I guess I just find it comical that Strumpette has made it that site's calling to go after other PR bloggers that s/he/it thought were useful to contact in the first place, but that this post on Robert Scoble's blog has survived two days without comment. Howabout not worrying about certain bloggers within organizations who are semi-sanctioned to talk online about what they want to - or what work would like them to do - and address something that most public relations groups would consider a real threat. I look forward to whatever analysis you can put together on that one, as it's a topic that doesn't look like you're just attempting to pull marionette strings to get people to comment / rant / link.

This isn't to say that I disagree / agree with Scoble and the concept of Mini-Microsoft at all. I'll leave that for the rest of you to talk about and discuss amongst yourselves.

He'll never point it out because he's like that, but I'm going to. Check out Chris Thilk (he writes at AdJab and his own Movie Marketing Madness, among other places) in the Los Angeles Times this week, where he's provided his seven tips for marketing movies - because that's like...what he does.

And yes, while it's supposed to be funny, he's not really kidding. Props to Deborah Netburn for freeing up her spot on the pages for him.

Looks like the move from the WBs and the UPNs to the CWs is moving right along. The Cincinnati Enquirer's Cliff Peale informs about that market's Channel 12, WKRC-TV, which will be taking on the affiliate programming from the CBS-Warner Bros. Entertainment creation.

Now I most certainly don't know anything about this particular story, but after commenting to a pal on IM this morning about how some of us bloggers would get slapped around for posting something like this, even if it were 100% for real, and then I came across this teaser from Tim Mullaney over at BusinessWeek Online's Deal Flow blog and couldn't help but to notice a similar theme. Am I speculating too much now?

[link via Baristanet]

Okay, okay, no excuses. I'm here now, so let's just let it ride and go from here. Check out today's random ten tunes and post yer own.

• "Will It Bleed" - Sevendust


• "Show You How" - Jay-Z


• "Elderly Woman Behind a Counter In a Small Town" - Pearl Jam


• "Spacegrass" - Clutch


• "Starfuckers, Inc." - Nine Inch Nails


• "Let's Get High" - Lords of Acid


• "Picture Perfect" - Chamillionaire & Bun B


• "Kickstand" - Soundgarden


• "Better Things" - Massive Attack


• "Get Ya Mind Right" - Young Jeezy
Posted by Tom at 11:21 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

A few days ago, I started hearing that 660AM WFAN out of New York City would be streaming live over the Internet soon, and as it turns out, it's true. On Friday, I received an email from the station's marketing deparment stating that the streaming would go live at 3pm on Tuesday, April 11, where the "Mike & The Mad Dog" show would be broadcast while the New York Mets game would be played over the actual airwaves. (Major League Baseball teams are a subscription-only service through David Singer's favorite online stream, MLB.tv)

I'm psyched mostly that the "Imus in the Morning" show is going to be over the 'net now, because my office location isn't exactly getting me great AM reception, depriving me of my WFAN fix for the day. Considering it's like one of the most widely-broadcast stations on the AM dial, this has some big implications. Now how many streams do you think they'll make available? My bet is: not enough.

Now I won't be the first person to comment on this whole Katie Couric-to-CBS News situation, nor will I be the last. I've been a bit crazed the last two weeks as this has finally taken a turn for the worse (yes, I said worse). Not that I didn't expect this to turn out to be the way things worked out, but I've got to say that I'm feeling worse about it now than I did before.

In any case, I can still appreciate the way that the AP's David Bauder describes the situation in an article this weekend. He states that the selection of Couric by CBS News for the evening anchor post will be a "jolt of energy" for all the networks involved. But if you ask me, I'm with the Don Imus camp, who asked last week "if it were possible that CBS could come in fourth" in the race for the top newscast - in a race that has three horses, ABC, NBC, and CBS. While Bauder is objective in his take on the situation, his seemingly positive attitude towards on how this will all turn out definitely ignores the following point he makes square in the middle:

"Morning news is considered the growth area in television, and Couric was its cover girl. The evening news has been slowly and steadily waning in influence and audience, the victim of cultural changes that make fewer people available to watch a half-hour news summary at the dinner hour."

So why is it, that with the whole problem of no one being around during dinnertime and the idea that the "growth area" was morning, that Couric's move to the evenings will swing what is described as "cultural changes" the other direction? Are we all going to start TiVo-ing the evening news just because the fresh happyfakeface from the morning has changed her schedule and isn't getting up at 3am or whatever anymore? Okay, I probably will the first week in the same way I watched the last week that Rather was in town. But not because I actually am interested in what she's going to bring to the table, it's that I just don't get it and need to try and clue myself in.

All the people talking about how Katie Couric's serious news background makes her a good choice, but I'm going to say that CBS News isn't choosing her because she's able to bring the news to a new light. It's like when a baseball team in the doldrums brings in a superstar hitter just for the ticket sales. Perhaps it works a little bit, but does it solve the problem that the team has no cash in the first place, is in a crappy market, and has no pitching. It's the same situation here. The evening news is hurting, and the only thing in the newsy space that's going to be gaining ground as far as viewership goes is Rocketboom.

Anyone want to take bets that the newscasts being downloaded on iTunes would supersede the viewership watching them at home within five years (I'm being generous)?

Dear Baltimore Sun,

The 468x60 banners that you're currently running after every single entry in your RSS feeds (that aren't even excerpt, are only one line) are severely annoying when reading them in my FeedDemon. Just my two cents.

Thanks,

Tom

The AP's Seth Sutel writes Monday about statistics hitting the streets today that are showing pretty big numbers (that are not surprising, IMHO) as far as Web visitation of newspaper sites goes. And if the whole "it's all about me" thing hadn't hit you over the head yet, then the following quote should swing it.

[Executive vice president at Starcom Worldwide Andrew] Swinand did say afterward that he was still "bullish" on newspapers' online advertising potential, but added that newspapers should do more to personalize and localize their online content, in ways such as the social networking site MySpace does.

Just as I like to customize my "newspaper" experience in my RSS reader, I'd probably be one interested in doing the same on the newspaper sites I visit on their own merit. Just as the New York Times threw down a redesign of its presence a few days ago to better suit those with newer technology, we should expect the same of *what* news we're looking at.