So I found this on a pr/marketing firm’s website…and I think they raise an interesting question. Let’s look at this statement:
“Successful companies tell their stories well. Multiple channels today allow for storytelling on many levels. Our team helps clients tell those stories in the traditional way as well as through the digital and social media channels. It’s one thing to get good publicity and another to leverage it. We also help clients navigate the choppy waters of storytelling in less than ideal situations. Our advice to clients is simple: Tell your own story (good, bad or ugly) and tell it fast or someone else will.”
Yes…so who is telling your story? You? Your organization? The people in the organization? What is a good story?
I want to spend a few minutes sharing a few key points that truly resonated with me. Most importantly, this article Wharton blog post reinforces the notion that leadership not only must support digital initiatives as business strategy, but they must be deeply a part of the conversation.
The most important paragraph:
“Business model risk is today’s biggest strategic risk, and companies without boards that are digitally savvy could find themselves starved of investor capital, according to this opinion piece written by Deloitte & Touche partners William J. Ribaudo and Henry Ristuccia; Barry Libert, CEO of OpenMatters, and his associate Megan Beck Fenley.”
It is time…time to take ownership of our media. What do I mean…well, we have to take ownership of all our media properties and not allow outside forces to have control of our message.
A few weeks ago, Greenville Hospital System rebranded and became Greenville Health System. They put together a great strategic plan to “flip the switch” on March 18th. Literally the evening of March 17th, all websites owned and operated under their umbrella lost their individual identities and took on the new web look as Greenville Health System. All social media properties took on the same look across the whole system.
This took lots of preplanning, pre-creative design, and lots of code work…so over a six hour span…all became one. GHS went from a house of brands to a branded house in a one night switch.
This is taking ownership of media…except one little detail did not come together as “planned.” In all honesty, it was hard to foresee this small situation. On that Monday, the day of the switch, television stations across the region began playing their beautiful, new television spots sharing the new branded message.
Lots of time, effort, and resources were invested in the creation of these beautifully produced televisions spots. But…GHS was not the first to share these spots on the social space. A few days later, the video production company released these spots on their company YouTube and Facebook outlets.
As I watched the newsfeed…my heart sank. I asked myself, why were we (GHS) not the first to share these spots from our social outlets. How does this happen? Is it really a big deal? Is there someone to blame? I have no idea if we should get upset or even bothered over something like this? Or…do you get excited that the production group is proud to share your message. And guess what…they did a wonderful job on the production…here is a link to one of the spots and they are beautiful (btw they were shot with a Red Camera).
What Can We Learn?
In a perfect world, this is how I see this “should” have happened (this is based on my limited knowledge of planning behind the production of the television spots):
1. When the production company is contracted to help create and craft television spots, the contract should reflect ownership of media assets. Specifically, who owns the rights to the content and how this content can be shared publicly.
2. Companies/Organizations should require all production companies to provide final media assets to them for all electronic distribution. What do I mean, all television spots should be provided and ready for distribution on all media outlets from television to online at the same time.
3. Coordinated release schedule should be created and implemented. This plan stipulates the days and times when each outlet will release these elements from television to online. These should be a coordinated effort between the production company, agency, and organization. So if the television spot is scheduled to be released on YouTube the same day it is released on television, the “traffic” plan should detail this plan along with who needs to be involved in this distribution. Usually the organization is the only one who has access to their social outlets.
4. YouTube and social share is just as important as the television release. This was proven with the Audi commercials from the 2012 SuperBowl. Audi released the 30 second spots on television and YouTube at the same time during the 2011 Super Bowl. This created the opportunity for social share…the television spot had a hashtag #solongvampires … so when people watched on television, they went to YouTube to find the video then tweeted it out using the hashtag. Within the first week after release, this created over a million views on YouTube and many million impressions on Twitter.
5. Production company’s social outlets (like YouTube) should not be the place where an organization’s television spot calls “home” and are first released. Why…because the production companies are not the owners of the branded message. The branded company/organization has the right to capitalize on the digital impact of the television spots, especially since it represents their branded message. The television spots should live on the organization’s branded video social outlet (like YouTube & Vimeo).
6. Production companies should make it standard practice in their agreements stipulating who owns the rights to this content, which includes (but not limited to) social media/digital media outlets.
7. Companies/Organizations should make sure their production agreement stipulates the branded organization reserves the first right of online distribution. The organization should be the first to share, then invite production company vendors to share (only after the organization has publicly released).
8. THIS IS IMPORTANT – the production company must share the video from the organization’s YouTube/Vimeo video outlet. SEO is important in this game of digital brand equity.
What can we learn from this? Owning our media is important. Now a little disclosure…I work with GHS. I do not look at this as a critique of GHS but more of a learning experience that should help us plan for the future. Who would have thought that the production company would be the first to share these spots online *and* would it be a big deal? We learned…this can happen and will happen again if we (as digital strategiest) do not plan accordingly.
I learned something from this experience. I must be more diligent when putting together social/digital distribution plans. I will also make sure I write better contracts/agreements with my production clients.
For GHS…they do not want others to leverage their brand, their message, their digital equity. It is important to applaud production companies for sharing the work they create. We want them to share…but it should not be at the expense of the organization’s digital message.
Ok…so the image above was captured at 2:48pm Tuesdayand this article was written at 1:32pm Tuesday afternoon, EDT. Yes…
“The U.S. women’s team has won the gold medal in the gymnastics team final with a superlative performance and an overall score of 183.596. Russia scored a 178.530 to take the silver and Romania won the bronze with a score of 176.414.”
Ok…who cares other than the fact that this is the first time since 1996.
“Gabby Douglas, Jordyn Wieber and Aly Raisman delivered impressive floor routines to clinch the first team gold for the U.S. since the ‘Magnificent Seven’ won in 1996.”
It is a big day for the US…well, kind of?
Of course, since the Olympics are broadcasted on NBC via tape delay…most Americans will not be able to see this victory until Thursday evening. Well, most Americans…I guess?
Since Huffington Post and most news outlets posted this huge announcement via social media…the Twitter-verse has been exploding with excitement and people complaining about it spoiling the fun Thursday evening.
Tweets from around 3:08 Tuesday afternoon…people still talking spoilers. And even have moved on from talking about the Women’s Gymnastics spoiler.
So here is my question…will you be interested to see the viewership statistics for the television broadcasts and compare them to the NBC/YouTube live streaming viewership? People have the option to watch it live during the day online or watch later on their television.
This world phenomenon is going to have to solidify the distinction between television viewership and online consumption. Also…how much social media has played into the reporting of the Olympics in real time via Twitter, Facebook, and other social outlets?
I am looking forward to Nielsen to release the viewership comparison between online and television and relevant the impact from the social outlets. NBC Television scored big numbers for the opening ceremonies “with 40.7 million people tuning in for the opening ceremony, making it the most-watched opening ceremony for a summer or winter Olympics ever.” But what about days like today when something big happened in the middle of the day. It will be interesting to see the comparison!
Or will the social space sharing the results in real time turn into a tremendous marketing opportunity for NBC to capture viewership in the evening. People will want to see it with their own eyes.
You think it is a spoiler when Huffington Post and other media outlets posted immediately on their websites that the Women’s Gymnastics Team won?
Spolier alert…maybe people are moving to online viewing and social consumption for real time information. And maybe the networks and media giants have figured out how to leverage the social/digital space to attract audiences to watch on television? I am looking forward to seeing if people enjoyed the real time results via online versus waiting to watch the old tele.
On thing I have learned over the past 4-5 years working with groups in the social media/digital space: social technologies has provided one heck of a platform for individuals and brands to become overt, expository, and exclamatory in an expedient fashion. Especially when it comes to taking a “stand” or “position” on a topic.
Reed Smith posed this question yesterday on Facebook: “Is it Possible To Be Too Social?”
Now his context for this question was based on frequency…but with the recent barrage of social advocates overloading our walls from politics, healthcare, and even the recent Chick-Fil-A situation; this has me thinking through a different lens.
I am amazed each day what I read on my news feed, on Twitter, the memes that are posted, and how we de-contextualize information to meet our needs. We live in a cut-and-paste, digital recycle world where we take information and reuse to fit our messaging needs.
I often wonder, would the same conversations that happen online happen offline? Would we be more open to conversation offline or would we use the same “hunt and kill” mentality, hiding behind the keyboard, and sharing our inner thoughts like we do online?
There are so many people and individuals that I meet that are nothing like the personalities they portray in the online space. This bi-polar online/offline life we lead leads me to wonder…who am I talking to in person.
Admit it, you have fallen victim to his moment of “rage,” getting caught in the moment wanting to one-up a person online, getting caught in a feud that leads to a Facebook thread three screen shots deep. Before you know it…you wonder who was that person behind that avatar that wrote those rebuttal statements…is that me?
So here is the question, what does it mean to be too social? Is it frequency? Frequency has a lot to do with it…and I do not mean the number of times you communicate a marketing message. I mean the frequency of hours we spend online…developing an online brand that does not coincide with our offline personality.
And we as marketers that manage brand’s appearance online…we end-up having multiple personality disorder. We are typing on our Facebook page, then posting for our brand…hoping that we do not send out that party picture to the wrong social account. Admit it…you have done it before. You just have to know how to delete it REAL FAST.
Are we too “Social”? Well, if it means online…the retail brands hope so, they want your attention and want you to advocate for their cause. I would be willing to bet that Chick-Fil-A is happy with the image above…the 811 comments posted (which leads to shares). But would you say that same thing in person to someone you know that does not agree? With that same expository tone? That same shout with conviction? Would you be proud of that commet after your family members, peers, or even work relationships see that exclamation? Or would wait to get online talk about them later?
What is your ethic and where do you stand online and offline…and are they the same voice? Are we telling the same story? I think we (including myself) need to check ourselves at the door from time to time.
I am continuing my thought process surrounding how we as organizations/businesses have to own our media. But this takes on a fundamental thought process and radical shift in how we do business…we have to truly own our media by building our team.
For so many years…large organizations have allowed agencies and firms to own the “brand’s” message. They were tasked and empowered to do the brand research, create the strategy, build the message, construct the media, distribute the media, and track the results. As we move into the digital world, ownership of media assets is coming more and more key to the success of organizations. This is from ownership of URL’s (domains), website access, video content, and now social media ownership.
I have always advocated that organizations and business should take an ownership role in owning their media and communications. They should not be restricted by third party vendors how to access the online tools that support their brand. This goes all the way down to who owns the right to update social outlets, who can change the website copy, share a Twitter update, create a video message. Organizations (specifically brands) should own their media and how they share this message…but to support this philosophy, their has to be a staff in place to push this philosophy forward.
Large organizations like hospitals and higher education institutions are battling this issue. Who creates the Facebook updates, Twitter updates, video messages, blog posts, etc. Should it be the people that work inside the brand or the vendors that support the brand. I think the vendors should help brands create a strategy and create workflows for organizations to own their branded message and build a community.
1) You have to have a new media/social staff in place. These people inside your organization have to be able to not only understand the marketing/pr initiatives but also be able to have the skills to design, develop, implement, and share the content created. They have to be the ultimate brand ambassadors who not only help create the community…*but* empower others in the organization to share the message. A Community Manager is a good place to begin but you also need: – New media staff that can create and update web properties (from design to programming). – Video professional(s) that can create video messages and manage video content managements systems like YouTube, Vimeo, and other private portals.
– Creative writers who not only can create copy for online properties, but help write scripts for video content.
2) Create an advisory team to support the organization. Hospitals are a prime example of this silo based organization. As a consultant, I spend more time working with service lines and departments that are creating social/web portals that do not meet the organization’s goals. This advisory team empowers, educates, and helps implement organization strategy so the online properties are successful. This team can be made up of representatives across the organization that directly interface with the part of the organization that manages these online spaces. Let them be a part of the strategy help empower them to build the community.
3) Have an senior new/social media team in place that builds community strategy goals and initiatives. This team is a part of the visual branding process and also implements strategies to track success for this online properties.
Owning our media has become ever important, one that is harder now is to wrangle a team together. So many times I walk into an organization and I ask, who updates your website, your Facebook page(s), domains, etc. How can we control our message and be a part of the community when we do not even have controlling access to our digital properties. The organization many times knows their brand message the best…why not empower the branded organization own the process, the media that is shared.
Where are the leaders? where are they and where are they pushing this social/digital space forward?
There is a big conversation happening right now and it is repeatable…so repeatable. We are just repeating the same stuff over and over and over again. We have a few innovators in this digital/social space and they have done a great job monetizing…monetizing the paradigm of followers.
I have to admit, I blame twitter and the “UI” they created with twitter. The idea of “follower” has permeated the social space. There were and still are so many leaders who embarked on a journey of how to use the space…to build their business. And yes, they gained a hell of a lot of followers and now they are repurposing their blog for books. The best part…they are still talking about the same stuff since the early craze of the social space. The same stuff over and over, no new innovative thinking.
We are still following, retweetting, and resharing the same information and it has a velocity of epic proportion…this velocity is not creating new thought leadership and new innovative concepts. This following, retweeting, and resharing is filling their pocket books and limiting the innovation need to push this space forward. So why are we still depending on yesterday’s innovators for tomorrows wave of new thought leadership?
Conference after conference I attend…we are still having the same conversation…so where are the new wave of social innovators. Who is pushing the envelop? Who is pushing the space and proving that they can build communities and make money.
I think the innovators are the ones that are not the social/digital consultants…they are the real business people who have figured out how to use these tools and are now leveraging these spaces to solve their business problems. And guess what…they are not using the conversation of fear…they are creating and innovating. They are creating great content, solving big problems, and using social/digital tools that we share, retweet, pin, and leverage.
So…where are you innovators. You need to be leading these conferences and teach us consultants a thing or two. Why, because you are the innovators, creating new communities, solving problems (your problems) because you are owning your content.
It is all about owning your content and innovating yourself. We consultants are leveraging your case-study to share with the world to act smart, but you are the smart ones. Owning content is fun because it your tangible result, and you are obtaining a return the metric you have figured out.
I have thought about it over and over again. If i was to build a social/digital conference…I would not let one single social/digital consultant speak or share a presentation. I would bring real practitioners to the table, from different industries, and let them show us how they built “THEIR” communities. Why…they have owned their content and learned how to monetize their work.
As the news came down Sunday night about Osama Bin Laden’s death…the online universe erupted. The televisions were not even on in our house around 10:45pm. I had just picked up my iPad to check email and Twitter before bed. In my “News” list, numerous tweets coming across from local and national media outlets about a Presidential news conference at 10:30pm. It was 10:45pm…I was wondering what the hell I was missing on a Sunday night.
As I was walking back to the bedroom, more tweets were coming across speculating what the announcement was going to be via the President. That told me that the news conference was running late…this was going to be huge. Speculation was tweeting across my “News” list with a consistent theme, Osama Bin Laden was dead. WOW. Then, I noticed this tweet.
Yep! Ok…let me rewind just a bit from the weekend. I had just had a similar conversation with Jodi Gersh who is Manager of all Social Media for Gannett. Gannett is a huge media company with numerous television stations, newspapers, and online media sites under their umbrella. The discussion, how media organizations use social outlets to break news events. Do they report speculation via social outlets or do they wait to confirm the story? Or, do they tweet that they are working on a story trying to confirm the validity of the breaking news.
Do you remember back when Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was shot earlier this year in Tucson, AZ? Many major news outlets tweeted and reported that she had been killed in the shooting, later to retract the report that she was still alive. Mallary Jean Tenore wrote in her article for the Poynter Institute that “Conflicting reports of Giffords’ death were understandable, but not excusable”. I agree.
Social outlets are a great way to break news to a mass audience. But, look at that tweet again: “Obama doesn’t even need to address nation anymore. Twitter made it old news What were jwere ust talking abt? Power of SM”. Other than poor spelling when trying to type so fast to get the tweet out…there is a bit to analyze.
There are two claims embedded in this tweet:
Claim Number One:
The claim here is that just because the tweet came across at 10:53pm, we DO NOT need to confirm the claim that Osama Bin Laden had been killed or died. I disagree. What the tweet is referring to is that it had been reported that President Obama would be addressing the nation that Osama Bin Laden was dead….killed during a military operation by the US Military.
Claim Number Two:
This tweet claims that Social Outlets provided sufficient information for a mass audience to accept the “Truth” behind the un-confirmed death of Osama Bin Laden…AND the US Military was the party to cause his life to cease. Once again, a pre-mature assumption!
There is a lot of claim that lies in one tweet. I find tremendous value in examining.
OK…let’s back-up again to my discussion with Jodi Gersh of Gannett. We were also talking about the use of Social Media and the relevant purpose in reporting breaking news. Media companies believe that audiences still want to learn and understand. They have found that Social Outlets provide enough information to create interest in a story/breaking news, driving traffic online or to television to get the whole story. Context is King in this situation. The thought here is that people want to investigate and learn, read more, watch more, and get more information. In the world of Twitter, 140 characters is sometimes (if not all the time) is in-sufficient to give complete context behind the story.
Social Outlets like Twitter are extremely valuable in the minds of big media companies. It is a great way to build online relationships, establish credibility, and provide real time information. But ultimately, it provides a great outlet to share enough information so that it peaks the interest enough to go read more.
Now there is a whole separate conversation whether these Tweets or Status Updates generate enough interest or appeal for someone to pay once they click to read more, this paying for content. The whole pay-wall conversation is a separate discussion. My opinion, that tweet better be a damn good teaser to make someone click the link, pull out their wallet, enter their credit card information, and not loose interest in the story. This is a usability and user-centered design discussion as well.
Back to the subject at hand. When I noticed the tweet come across about the Presidential news conference late on a Sunday night…the first thing I did was scream at Sarah to turn on MSNBC. I think the tweet came from @NYTimes and the online newspaper does not provide real time information like real time television broadcast, IMHO. When I turned it on…the speculation kept me hooked until President Obama made his address.
So, how many Americans or how many people world wide took those tweets at face value and went to bed or on about their business. I think the numbers will help us out here. But, I think differently, those tweets created a pathway to television and online video streaming outlets to wait for the Presidential Address. We wanted to know more. Well, guess what….more than 56 million people watched President Obama and his Sunday night address (via TV by the Numbers). During President Obama’s address on Sunday night, there were more than 5000 tweets/second (via Metro.co.uk). That is a lot of damn tweeting and a lot of people watching this Presidential address.
Techcrunch.com writes that “Twitter Does Not Supplant Other Media, It Amplifies It” and I agree! It generates interest and we as consumers of information go to the place we consider credible to investigate more. The tweet by @DrJonathan above claims that Twitter made it old news. Well, I am not too sure about that…we are still analyzing the situation and even waiting for “confirmation” via photographs.
We are consumers of information and we will continue to search to learn more. But I guess @DrJonathan’s interpretation of old news is different from mine…well, I guess the word “news” in general.
So I have been thinking what makes video social? Yes….what makes our video content connect with audiences in a social, fluid environment. Well, it is my opinion that it comes down to technology and content. Seriously, there has to be relevant content that relates to an audience in a way that makes them have the desire to share. Then, once they want to share…it has to be supported by technology that does not prohibit the ability to share.
Recently I have been harping on Flash Video and how it marginalizes certain audiences…and this is all about technology. If I have a device and a friend shares a video with me, I click to watch and cannot view the content because the technology does not support Flash…then the video is not social.
So when I think about the technology aspect of social video, it can be broken into two arenas: enabling the ability to share the video and enabling the ability to search and find the video. But before we get to technology…let’s try to talk about characteristics of social video. So let’s think through this a bit…ways we can make our video content social.
Content:
The video message has to be compelling.
The video message has to have an action item.
The video appeals to our emotions.
The video message makes us want to share.
Technology:
The video has to be hosted and compressed so that it plays fluidly in majority of online environments.
The video player that displays the video is using the latest technology to meet your target audience’s devices needs. If it is HTML5, Flash, Quicktime, or what ever…it needs to be able to reach the largest section of audiences to consume the video content.
The video content has to be associated with searchable terms. We know what it means to make our webpages rich with searchable words…but now our video has to SEO rich. So whereever it is hosted, it must support searchable tags and video descriptions.
The video content must have a permalink to link directly to that video. You do want people to share your video, so it must have a link to post on social sites and email for reference.
The video content must have rich embed options. You want the masses have the ability to embed your video into your blogs, websites, and other online media outlets.
The video content needs to have the ability to have a title that is associated with the video. Places like YouTube and Vimeo provide that option to make the content searchable.
Let me give you two examples:
1) IT-oLogy Open House:
I worked on a project a few months ago with the sole purpose of telling the story of a new brand at an open-house. IT-oLogy was formerly the Consortium for Enterprise Systems Management. They were launching their new brand at the open house for their new building. So we produced a video that had all their partners and supporting agencies describing IT-oLogy in their own terms. We made the video fun, goofy, yet appealing to the 250 plus people that would attend.
When I showed up to make it play on their new big screen, the people were still installing the technology that supported video playback. So…we uploaded it to YouTube in full 1080p and played it on a big 50 foot screen from YouTube. They had the bandwidth to support the higher quality and it played well. When we uploaded it to YouTube…we made sure we named it properly, gave a rich description, and implemented logical tags. When people left, they wanted to go find the video. Why…because it was cool plus most of the people in the room knew the people in the video and wanted to share with their co-workers. They were able to embed in their blogs, email the YouTube link to their friends, share it on social outlets. A quality message maximizing technology to enable sharing.
2) My Class at Clemson
I was putting together a presentation about finding your passion. I found this great video called “Where good ideas come from.” I wanted to share it with my class during my afternoon session. I like to use my business Facebook page as a place to save cool links that I might want to comeback to later. So I posted the YouTube link to my Facebook page with a description of it’s intended purpose. So when I got to class, I pulled up the video from my Facebook page and played it for the class and they loved it. Afterwards, I noticed that a conversation started happening on Facebook under the link I posted.
The conversation was around entrepreneurship and where great ideas come from. People from the academic world, business world, entrepreneurs, etc. were commenting and discussion the underlying theme behind the video. At the same time, before I could email the link to my students, one of them posted the link to their Facebook page thanking me for sharing in class. That means that they were able to do a Google search for the video, find it, grab the link from the video, and share with her friends. Steven Johnson was the speaker in this video and a group called RSA Animate produced the visuals. These people not only inspired me to share with my friends, students, and colleagues….but they also inspired and enabled others to share. The content was engaging and inspiring and the technology was seamless to enable the ability to share.
What are your thoughts? How are you using video socially?
What the heck do I mean by this? Well…for many of us digital geeks out there, this might be a no-brainer. But…the world is changing in the Social Video space faster than someone can upload the next YouTube video.
If you want to compete in the viral, social marketing space…then just go ahead and give in to YouTube and Vimeo. Seriously…if you are self-hosting content or have vendors hosting video for you, then you are in a DARK DARK ROOM.
Over two years ago, I was pitching to clients to be skeptical of YouTube, Vimeo, and other free video hosting outlets. I was telling them that “they” own your content that is uploaded and you would have to worry about protecting your brand. Well…I was saying that because I was trying to sell video storage, compression, and distribution like I was the next big venture. GUESS WHAT…that game, that technology is just a commodity.
If you are a marketing department, you really need to know the following about your video content:
1) The ability to play your content over a wide range of devices from Windows, Macs, and Linux based desktops and laptops is necessary. You also need to be able to reach the real growing crowd…MOBILE DEVICES. With 4G here…we will be watching video content like we are drinking our favorite frosty beverage…GUZZLE, GUZZLE, GUZZLE. So…if someone cannot watch you latest marketing video because it is hosted using a Flash or WMV player…the you are marginalizing a large portion of your audience. HTML5 players are the next innovation for playback of your video content. Why do you think YouTube, Vimeo, Brightcove, Sorenson, and many others have implemented this technology.
2) The local production shop who is hosting your video DOES NOT have the SEO like YouTube and Vimeo can provide. Seriously, when you embed a video hosted on these two platforms…you are connecting some of the largest search engines to your page via the video content. When you upload the video to YouTube and Vimeo, you can provide a detailed description, tags, location where it was shot…and all of this follows the video when you embed it into your website. The local shop is not owned by a search engine, so they do not specialize in SEO. So if you are paying to host content on their private servers, then pay to have the final video released to you and upload it to your YouTube channel.
3) YouTube and Vimeo also come with a community. Yes, people are searching these sites for video content based on their interests and comment right below the video. So…the community is built around the content, engaging audiences beyond the website you have it embedded. The search engines like this!
4) The quality of the playback is great. You can look at HD quality video right over your home network. That is backed by huge teams of technology experts that make it their mission to make your picture quality look great. Why do you think Hollywood uses these outlets to release Trailers…hmm?
5) It is so CHEAP. YouTube is free and Vimeo is $60 per year. So why are you paying monthly fees for hosting when your marketing message cannot be viewed on some the latest mobile devices? I do not know, but you might want to reconsider.
This post is truely meant for viral marketing efforts for video. There is TREMENDOUS value in using private hosting and Flash video for private video messages. You not only can control the distribution, but you also force individuals to watch the content in specific types of technology. There is value in this model.
Thoughts…think I am crazy? There are some business that would like to scream at me…but oh well. Why am I writing about this…because large organizations are still operating in yesterday’s thinking.
