Mark Kolier’s Blog

Archive for the ‘Media’ Category

Being on the road again in mostly unfamiliar cities I have been using Yelp – www.yelp.com more and more. Enabled with GPS technology on my smartphone, Yelp allows me to search out the nearest coffee shops, wine bars, restaurants and other local places of interest from wherever I am. In fact as I was driving to the airport this evening I wished I could have used Yelp to find the nearest gas station prior to returning my rental car. But texting while driving (or in this case Yelping while driving) is a no-no so I did it the old fashioned way.

Yelp also offers user reviews of the various establishments listed. While the accuracy and unbiased nature of those reviews might be in question, it’s somewhat amusing to read what people wrote about their experiences in the various locations. I thought about how Foursquare links with your friends to check in at locations (and even sends updates to Facebook if you so desire) and it dawned on me that Foursquare and Yelp might be made for each other. I want to find a location for coffee on Yelp, I go there, then check in on Foursquare and tell my ‘friends’. I also can rate the place (something that Foursquare offers in terms of a comment but it is a vastly underused feature), and share that too.

Then the rating has much more meaning since it is going to my selected friends and is not a random posting on how some stranger liked or disliked an establishment. I know nothing about this person save for their name (and photo if they so choose to post that) on Yelp and thus their recommendation holds little value for me or anyone else.

As I have noted in previous posts, Facebook Places has picked up some of the elements of Foursquare but to this point Foursquare has not pulled their link to FB nor has FB dropped Foursquare as a partner.

The combination of Yelp and Facebook would make an attractive property don’t you think?

Articles this week in the Wall Street Journal http://on.wsj.com/aMR2bD and the New York Times http://nyti.ms/bLeAiA both covered the emergence of new technology that could be very useful while (to me) being extremely frightening at the same time. You can now think about owning your own personal drone. Ok maybe you have not given the idea much – or any – thought but the same might not be true of your neighbors.

Think about miniature flying drones ‘mounted with tiny cameras’ for the bargain price of $ 300 it was noted that personal drones would certainly not be welcomed by celebrities. The idea has generated the interest of the Federal Aviation Agency (FAA) which of course controls United States domestic airways. From the Journal article – ”The FAA doesn’t have explicit rules governing such uses, but Ms. Brown said an advisory that applies to pilotless drones recommends—but doesn’t require— that such aircraft be flown away from populated areas; away from regular airplanes; at an altitude below 400 feet; and that airports be notified if the craft is flying nearby. Mr. (attorney Raoul) Felder said the recreational exception could provide clever lawyers with an opening for use of the drones.”

”The ability to share software and hardware designs on the Internet has sped drone development”, said Christopher Anderson, founder of the website DIY Drones, a clearinghouse for the nearly 12,000 drone hobbyists around the world.

Let’s forget for a moment that there is a group of 12,000 drone hobbyists as I am having difficulty getting my tiny brain around that one. The military uses make total sense to me. But the idea of citizens having their own ‘personal drone’ to ‘keep an eye on things’ is (to me) a sure sign that the apocalypse is nearly here. The fact that they can only stay in the air 30 minutes at present is hardly a salve. For young Moms whose offspring are on that neighborhood play date things would never be the same. Once a kid comes home and says ‘Jimmy hit me’ and like Warner Wolf all Mom has to say is – ‘let’s go to the videotape!’ Or at least the digitally recorded files.

Mr. Felder, the divorce lawyer, said clever attorneys will find ways to get around FAA restrictions, perhaps by claiming their drones are for personal use—a distinction that should steer clear of FAA rules.
“This thing would be totally legal. There’s no violation of anybody’s premises,” he said. Thrilling.
Reassuringly the article in the Journal noted that Navy fighter pilot Missy Cummings predicted it’s just a matter of time before drone technology and safety improvements make the gadgets a common part of the urban landscape.

Privacy issues could emerge if such drones become common. While the military has rules of engagement governing drone use, there is no similar set of rules to protect privacy for domestic use of drones.
“If everybody had enough money to buy one of these things, we could all be wandering around with little networks of vehicles flying over our heads spying on us,” Ms. Cummings said. “It really opens up a whole new Pandora’s Box of: What does it mean to have privacy?” Of course there is the positive idea that personal drones would no doubt cut down on paparazzi car crashes since it would put a whole new spin on celebrity pursuits.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Are you as afraid of this technological leap as am I?

When I was a kid playing Monopoly was one of my favorite board games. It was fun to try to dominate the competition. The cable companies apparently paid close attention. Many people feel the American economy relies so much on the tenet of fair market competition. I share that view. So I have great difficulty understanding how today cable company monopolies are able to exist so unabashedly.

Take for instance where I live in Connecticut. As on much of Long Island, Cablevision is the ONLY provider of cable television service. In most of the area there is absolutely no competition for cable. True you can sign up for Dish network, DirecTV, or even Verizon FIOS but when it comes to cable – it’s a one trick pony. We happen to also get our internet connection (lightning fast BTW) as well as our telephone from Cablevision using their ‘Triple Play’ offer. For the most part it has worked out well.

Yet this year at New Year’s a bitter dispute with HGTV, and Food Network just to name a few had people aggravated since the threat was to have those channels pulled from the cable system. Up until this past Sunday (Halloween) for the past nearly three weeks Fox and Cablevision were locked in a bitter war of words that finally was settled. While providers like Dish Network, and DirecTV offered to help you switch my sense is that for most people this was not their desired path or they would been with those satellite networks already. Cablevision came up with a lame offer to its subscribers over the weekend to have them go online and ‘buy’ Major League Baseball (mlb.com) over the internet and then they would be reimbursed for the $ 10.00 so people could watch the World Series. I’d love to see the number of people who actually took them up on that one.

This week we opened our New York City office. It’s all very exciting but the excitement was tempered a bit when we considered that in order to have internet service in the building the ONLY provider is Time-Warner. And our friends told us that the internet service is often spotty and slow and the customer service from Time Warner cable not much better. That bore out right away when Time Warner failed to show for the appointment on Monday. They claimed to have been there but we had someone in the space all day. With no options we have to just grin (or grimace more like it) and bear it.

Having an option of an entirely different service is better than no option at all but having only one choice of cable providers does not motivate providers or serve customers well at all. Government broadcast licenses play a big role here as does lobbying but as usual it’s the consumer who gets the shaft.
We can gripe about it but that’s about all we can do.

Got any novel ideas on how to get around the cable monopoly game?

An interesting story in this past Saturday’s NY Times – http://nyti.ms/b2RQFQ discussed the revamping of AOL’s website to give a greater emphasis to news created by AOL’s staff as well as original video clips. This appears to me that it could be a good idea – had it happened three years ago.

AOL’s CEO Tim Armstrong touted that AOL is,”still a very desirable place to advertise – very high household income, and more women than men”. All I could think was – so they’re old. In many cases very old. I don’t know the statistics but it’s hard to imagine very many people under the age of 35 that use AOL for anything else than an email address.

The article goes on to note that since January 2010, the number of unique visitors to AOL’s home page has declined 27 percent. Revenue during the first half of this year is down 25%. So it’s happening right now that AOL is becoming more irrelevant with each passing day.

And is it really any surprise? With the online world taking on a truly global focus how does AMERICA ONLINE fit in with a world view? Is there any way that anyone outside the United States would ever use AOL? That’s not true of Google, or Yahoo or even Microsoft’s home page. They have users from all over the globe. Somehow AOL in French or Chinese does not really work does it?

The new design will also move video near the top of the page – WOW – revolutionary! Clips will include a series called – “You’ve Got”. Is that like “You’ve Got Mail”? The 1998 hit movie starring Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan? That was 12 years ago folks – and I hate to break it to AOL but things have changed in the online world just a bit over the past 12 years.

Maybe I am missing something big here. After all AOL’s revenue was $ 1.24 billion in the first six months even if it was down 25%. But comments that Mr. Armstrong made like blaming AOL’s shrinking (maybe shriveling would be a better word?) dial-up access (Dial-up??? Are you kidding?) is responsible for the declines. Ya think?

With AOL’s first overhaul of the home page since 2008, Mr. Armstrong went on to say that the philosophy behind the page was to inform visitors while also entertaining them. The focus will shift during the day from being news-oriented in the morning to a focus on lifestyle in the afternoon. I guess he’s not too concerned about the evening and night’s since most of the users are fast asleep by 9PM.

Finally the article notes Mr. Armstrong commenting “We are basically trying to make sure that our users are prepared for the day and they don’t get caught with their pants off.” If that were to happen it would likely only be because they forgot to put them on in the first place.

Ok all you AOL lovers out there – let me have it. Speak up now – it’s your turn.

BTW I don’t even know the guy (and if you’ve never heard of him he was until recently the chief creative officer and partner in one of the hottest advertising shops in the business – Crispin Porter Bogusky). I’ve never met him and probably never will. Maybe he’s a good guy but what I really don’t like that apparently he is all about Alex. Everything I have read (yes I have a media viewpoint only) about him first moving Crispin Porter Bogusky’s creative team (think Burger King Whopper Freakout, BMW, Domino’s Pizza, Coke Zero) to Colorado from Miami, inviting people to either join him or be done (most joined him), then he ultimately bails on them by ‘retiring’ from the agency with his millions of dollars; smacks of a megalomaniac and tyrant.

Just today in Ad Age http://bit.ly/dwcqW4, an article was written on Alex’s new career as a consumer advocate. It notes that he is starting much the way Ralph Nader did 50 years ago. And we all know how loved and admired Ralph Nader has been all these years. But just as it was with CPB this is all about Alex. And we’ve seen this movie before.

Did his agency do good work while Alex was as the helm? No doubt. Do the ends justify the means? I believe that can be argued. Can you even name anyone else on the creative side of the agency? Didn’t the people on the team contribute? Of course they did and I am betting in a big way. Why no credit for them? Why don’t we know anything about the others on the team?

Recently the Colorado office of Crispin Porter (sans Bogusky) has been reduced in staff and rumors are that it may close entirely and many remaining creative folks have high-tailed it back to Miami. I cannot imagine these people don’t feel personally violated, even if they learned important things from their not-so-fearless leader.

Our agency is expanding and adding some wildly talented and experienced folks so that we can become a better agency for our clients and better support each other. As someone that has been the founder and leader of the charge for the past nearly 15 years I am so ready to cede some control by bringing in a host of people who are smarter than me in so many ways. And that’s just part of my ‘new’ job.

What I’ve found and what makes me so excited is my new role in the organization – to facilitate everyone else’s success. In my view this will enable our team (Kristie, Nancy, Carrie, Michele, Shawn, Kristina, Greg, Nader, Jessica, Dona, Melanie, David, Dany, and Larry to mention them by name) to do our very best work on behalf of our clients AND have a really good time doing it.

Don’t think for a second that we are not desirous of being named ‘Agency of the Year’ 13 or more times in the trade press. I just don’t want to be a ‘slash and burn’ leader of a clearly dysfunctional team that only has the solace of awards and accolades but no recognition outside of the group leader. You see from my perspective it’s all about creating a healthy culture and environment in which to work.

Sorry Alex if perhaps I am misunderstanding what really happened but it does not look so good from my view.

How about you – what do you think?