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

For the first time in the history of modern presidential debates (Q&As these days in reality) the questions were not conjured up and asked by journalists.

I'm not the first one to say this, but I'll add my voice to those around the country who are noting it: the televised presidential candidate debate the other night was a great example of how the mainstream media is becoming less and less relevant. At least in Mainstream America if not Corporate America. 

Are you still chasing the mainstream media? Are you spending the bulk of your time, money and energy on polished news releases and other documents tailored for the press? Don't you think it is about time you at least considered bringing ordinary real people (customers, prospects, users, competitors, partners) into a conversation? The media doesn't buy anything from you. In most cases, they don't even "buy" your story… so why are you wasting all that energy talking at them? It's time you start talking with people.

Share This

The Council of Public Relations Firms has just released a white paper in which the number one finding, based on industry research, is this:

The public relations industry is poised to excel in the era of social media due to the fact that public relations has always been about social influence…

There are two questionable assertions in that statement. One, the PR industry isn't poised to excel at anything. PR's reputation for doing good and doing right and being valuable is about on a par with people's faith in astrology. Two, PR has been about media influence, not social influence. Traditional PR people have always preferred to keep their hands clean dealing with journalists, not the unwashed masses. A community of average people with heavy-duty b.s.-detectors have been, are, and will continue to be quick to tell PR people where to stick their talking points.

Come to think of it, talking points is kind of a weird phrase isn't it? Most spin doctors mean by it that they talk and you listen. They aren't called "conversation points" now are they?

Don't see the difference between media influence and social influence? Media influence is talking about things that interest a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, for example. Social influence is talking to ordinary people about things that matter to them. The reason social media happened is because mainstream media failed its audience… it writes about a lot of things people don't care about and it misses tons of things people do want to know about. Mainstream media writes it and you read it…and if you have a problem with that, or you find it biased, or wrong, well write a letter to the editor.

It's true that some PR people will get it; will make the transition; will figure out how to bag the baloney and start honestly conversing with people. But to say the industry is poised to excel in this arena because it has been butt-kissing journalists for years and years is ridiculous. Let me put it to you this way: my primary function as a traditional PR professional for twenty years was to douse pigs with perfume and hope the fragrance masked flaws with which everyone inside a company was familiar. In social media, the swine are held out as is while everyone holds their nose and decides, on the basis of this full disclosure and transparency and authenticity, if they want to eat bacon or not.

Share This