A Short History of Marketing

Shift Happened. Not news to you, but a clever clip nonetheless and client/deck-ready (when you've rehashed those other charts/vids saying the same thing to death).


from german agency Scholz & Friends.

Guilty Pleasure: Big Ideas, Don't Get Any/Radiohead "Nude"

Radiohead held an online contest to remix "Nude" from their album - "In Rainbows". I found this (late) entry to be particularly fascinating and breakout. It takes a bit to get to the "beat" but well worth it as it builds and mashes the music utilizing Sinclair ZX Spectrum Guitars, Epson LX-81 Dot Matrix Printer, HP Scanjet 3c, and Hard Drive arrays. Of particular note is his savvy working of the social net touchpoints to get the work slippy.

Politics 2.0: Babies for Obama Meme

1500 vids on YouTube for Obama Babies

Ignorance of Crowds, too

Murray and I are in an ongoing tug of war about the Wisdom/Ignorance of Crowds. Found this interesting counterpoint (Murray's side) at Strategy+Business magazine about the limits of peer production and some case examples. And to the question of rightful "creators" in a participatory/UGC environment, the conclusions drawn in this article helps guide us.

Some excerpts:

The bottom line is that peer production has valuable but limited applications. It can be a powerful tool, but it is no panacea. It’s a great way to find and fix problems, to collect and categorize information, or to perform any other time-consuming task that can be sped up by having lots of people with diverse perspectives working in parallel. It can also have the important added benefit of engaging customers in your innovation process, which not only allows their insights to be harnessed but also may increase their loyalty to your company.

-First, peer production works best with routine or narrowly defined tasks that can be pursued simultaneously by a big crowd of people. It is not well suited to a job that requires a lot of coordination among the participants. If members of a large, informal group had to coordinate their efforts closely, their work would quickly bog down in complexity. The crowd’s size and diversity would turn from a strength to a weakness, and the speed advantage would be lost.

-Second, because it requires so many “eyeballs,” open source works best when the labor is donated or partially subsidized. If Linus Torvalds had had to compensate all his “eyeballs,” he would have gone broke long ago.

-Third, and most important, the open source model — when it works effectively — is not as egalitarian or democratic as it is often made out to be. Linux has been successful not just because so many people have been involved, but because the crowd’s work has been filtered through a central authority who holds supreme power as a synthesizer and decision maker.

But if peer production is a good way to mine the raw material for innovation, it doesn’t seem well suited to shaping that material into a final product. That’s a task that is still best done in the closed quarters of a cathedral, where a relatively small and formally organized group of talented professionals can collaborate closely in perfecting the fit and finish of a product. Involving a crowd in this work won’t speed it up; it will just bring delays and confusion.

via Strategy+Business Magazine

Duke it out: UGC v Creative Industry

Murray and I visited the MN Executive Program yesterday to give a Fallon perspective on creativity. One of the attendees asked about how we are reacting to the changing media environment, and I caught Murray's response on tape. He said that he sees an imbalance in the marketplace today between user generated content and content produced by people who are paid to be creative. And he predicted an imminent leveling of those two.

What does everyone else think? Have a look at the clip (under a minute!) and hit us up with your take.

Cult of the Amateur

Dan Meth created this video homage to all the viral video superstars (to-date) evolved from our YouTube era.

Internet People - Watch more free videos

Short History of YouTube

Citizen Journalism: Wikiscanner

...reveals that corporations (again) are not model citizens at playing by the rules. The scandal here isn't about "the cult of the amateur" abusing the open format to mislead and misinform (barring a prank or two, like George "Wanker" Bush, which I find funny btw). This scandal is another cautionary tale about corporations and institutions assuming to use social media as another tool to propagate one-way PR agendas the same way they've always done. For these monoliths, Wikipedia is simply another PR channel, seemingly without pesky editors. But there are editors - people. And user-created police controls like Wikiscanner only make transparent what always was - big media machines change the lines of text to suit their goals and this activity is labelled under the guise of "information".

User-Generated: Nalts Spoofs "Cash to Buzz" Racket

More madcap misadventures from Nalts, (self-described "Viral Video Genius"), this time a spoof of buzz agentry

Get deez Nalts, too.

via Church of the Customer

Lonelygirl15 Season 01 Recap

Been a long time since we checked in on LonelyGirl15 since the expose. Nice recap video here:

Still doesn't make me want to tune in...but interesting to see they've managed to milk it. Nice work if you can get it.

User-Created: Simpsonize Me!

Aki Simpsoned


Alyson Simpsoned


Adam Simpsoned


Sarah Simpsoned


Murray Simpsoned


Lachlan Simpsoned


Avin Simpsoned


Get Simpsoned here!

Politics 2.0: Hillary Soprano

Hillary gets jiggy with the Web2.0ness. Check the "8 Things You Can Do" social/share features on this site, plus all the social net share buttons throughout. Beats headshots and a lame resume.



Though ObamaGirl is better.

Politics 2.0: SiCKO Seeks Your Stories

Michael Moore gets jiggy with the Web2.0ness.

Politics 2.0:CNN/YouTube Debates

Anderson Cooper and CNN get jiggy with the Web2.0ness.

Politics 2.0: "I Got a Crush On Obama"

Pollution Penance: "Column B"

glumbert.com - The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

Brand Cult: Mac Beautiful

Happy Slip sings a charmingly perverse (and unsolicited) ode to Apple.

Hip-Hop's "Unwelcome Attention" Returns: Jay-Z Endorses Ace of Spade Champagne

Ugh. I won't even begin to try and recap the history on this Jay-Z vs Cristal feud.

But months after boycotting Louis Roederer Cristal, Jay-Z has found a new bubbly to enjoy. According to reports, the rap mogul is close to signing a deal to endorse Ace of Spade, an Armand De Brignac champagne featured in the rapper's video for the song "Show Me What You Got." Jay-Z also mentions Ace of Spade in the hit single and in the video, the rapper is seen opening a brief case during a card game. The brief case contains a bottle of Armand de Brignac, known for its solid gold-plated bottle and Ace of Spades shaped label.

Although the deal isn't official, Armand de Brignac president/CEO Brett Berish welcomed the attention his brand has received from Jay-Z. "Jay-Z has always demonstrated the highest standards and finest taste, and we're honored to see Armand make an appearance in 'Show Me What You Got,'" Berish said.

A Google search nets a lot of press release matter about how Armand de Brignac has been produced for "centuries" and is only now being imported stateside after enjoying success in France. But wait...Armand, who?

Further Google search reveals a story on Gawker, who calls bulls**t.

According to Gawker and HipHopGame, Armand de Brignac is a new stealth brand created by Cattier Champagne, to all appearances exclusively for its cameo in the Jay-Z video (and likely subsequent appearances and distribution in his clubs, etc.). Perhaps the best part: The Cattier bottle and vintage ("Antique Gold") that likely matches the relabeled "Armand de Brignac" sells for around $60 tops. "Armand de Brignac" reputedly goes for $300.


Nice hustle if you can pull it.

Mass Interactive: McFly 2015

The McFlys won't die!

For the uninitiated, Marty McFly (aka Michael J Fox) sported the fictional Nike moonboots in the year 2015 in the '80s film Back To The Future 2.

One would assume that Nike has heard the clamoring by now and surely have put these Air McFlys on the SKU plan for 2015. The latest consumer demand tactic: sign the petition, with your email and shoe size - a company can't refuse ACTUAL SHOE ORDERS now can they?

*These McFlys might be the only sneaks that Murray Hardie doesn't own (yet).

Get fly


via Freshness Mag

Politics 2.0: "Vote Different/1984" Ad

San Francisco Chronicle says it "represents a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising."



This Pro-Obama/Anti-Hillary video recently introduced on YouTube represents "a new era, a new wave of politics ... because it's not about Obama," says Peter Leyden, director of the New Politics Institute, a San Francisco-based think tank on politics and new media. "It's about the end of the broadcast era."

So far - 3million views and counting on YouTube since its early March debut!

This user-created mashup has "changed the zone" between political campaigns, their followers and the Internet, says Simon Rosenberg, president of the Washington-based New Democrat Network, an influential party advocacy group based in Washington, D.C.

With presidential campaigns now poised to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising that will blanket television before November 2008, this seemingly home-produced video -- created with software and a laptop, and likely without the benefit of a team of expensive political consultants -- opens a new window, Rosenberg said. It has dramatized a brave new world in which passionate activists outside the structure of traditional campaigns have the power to shape the message -- even for a presidential candidate.

The ad is proof that "anybody can do powerful emotional ads ... and the campaigns are no longer in control," Rosenberg said. "It will no longer be a top-down candidate message; that's a 20th century broadcast model."

It also dramatizes that today, political activists with the Internet as their ammunition have gone from being "just donors to the cause," he said, "to being partners in the fight. And they don't have to wait for permission."

via WSJ, SF Chronicle, NYTimes