In a world where social media is opening up the floodgates of communication, why turn comments off on a YouTube homepage video buy?
(click on each image to see in greater detail)
I’ve been meaning to get around to this post. If you missed SXSW Interactive this year, do NOT miss it next year.
It was quite possibly the best Interactive conference I’ve ever attended. Full of academia and the cream of the interactive industry crop, it was incredibly stimulating.
Add this to your list of 2008 must-attend events.
On March 28, The Arizona Republic wrote a story called, “Ad agencies evolve to meet challenges“. Most of the comments in the article state that evolving agencies must “understand the consumer”, explore different financial models, and hire employees with multiple talents.
Angelo over at Valley PR Blog writes (via JaffeJuice) that agencies are too siloed, with traditional titles of “copywriter” and “creative director” being obsolete…
“In a fragmented and integrated media environment where designers must think like writers, media buyers understand the interactive space and so on, our titles pigeonhole us.”
What do I think?
While understanding the consumer is essential, it’s understanding evolving consumer and human behavior (yes, it’s evolving too) that’s actually more important. It’s not the titles that are pigeonholing us into silos, it’s lack of creativity.
In the advertising agency of “today”, it is everyone’s responsibility to be creative and innovative. Media planners must be as creative as creative directors…it’s just the application that’s different. Publicists need to be creative in their approaches to editorial outlets, but need to have an intimate understanding of the campaign, and how the media and creative work together. And marketing strategy is everyone’s concern.
The trick is making that happen as well in large agencies as well as small agencies.
If done the right way, with the right people, it can actually happen better. I’m watching it first-hand.
Via Valleywag & Nick Douglas, Mefeedia takes a good look at the state of the vlogosphere.
Most surprising stat: Blip.TV outranks YouTube.

My head hurts.
In an interesting turn of events, as reported by CNN Advertising.com will be managing ad inventory on the new YouTube “competitor”.
Makes perfect sense, as AOL is already a distribution partner and has the sales support to manage the processes and inventory. Interesting, though, that Fox Interactive Media wasn’t pulled into this.
Interesting, indeed.
* AppleTV is getting hacked to pieces. You know, in a good way. (New Tee Vee)
* AdBrite rolls out a new way to embed images in HTML that can actually make you money. Tacky, yes. Interesting, yes. (Valleywag)
* There’s more to do in the back seat than make whoopee. Sirius makes an exclusive deal with Chrysler to bring drivers Backseat TV. (Variety, subscription required)
* Porn (pr0n) 2 point oh! is here. I only know because I was doing some very important research. (BuzzFeed)
This is so wonderful, brilliant, amazing, and perfect. It’s AskANinja interviewing Jon Heder and Will Ferrell at the Blades of Glory junket.
In a column over at Marketwatch, John Dvorak explains that Apple should not take a chance on the iPhone because they’ve done everything right to date. He essentially wants Apple to settle on calling the iPhone a ‘reference design’, and let someone like Samsung do it. What they did with the iPod was enter a middling market with a killer device. The handset market, on the other hand, is ultra-competitive, with many chances to fail.
It’s actually a rather convincing argument.
But until or unless the device gets panned by critics and peers, I’m still willing to give Apple the benefit of the doubt here.
But I swear, I’m going to call shenanigans if all that phone does is attempt to get more people to buy things through iTunes, ala the AppleTV.