Entries Tagged as 'social media'

a critical eye on your blog and mine

What happens when a leader questions himself?

Mitch Joel, who I have written about in this space before, is a social media thought leader. I didn’t say expert because I think the term “social media expert” has been watered down by schmoes trying to cash in with little in their credibility bank.

Mitch has loads of credibility because of his knowledge and passion for the subject of social media. So it was with some surprise that I and his other subscribers read one of his recent posts entitled “Five Reasons Why This Blog is a Failure“.

If you write a blog, this question is worthy of your consideration. In this case, someone who knows more about blogging and social media than you or me is asking this question of himself.

I hope you’ll read the wholepost but to summarizes, Mitch seems a bit obsessed with the Ad Age Power 150 which is a daily ranking of marketing blogs. Mitch is ranked #22 while his friend Chris Brogan is ranked #1. So Mitch asked his other friend Julien Smith (who has co-authored a book with Chris Brogan) about why Mitch’s blog isn’t as popular as Chris’ blog.

My point to Mitch in my comment (yes, I am one of those people that actually supports blogs by leaving comments…few people do that any more) was that we men have a problem worrying about size and who is bigger in many aspects of our lives and the answer matters very little to blogs.

To me, it’s not how many people read your blog but rather are the right people reading your blog.

Who is your audience? What do they need to know? How can you help them with your content? What do you want to accomplish by publishing your blog?

There is no Ad Age Power Ranking for Voice Over blogs so I’ll defer to our friend Google and the search term “voice over blog”. I’m ranked like 7th in a very small, niche category. Does that mean there are 6 more popular blogs than mine or does that mean I am a top 10 blogger? Is your glass half full or half empty?

For me, I write about what I am passionate about (voiceover, marketing and advertising) and most times I try and put forth stuff that will help or entertain readers.

Sometimes, selfishly, I write just to please myself.

But in either case I stay true to what I know (very well) about and what content pleases me. Hopefully that content will please my readers (I am grateful to have even the one subscriber – who may or may not be a family member, I dunno).

If it was just about the readers, this would be a newspaper and I’d sell ads. But it’s not and I don’t.

Still, I like Julien’s ideas and know that this blog (and probably yours) is a work in progress. How would you improve this blog? What changes would you suggest I make? What changes should you make in your blog?

All while staying true our (yours and mine) original focus.

“…only to a certain degree.”

Voice over talents are independent contractors who do one-off jobs as well as long-term contract work. While we market our work to prospective clients via advertising and tools like social media, truth be told, most of the world doesn’t know we exist or really what we do for a living…except talk.

And in our collective business model, that’s as it should be…our job is a behind-the-scenes deal.

For one voice talent, that changed this week. And I have a sense that this change will have some repercussions within the industry…I am pretty sure at the very least it will spark discussions.

While it is a long story, I will try and briefly summarize it as it was told on the blog of voice talent D.C. Douglas: he states that the lobbying firm, Freedom Works, encouraged supporters of the Tea Party movement to get D.C. fired as the national voice talent for GEICO Insurance. D.C. says that is because he left an agitated voicemail (with his contact information) for Freedom Works regarding slurs Tea Party participants made about Rep. Barney Frank during the recent Congressional health care vote. Evidently Freedom Works and the Tea Party movement are aligned in some organizational way. As a result, D.C. has not been retained as a voice talent by GEICO.

I do not know D.C. Douglas, I do not believe I have ever spoken to him and I doubt he knows me either. But his was a pretty large voice over deal on a national advertising campaign for a very large American company. And now because he expressed his opinion (in what he infers was a regrettable manner) to a group that used their professional connections to get him fired, he lost a contract.

More to the point, because of his expressed opinions, he as a voice talent was dragged out from behind his major client’s curtain, thrusting both himself and his client onto a public, political stage neither was expecting to be on…or ultimately wanted to be on. The result was his client dismissed him. To his credit, D.C. Douglas inferred on his blog that he fully understands and accepts GEICO’s position.

It seems to me that the overarching question in all this is: do voice talents, who speak for a living, enjoy the right to free speech outside the booth?

In my opinion, the answer is yes – but only to a certain degree.

Voice talents are just as bound to and protected by the United States Constitution, its Bill of Rights and our country’s laws as any other American citizen. Voice artists have opinions and we share them as we see fit.

But it is the content of those opinions, how we express them and where we express them (the “as we see fit” part) that elicits my “only to a certain degree” opinion.

Remember, usually, a voice talent is an anonymous entity in the world except to those who need to hire voice talents: advertising agencies, television and radio stations and businesses may need a professional voice for their clients or themselves.

Their primary objective is to find a voice that suits their script. The voice talent is only one cog in a big marketing/advertising wheel and these producers – while caring about a “voice” very much – also have other things to do and deadlines to meet.

When hiring any project, if a voice talent is considered egotistic, poorly prepared, unprofessional or difficult to work with in anyway, they’ll move on to their second voice choice rather than deal with the headache of their “difficult” first choice.

As far as I know to this point, D.C. Douglas has no such negative reputation and his voice resume would seem to support my understanding.

But like it or not, what D.C. now faces is a very high profile examination of his personal and political beliefs by people who have yet to hire him. Whether his beliefs are right or wrong to me or you isn’t important…unless “you” are the one doing the hiring you happen to disagree with D.C.’s opinions – D.C.’s beliefs now may precede and even supersede his professional voice work, in a producer’s mind. It’s a reality he now must face because he chose to share his political beliefs in a public forum in an aggressive way with an equally passionate, politically opposite but clearly more influential group whose tactics are aggressive.

“…only to a certain degree.”

His name, his brand may be sullied in the eyes of some potential employers – and he’ll never know it, they will never speak of it to D.C. and his agents…these potential employers will simply move on to their second voice choice.

“…only to a certain degree.”

It doesn’t mean his voice over career is over…it may mean that the pool of options may be lessened. Conversely, there may be companies who didn’t know of him before hand, agree with his beliefs and hire him because of them. But it is an unknown that D.C. will have to live with for a while until he sees how this all shakes out… his voice over checking account will provide the final results.

“…only to a certain degree.”

I don’t think it’s too far fetched to say that D.C. Douglas didn’t see all of this coming with one, poorly worded, heat-of-the-moment voice mail message. His beliefs are his own and as such are not right or wrong – they are his and he is entitled to them.

“…only to a certain degree.”

But politics can be a dirty and dishonorable business, even among those who enter it professionally with the best of intentions. The best intentions of lobbyists are based on serving and accomplishing the political goals of those who hire them. Whether that system is right or wrong matters not to this discussion – those are the understood rules of the pool that D.C. Douglas dove into, heart first, in his voice mail.

Now, he will have no choice but to live with the courage of his convictions (which is not a bad thing), a choice I don’t think he understood he was making when he placed that call. But it is a situation that he and I think all voice talents may have thought about, at least a little bit, at one time or another in their professional lives.

The question for voice talents now is this: What is your “certain degree”. At what point would you risk having your brand overshadowed publicly by your personal beliefs? Or would you handle how you promote your beliefs differently.

There are no wrong answers as I see it – only the right answer as decided by each individual voice talent. I look forward to your opinions.

welcome mr. whitney wyatt to the blogroll

I got a very nice email from Whitney Wyatt out in California advising me that he’d added me to his blogroll. When I got there, not only was there a link but a nice post about voxmarketising.com.

Certainly that kindness is not required to be considered for the blogroll, but it sure made my day.

we’re number 1 – 1 – 1!

So Facebook is kind enough to send me a weekly update on the Facebook Fan Page I put together some months ago for The Voiceover Entrance Exam free e-book that I wrote last year.

I am always surprised and pleased when I see people have become a fan of the page. I hope that means that the book has been read and was helpful to these folks who are fans…that is why I wrote it.

Anyway, today I see the page has 111 fans. So I guess that means we’re number 1 – 3 times over! Uh oh, this is starting to read like a Ralph Hass blog post so I better quit while I am ahead.

Anyway, to everyone who did become a fan, thank you very sincerely!

hate speak gets a bigger platform

With the internet, the ability to deride, insult and be hateful became global and super simple. You could and can say anything you want about a product, service or even a person – especially anonymously- on a bulletin board, in a blog post or comment and leave it there for anyone to see. It took the public airing of snark and snide comments to a whole new level of acceptance.

We probably have all been guilty of at least one such anonymous incident. I’ve always believed (sometimes at my own peril) if one has the courage of their convictions, they sign their name to a post.

Sometimes, airing frustrations on the internet can lead to good…some companies monitor conversations about their brands and address problematic issues as they come up. When I’ve had major customer service problems I have, on the rare occasion, shared them here. Some bloggers don’t like to do that – but my house, my rules.

Now, reading Todd Defren’s blog post about the new web site called Unvarnished has made me sad beyond words. According to Todd, the site “will allow people to post anonymous and irrevocable opinions about y-o-u online.” That is the site’s main and focused purpose…not discussion, not interaction…just opinions about specific people.

The site itself says: “To help reviewers be honest and candid in their reviews, Unvarnished obscures the identity of review authors. This lets reviewers share their true, nuanced opinions without fear of repercussions.”

And yet what about the repercussions for those listed on the site who may be not-guilty of a charge anonymously leveled against them. The only answer I can determine so far is: don’t list yourself on that site in the first place.

In our world, when there is an enormous disaster, we love to help, send money, hold a telethon, have a bake sale…lend a hand.

But on a day to day basis, we each too easily criticize and judge each other needlessly and hurtfully almost as a matter of course. I do it and you do it; we don’t like to think about it but we need to.

This type of web site feeds that hatefulness and our vindictiveness to a degree we shouldn’t want to experience. It gives people who start the day as small-minded a better playground, a bigger pool in which to spread their poison. Even those who think it harmless fun might play in this new forum…not appreciating the real and long-term harm they are doing.

Freedom of speech is a right we all hold dear and that should not change. But I hope and pray that such a right, properly merged with common sense and good will, will lead to the demise of any site containing words filled with hurt and hate as its primary by-product.

Thanks for letting me vent, I’ll try not to do it too often. If you have an opinion on any of this, I hope you’ll share it here.

‘the i-Pad is bigger than Jesus Christ’

The Apple i-Pad

Nobody has yet said that about the i-Pad as far as I know…well, because it’s not true.

But what they (and I’ll define who “they” is in just a moment) have said is: “the i-Pad changes everything!”

Well, that’s not true either, but reality, practicality and obsessive fandom don’t play well together.

I say: congrats to Apple on creating another good and useful product. To me, that seems like a positive review. But Merriam-Webster called me early today to advise that i-Pad reviewers and users have used up all of their dictionary’s superlatives. “Magical”, “Revolutionary”?

The i-Pad is a communication tool, and an expensive one. It has the potential to change portable computing and mobile communication from the way it exists now. New devices are supposed to do that…it’s why we buy them.

But from even the smarter analysts of social media and technology, down to social media experts (aren’t we all) and even the lowly end “users” (I never thought I’d miss the moniker “consumer”)– their unanimous, overboard passion for the i-Pad (pro or con) is asinine.

The i-Phone is a good mobile device (disclosure: I bought one) with many features and some short comings….it didn’t and doesn’t change everything (oy, did “they” go nuts over that device). Neither does the i-Pad.

Whether it’s a desire for a snappy headline or just a bunch of zombie-like devotees – the write-ups and even broadcasts about this stuff seems neurotic. It goes beyond marketing.

I recognize the whole weird Apple addiction/superiority thing but people are getting a bit stupid about this stuff.

The development of electricity, the telephone, the light bulb, the airplane…these things each changed everything. Literally, figuratively and absolutely. Even if you’d like to make a case in this category for the first computer or the first portable computer – I will certainly welcome your opinion about how these items “changed everything”.

But so far there has been no i-Anything that has “changed everything”.

Short attention spans and instant gratification seekers lack perspective yet they live in a world of absolutes (“best” this or “worst” that). I’m guilty of it sometimes and I bet you are too.

But it seems we can be shaken from “absolutes” coma and gain some perspective eventually. I hope these Apple and i-Pad fanatics will get some soon too.

Is it just me noticing this or are you seeing it too? Am I wrong?