New White Paper: Is 2011 the "Year of the Mobile Privacy Lawsuit?"

My new white paper discusses recent litigation in the Mobile Privacy area and steps to reduce the risk associated with a mobile marketing campaign.

If you're interested, check it out at the Remodista/Bricks +Mobile website.  http://tinyurl.com/4e9vcwz

A Real Taste of Chicago Fashion - April 2nd

Velvet Ropes Drop at Chicago New Media Summit

Today the Chicago New Media Summit dropped its invitation-only policy for the upcoming summit on September 15th and 16th. CNMS, the self-proclaimed, "TED of the Midwest", has increasingly come under fire for the policy, which was dubbed as elitist by some in the tech/web 2.0 community.

I remember a similar clash of new v. old media when I attended the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) conference in 2000. With the Internet bubble bulging, traditional broadcasters felt they were being left behind by the faster-paced new media entrepreneurs. To compensate, NAB opened up a section of the exhibit floor to new media companies.

I was VP of business development for akoo.com, an internet radio broadcaster and search engine. We set up our 10x 20 booth in the new media section with all the other young, tech companies. In typical trade-show fashion, we had music playing, computer screens, raffles, games and give-aways to attract people to our booth.

In contrast, the old media section, which included most of the major broadcasters, cable and television production companies, had HUGE booths to emulate their posh Manhattan offices with receptionists, velvet ropes and waiting areas. No one was allowed in without an appointment. Periodically throughout the day, each old media company would schedule an autograph session by a broadcast personality simultaneously appeasing the "little people" and demonstrating their clout in the industry.

As I walked the exhibit hall, I couldn't help but chuckle at the elitism in the old media section and the naïve enthusiasm in the new. Each section wanted something the other one had. Old media needed the excitement and growth potential of new media. New media companies needed a viable, sustainable audience that would pay for something (or at least watch an ad or two).

The attitude of old v. new media is a reflection of the medium itself. As Marshall McLuhan said, "the medium is the message". Traditional broadcasters rely on the allocation of scarce broadcast spectrum to the few who could afford to pay costly licensing fees. For the most part, traditional broadcasters are an elite group who control a powerful communication tool.

On the other hand, the attitude of new media participants reflect the open nature of the Internet. Anyone with a computer, $15 webcam and and internet connection can participate. There are no gate-keepers or velvet ropes in the world of new media - just content and lots of it.

CNMS invitation-only policy was the equivalent of the velvet-ropes outside the old media booths at NAB. Dropping the policy is the right thing to do. I also suggest dropping the rigid CNMS music submission policy, which is much more like an old school record-label submission policy than a new media effort.

I applaud the vision behind CNMS. I hope they continue to embrace an inclusive attitude that reflects the openness of the Internet versus the exclusionary tactics of old media.

Besides, everyone knows that, in Chicago, only posers go to clubs with velvet ropes outside.

Fear and Loathing in Boston

The saga continues on the Turner Broadcasting/Cartoon Network guerrilla marketing campaign. In textbook PR fashion, Turner Broadcasting quickly apologized and offered full restitution to the city of Boston. Turner also took out full page ads in Boston newspapers apologizing. From what I can tell, the media is treating them kindly for their efforts.

On the other hand, Sean Stevens and Peter Berdovsky, who were charged with placing a hoax device that causes panic, told reporters they would answer questions only about hair in the '70's. The media did not understand why the two would not answer their questions and used terms like "odd rant" and "nonsensical discussion" to describe what happened.

The charge of "placing a hoax device that causes panic", which carries a maximum penalty of five years in jail, requires the prosecutor to prove that the two men had a reasonable expectation that the devices would cause a panic when placed. The judge at the arraignment seemed skeptical that their intent was anything other than advertising.

The media was bewildered by their statements, but I say brilliant. No perp walk for these guys. If they dodged questions and left the building with hoods over their heads, they would look like criminals in the best case and terrorists in the worst case. They faced the press and, according to their defense attorney, performed. They are graffiti/performance artists who by their very nature have chosen an anti-establishment lifestyle. The press conference showed that 1) they were performers, not terrorists causing panic, and 2) only the establishment feared their actions.

After the press conference, young Bostonians couldn't wait to condemn the actions of the police. One young person called the police reaction "silly and insane" and said that Boston was "the laughing stock" of the country.

Those young and in the know are laughing at the older generation. Sounds a bit like the '60s, doesn't it?

From a PR perspective, the big loser is Interference Inc., the guerrilla marketing agency who couldn't be reached for comment. According to reports, their offices are closed and the CEO can't be located. Also, CNN reported that an employee from the company called one of the graffitti artists right after the panic started and told him to keep quiet. A textbook example of what not to do in a PR crisis. Any guesses on whether their offices will ever reopen?