted internet resource on the planet, the brilliance behind Wikipedia is that it queries people's curiosity and builds upon their desire to seek (and profess) the truth.

• MySpace/Facebook/Flickr – These social networking sites will all, in most cases, go away as you know them today because there is not much brand loyalty to these properties. BUT, since most 15-25 year-olds LIVE on these sites to stay socially connected, they aren’t going to simply disappear anytime soon. Eventually the integration (let’s say by Google, Yahoo or MSN) into their overall portal (yes, old term but germane to topic) will become their existence. This will happen much like YouTube is currently becoming more seamlessly integrated into the Google experience.

I think that the next great platform will be born of, potentially, contemporary small businesses founded over next 5 - 10 years. As the next generation of online users (who have grown up using the Internet as second nature) get out of college, they will want to engage their contemporaries inside a virtualized business community to "mash up” their desires to serve to the world at large. They will already be steeped in how they "like" to interact online and thus will drive the next set of requirements for this soon to be realized online community. I think the cycle of innovation will concatenate as each subsequent online "generation" find better ways to use existing technology to realize their life goals…

Want me to read your palm and predict your future?

Share This

Here's a really interesting item from The Motley Fool by Brian Orelli, Ph.D. that will probably send Johnson and Johnson PR people running for big bottles of Tylenol and cartons of Band-Aids. In essence, it is about the lawsuit Johnson & Johnson is mounting against the American Red Cross over a trademark J&J owns (the red cross on a white background) but has let the American Red Cross use for about 100 years.

On the one hand, it seems to me J&J has a legitimate gripe. Writes Mr. Orelli:

The shared symbol wasn't a problem… until the Red Cross started licensing it out to companies that make disaster preparedness supplies.

On the other hand, the J&J suit reads like it was prepared by a financial vampire. Returning to Mr. Orelli's report:

…Johnson & Johnson's suit asks that the charity do more than just stop using the symbol on products it sell. It wants the Red Cross to destroy its inventory, hand over any profits to Johnson and Johnson, and pay punitive damages, including legal fees.

That doesn't seem appropriate, especially for a company that according to this Wikipedia entry is ……known for its corporate responsibility and consistently ranks at the top of Harris Interactive's National Corporate Reputation Survey. It's inappropriate, too, because because the American Red Cross, which has crossed a line with its use of the trademark, is nevertheless a charitable organization. Clara Barton was a founder for crying out loud.

Seems to me there's no question that J&J would prevail in a suit that simply required the American Red Cross to stop licensing the trademark to others. For a Fortune 500 company that is a component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average this is, indeed a PR disaster in the making.

If you're the VP of PR at J&J what would you advise the company to do? Conversely, if you were the VP of PR at the American Red Cross, how would you mount a response to this suit? I have my ideas, but I'd rather hear from you.

Share This

I'm not talking about your waistline. I am talking about your waste line, as in your marketing, messaging and PR budget. If you're obsessed with online "impressions" at the expense of online messaging that also features a high referral capability and can be tracked (and, therefore, dare I us that direty little m word… measured), you should re-examine your approach.

It is all explained very well in this insightful opinion piece by consultant Dave Evans published in ClickZ. You'll want to at least scan the piece for the complete picture presented by Mr. Evans, but this short excerpt sumarizes his position:

Connected consumers who frequent social networks and make good use of personal ad avoidance technology are changing the stock answers. Well in excess of two thirds of viewers now actively avoid TV advertising. The majority of 18-49 year olds use multiple information sources, with the average person now spending about a quarter of her personal time online. As social networks rise in both use and utility, what better place to talk about purchases — past or future — than with friends online? Social media's potential contribution to your campaigns is growing.

Evans and others rcognize that message 'spread,' as in 'spread the word,' is a key component of effective online campaigns. In our experience here at AgencyNext, online community sites like blogs, if done well, really help spread the word. Since the social media/blogging movement is about ten years old, some might say it has reached middle age in technology time. While most things and people middle aged hope to avoid getting thick around the middle, online messaging is just the opposite. You want lots of big, fat, gooey messages people like to eat, swallow, rave about and repeat. Or in Evans' words:

…the new big lever for your campaign is what the Word of Mouth Marketing Association calls "spread." How many people will get your message because someone else sends it to them? The larger the spread, the more leverage for your campaign and the more likely the recipient will actually act on the offer…

Share This