You’re not a Product: But You are Your Presence

You’re not a Product: But You are Your Presence: "


Here is the article I contributed to the May 2010 issue of Dan Schawbel’s “Personal Branding Magazine” entitled: “You’re not a Product: But You are Your Presence”:


Are people products when it comes to branding? The answer is somewhat complex. When we expect companies to become more “human” we often forget just how inconsistent humans are. We can be overwhelming responsible overall and still act like fools on occasion. Yet, when it comes to a public image – especially online, first impressions do matter. Likewise, our continued online presence has a strong bearing on our business: who we are affects who responds to us – and how they respond. You don’t need to be a walking slogan, but should be aware of perceptions.


The web already includes facets of you: mentions about what you do and images from gatherings, to name just a few. Social Media can you help represent yourself optimally. Take Twitter for example, where you’re able to prove yourself as an expert in your field, while simultaneously conveying the person behind the work. You’re already endearing, right? So leverage that fully.


Firstly, take control of your Twitter background and make it as evocative of your personal/business front. (And unless your business caters to fly-vision don’t tile the background with an image.) Include your url and have your bio describe what you want to be recognized for/as. Know that you can only be seen to be so many things. I know someone whose business card has at least 12 distinct professions including “Pilot”, “Film Director” and “Psychic”. It makes him seem sub-par at all. Such is the case when a bio includes “Doctor, Real Estate Agent, Career Coach”. What are the key things you do? Just like a first date, no one expects (or wants) to know everything right off the bat.


And when you tweet, don’t always be “on message”. Someone who only talks about business – especially his business – is a dull fellow indeed. Who are you after work? Again, you don’t have to be too revealing but do let people in on your interests. You don’t want to give the impression that you wear a tie in your leisure time and mumble “I can increase your sales with just one click “in your sleep.


Of course, you’re there to make friends and influence people, so be sure to answer questions, offer advice, help people and share valuable information. The beauty is that you don’t have to shill yourself: by virtue of participating in these ways, you showcase your expertise.


And always be mindful of what you say. In real life, your interactions have social cues and a greater context, so every comment matters less. It’s worth checking how your Twitter posts (as well as status updates on other sites, post comments etc.) appear when read in succession. Do you frequently complain or use negative phrasing? Looking at the content objectively, what would you surmise about this person?


A person isn’t really a product. But if you optimize your web presence you might find yourself selling yourself – without needing to hard sell.



Note: Now online – video of my Northern Voice talk on “Finding Your Online Voice”.

Share/Bookmark

//




Filed under: social media


"

6 Tips For Experimenting With Web Video

6 Tips For Experimenting With Web Video

Facebook’s ambition

Facebook’s ambition: "

Is this how the web looks to Facebook?


Ambition.


It’s the one word that kept coming up in conversations I had around the halls today at Facebook’s F8 event. Whenever I heard that word it was clear we were talking about Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook. Compared to last week’s weak moves by Twitter, where its CEO barely even announced anything, yesterday’s moves by Facebook were huge.


OK, I heard another few words:


“Visionary.”


“Scary.”


“Huge.”


“Unbelieveable.”


“Blown away.”


“Zuck has balls.” or “Facebook has balls.”


“Big moves.”


Heck, listen to David Kirkpatrick, who worked for Fortune for more than 20 years and just finished a book, Facebook Effect, about Facebook. I catch up with him here before the press conference, which happened just after Zuckerberg and team made tons of announcements:



Listen to the words he uses: “This is not just another company, it is a transformational phenomenon.”


“It is really great, but it is really scary in some ways too.”


By the way, after I talk with David I talk with quite a few other movers and shakers in the tech press in that video so you can get a sense of how we all reacted to the news. Then, at about 20 minutes into that video you get to see the full press conference (I have the only video of it on the Web that I’ve seen so far).


Before I explain more about what I mean when I say Facebook wants to own your digital fingerprints, there are a few other reactions I want to get in here. The first is with a couple of guys from the National Hockey League. Listen to how excited they are about the new features they turned on yesterday on NHL.com. You can “like” every player there. Some players already have hundreds of likes in just the first few hours.



Then watch how Pandora’s CTO, Tom Conrad, describes Facebook’s moves and how Pandora is now much more social because of these changes. “Mark is right when he says Web experiences want to be social.”



Finally, head over to Facebook’s official site and watch some of the videos if you haven’t seen them yet.


WHY IS THIS SO AMBITIOUS?


These moves are ambitious for a few reasons:


1. It gets Facebook plastered all over the web. Already Facebook likes are on many many sites and I’d expect to see Facebook’s new social features to show up on at least 30% of the web’s most popular sites within a month.

2. It lets us apply our social graph “fingerprint” to sites we visit. You do this by adding social plugins to your site, which is pretty easy to do.

3. It lets us apply our behavior “fingerprint” to sites we visit. Again, by adding social plugins onto your sites.

4. Facebook gets to study everything we touch now and will bring a much more complete stream back to the mother ship. This lets them build new analytics features for publishers, too, as All Facebook’s Nick O’Neill writes, but now Facebook will have the best data on the web for advertisers to study.

5. Facebook gets us to keep our profile data up to date. Marketer Ed Dale nailed why this is such a big deal.

6. Facebook gets to overlay a commerce system, called Credits, on top of all this. Justin Smith of Inside Facebook writes about that.

7. Facebook has opened up to enable all this stuff to flow back and forth and has removed the 24-hour limitation on storing data gained from its API. This is probably the biggest deal for developers, Inside Facebook writes about that, but they’ve also made their API more granular so that sites can ask for, and get, very specific data instead of getting everything stored on a user. We’ll be talking about this for a while, because it actually has good implications for privacy.

8. All this new data will enable Facebook to build new kinds of search experiences, as All Facebook hints at in a post where they say Facebook is trying to build a version fo the semantic web. Search Engine Land goes further in detail about what these changes will mean.

9. It lets Facebook minimize the need for a “public” fan page, like mine. Inside Facebook explains more in detail why this is true. Mostly because they’ll spit all those bits over onto my blog, if I add the code to my blog (which I’m pretty sure I will).

10. Finally a stream of focused bits for the people who are actually visiting your page can be pushed back out to you, as Inside Facebook demonstrates.

11. They made the API much simpler and shipped a powerful graph API so more developers can build apps for Facebook (this has been one of the advantages of Twitter, for instance, because Twitter’s API was simple to figure out). Heck, you can even hit it from a web browser to see what it returns. Here is what it returns for http://graph.facebook.com/scobleizer (if you want to try it yourself, just include your Facebook name instead of mine).


All this Web belongs to me


Is this all a deal with the devil, as RWW asks? Absolutely! Sebastien Provencher has another concern: that Facebook will gather data but not sure the goodies back (like analytics and monetization). GigaOm’s Liz Gannes notes that Facebook now is a single point of failure for the Web. Leo Laporte says he won’t use the new Facebook features on his sites. Dave Winer goes even further and says that the answer to all this must be “no.”


These are legitimate concerns. Let’s explore why:


Let’s key in on #2: your social graph — the people connected to you in various ways — is a fingerprint. My social graph is different than yours. So, when I click “like” on a hockey player on NHL, I’ve applied my fingerprint to that hockey player. Now what if 1,000 other people do that? That site really has a lot of details about the average user that’s visiting: details they never would have had access to before. But that’s not what’s scary. What’s scary is the traffic boost that these sites will get. Why? Because those 1,000 people will drag all their friends over. Actually, no, that’s not scary either.


What we’re really scared about is another very powerful company is forming. One that we don’t yet fully trust. Heck, just a few years ago Facebook erased me from the web for 24 hours. I can’t forget that, even though now I’m good friends with most of the Facebook execs. Let’s say Facebook wanted to kick you off the system, it could, and that could have deep implications for your business, career, etc.


Now go further, we’re all going to be very addicted to Facebook’s new features very quickly. The website that doesn’t have Facebook “likes” on it will seem weird in a few months. In a few years? Almost every site, I predict, will have them, and the other components that you can check out above (and more that will come soon, both from Facebook as well as other developers).


My fears are that Facebook might turn evil and use its position against organizations, the way that Apple locks out organizations from shipping apps (do you have Google Voice app on your iPhone yet? I don’t). Imagine if Facebook wanted to turn off the New York Times, for instance. It could. And that’s a LOT of power to give to one organization, even one that’s earned my trust like Facebook has. This is why I keep hoping Google has a clue (so far it hasn’t).


Tomorrow during the Gillmor Gang I’ll try to talk about the identity fingerprints that Facebook now has under its control. It is a scary world, but one that has huge benefits to all of us.


Today I told someone like I felt like I was at the completion of a major piece of commerce infrastructure that would affect our lives for decades. I likened it to the cross-continental railroad. Remember that? Well it changed the world. It opened the west. Made new careers possible. Let fresh food from California get to Chicago before it spoiled and all that. But it created an organization that had a LOT of power that wasn’t always used well.


Today I told Zuckerberg that he now has the modern-day railroad in his grasp and challenged him to both win our trust and not abuse the major power he’s going to aggregate.


So far I’m hearing all the right things from him and the employees around him. They know that this is a major, ambitious, move and they are going to move carefully and deliberately from here. They better or else we’ll see regulators move into control this business like we’ve never seen in our industry. One CEO, who asked not to be named, told me in the hallways today that Facebook is now a utility that the industry is going to rely on and he noted that utilities usually are heavily regulated to make sure that they don’t abuse the power they have over people and businesses.


The moves Facebook made today ARE that significant. Don’t miss Facebook’s ambition.


Oh, and if you’d like to hear more later today we’ll do a special Gillmor Gang and we’ll have Bret Taylor of Facebook on to fill in more details at noon Pacific Time. Watch building43 live then.

"

Apple Didn’t Kill Flash, HTML5 Did

Apple Didn’t Kill Flash, HTML5 Did: "

The battle over Flash and its role (or lack thereof) on the iPhone came to a head today when Apple CEO Steve Jobs published an open letter explaining why his company won’t support Flash on the iPhone, iPod touch and iPad.

Adobe CEO Shantanu Narayen spoke with The Wall Street Journal to deliver his response. Unsurprisingly, the arguments from both parties are self-serving in parts and gloss over some realities.

It’s time to cut through the BS and, in turn, determine what the Apple-Adobe feud means for consumers and developers.


H.264 Rules Web Video, Not Flash


For most end-users, the debate over Flash is largely a debate about web video. Yes, Flash is used in other ways — for web-based games and ever-decreasingly in website design — but thanks in large part to YouTube, Flash is most commonly associated with web video.

In his letter, Steve Jobs highlights a point that I have made myself on many occasions: Web video is overwhelmingly encoded in H.264. Not only is the H.264 codec the default encoding setting for practically every video service online, it is also by and large the default codec for raw video from digital video cameras. That means that if you upload video from your Flip camera directly to YouTube, it doesn’t have to convert that video into a new format, which requires more time and resources.

Adobe started to support H.264 back in 2007, essentially buying Flash time as a video container without forcing video services like YouTube to transcode the native H.264 video into something else that Flash could use.


HTML5 Is the Best Way to Deliver Video on Mobile


The problem for Flash isn’t that it can’t adapt to contain other types of video; it is that software and hardware, particularly on the mobile side, have moved in a direction that natively supports the playback of H.264 content. Why bother using a container if you can play the file natively and get the memory advantages of not having a container plus hardware optimization?

Even on devices that support Flash Lite, the video experience is almost always optimized for H.264. HTML5 just makes the process easier to integrate across multiple platforms. While the proprietary and licensed nature of H.264 has turned some browser makers away from supporting H.264 in the HTML5 video standard (Mozilla and Opera are the most vocal opponents), mobile devices that already have it licensed by hardware vendors are going to use the technology. The quality, player experience and even live stream and ad insertion abilities of HTML5 are expanding all the time as well.


Look at the Sublime Player demo from Jilion for a great example of what can be done with HTML5 and web video. SublimeVideo is working on a solution that will serve HTML5 video by default in mobile browsers, Safari, Google Chrome and Internet Explorer 9, and serve Flash video by default in browsers such as Firefox and Opera.

The fact that so many web video providers are working to embrace HTML5 isn’t because Apple doesn’t support Flash, but because it is the best way to deliver video to all smartphone users. With or without Apple, the shift to native playback is where web video is headed.


Flash Hasn’t Proven Itself on Mobile


Even if you completely disagree with Apple’s position on Flash, the reality is this: Flash has not proven itself on mobile platforms. Specialized systems like Popbox, the new TiVo Premiere and some other embedded iTV systems aside, as a technology Flash has existed almost solely in the desktop browser.

Flash 10.1 is supposed to be the first version of Flash that will actually ship on a number of mobile phones in a way that is more than just Flash Lite. Flash Lite, which is the current implementation that some Windows Mobile and Android phones support, is not a great experience. It doesn’t have hardware acceleration and is limited in terms of what types of content it can support.

Adobe claims that Flash will be shipping on supported devices later this summer, but at this point, I’ll believe it when I see it. It also looks like the minimum requirements are going to be the equivalent of what the Nexus One offers, meaning it will only be available on the high end of the smartphone market, not the mid or low-end. The promise of Flash on mobile devices has been long in the making, but aside from demonstrations, it hasn’t happened.


Flash on Mobile Has Issues


Even on hardware that is supposed to support Flash, Flash is often not included. For instance, when Firefox Mobile was released for the Nokia N900, Flash support was removed at the last minute. Why? Because it wasn’t a good experience.

Even on Intel’s Atom platform, Flash has issues. This is why playing back fullscreen Hulu or HD YouTube clips is often painful on a netbook (even an ION or Tegra netbook). Again, Flash 10.1 is supposed to bring hardware acceleration that will make those types of processors handle video in more robust ways, but frankly, when there are still longstanding issues with Flash on x86 computers, how can we expect the transition to mobile to be problem free?

This isn’t to say Flash couldn’t become a killer, hardware optimized superb mobile platform — but at this stage, everything that Flash is so good at doing on the desktop isn’t happening with Flash on mobile devices. Rather than defend Flash’s performance on mobile devices with words, I’d much rather have Adobe actually release working products that show off why the technology can work well across platforms, including mobile.


One Size Never Fits All


It’s nice to get caught up in the fantasy of building an application that can be deployed on any type of device and work the same way across the board. Sun Microsystems called this “write once, run anywhere,” and it was the defacto slogan for Java. However, as anyone who has ever actually written for Java knows, the differences in Java virtual machines (JVM) means that that in practice, it can often take more time to try to debug a solution and get it working on another platform than it would to just write it natively for that platform.

Web applications are actually the closest example of “write once, run anywhere” actually working. Even then, browsers still need to be optimized for specific platforms in order to run applications built using web languages. This is one reason why native application building for smartphones has become so popular: native applications usually offer a better experience than simply using the web.

It’s fine to aspire for solutions that will work well across a variety of platforms, but users need to continue to be aware of the technological realities that prevent that from happening. If nothing else, the Apple-Adobe debate highlights that computer software — web based or otherwise — is not one size fits all.



For more technology coverage, follow Mashable Tech on Twitter or become a fan on Facebook




Reviews: Android, Facebook, Firefox, Google Chrome, Hulu, Internet Explorer, Opera, Safari, Twitter, YouTube

Tags: adobe, apple, Flash, HTML5, trending, web standards



"

Y,000,000,000uTube

Y,000,000,000uTube: "Three years ago today, Steve and I stood out in front of our offices and jokingly crowned ourselves the burger kings of media. We'd just made headlines by joining with Google in our shared goal of organizing the world's information (in our case, video) and making it easily and quickly accessible to anyone, anywhere. Today, I'm proud to say that we have been serving well over a billion views a day on YouTube. This is great moment in our short history and we owe it all to you.

Looking back at those early days, we were committed to some basic principles that have since become fundamental tenets in the world of online video:
  • Speed matters: Videos should load and play back quickly.
  • Clip culture is here to stay: Short clips are voraciously consumed and perfect for watching a wide variety of content.
  • Open platforms open up possibility: Content creation isn't our business; it's yours. We wanted to create a place where anyone with a video camera, a computer, and an Internet connection could share their life, art, and voice with the world, and in many cases make a living from doing so.
Three years after the acquisition, our platform and our business continue to grow and evolve. We are still committed to the same principles that informed the site early on, but we know things have changed. As bandwidth has increased, so has our video quality. As we've started to see demand for longer, full-length content, we've brought more shows and movies to the site. There are now more ways than ever to make and consume content, and more of you are looking to turn your hobby into a real business. We're working hard to keep up with the fast pace of technology to bring you everything you would expect from the world's largest video site: better quality; a full spectrum of choices and tools for users, partners and advertisers; and ways to make the YouTube experience your own anywhere, anytime.

Chad Hurley, CEO and Co-founder


"

The Future of Television & TV Ratings - BusinessWeek

The Future of Television & TV Ratings - BusinessWeek

How Do I Get Paid to Speak About Online-Video Marketing?

How Do I Get Paid to Speak About Online-Video Marketing?: "

Hey, readers. I like to share on this blog, and not ask you for help. But I’ll be damned if I’m not stuck.


I’ve been speaking at industry conferences and corporations, but haven’t figured out how to get paid. Now that I have a book contract with Wiley (tentatively named “Beyond Viral Video: Online Marketing Strategies and Tactics”), I believe I can fetch $5-$15K to speak at companies or events. Heck- I’ve seen my former employers pay $50K for some dopey book author who gave a generic powerpoint for an hour. I’ve got unique knowledge as a marketer and most-viewed YouTube guy, and I love informing, engaging and entertaining audiences.


Here’s my credentials page I just wrote up (it’s pretty compelling so click here and memorize it). Would appreciate any tips on how to have someone else market or represent me… ideally someone that’s the “go to” firm for corporations needing specialized marketing skills.


I’m not right for a motivational-speaking firm, but maybe one that companies go to when they need to experts on specific topics like mine (emerging media, video marketing, social media, etc.). For that matter, I’d like to start charging conferences (which I know is tough unless you’re a former CEO or celebrity). Conferences are a nice chance to network and build street credibility, but I’m doing 4 conferences in the next week from Nevada to Canada, and giving away free tips about online-video marketing… Would be nice to get some cash for the time it takes. The free airfare and hotel are nice, but they don’t cover the mortgage.


And just look at that face? Don’t you just want to pay this guy to get your company jazzed and informed about emerging media, online video, social media, and marketing!?


Killer Emerging-Media Marketing Speaker & Evangalist

Killer Emerging-Media Marketing Speaker & Evangalist


Share/Bookmark"
Copyright © 2014 video online