... the fact that so many Slashdot readers, a brilliant bunch by their own admission, will drop the same *obvious* wisecrack into the comments section even though they've been beaten to the punchline by a string of others?
Can't think of a more deserving campaign or a more deserving company. However, it's worth noting that Sony does this kind of thing because they are confident -- and apparently have good reason to be confident -- that the public at large won't notice or doesn't care, witness these poll results:
I've told this story so many times I'm no longer sure if it's true or apochryphal: The Northeastern News, my college newspaper in Boston, is covering the debut of the first-ever women's crew team back in the '70s. Headline: "Virgin Crew Strokes Charles at Dawn."
They're exactly alike, at least according to the Texas lawyer who who filed this asinine suit. He says "these virtual sites are no different" than a daycare center in terms of their responsibilities to keep children safe. I went off on a bit of a rant this morning on my blog trying to explain the difference to him, if you're interested: http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/1057 4
I do indeed have a financial motive: As long as I keep writing and enough people keep reading, well, I keep getting a paycheck from Network World (I can't even tell you if Sony advertises or not; don't know). As for what I described being the norm in PR these days? Nope. There isn't a PR person alive who would have tried to sell Sony on that particular sequence of events, which isn't to say that marketers don't use indirect tactics, they do... just not *that* indirect. I can't tell you who paid for the survey (it wasn't important to my point about Sony, seeing as how I don't share the PR stunt suspicion), but my *guess* would be that Landor paid for it. Release said this was the fourth year running they've done this particular survey. I'd guess they do it to generate publicity for their firm and build their own brand as being experts about brands. (And just to show I can be as suspicious as the next fellow, my question to Landor -- if they were the subject -- would be what happens if a Landor client shows up on the "losers" list?)
... to believe that Sony bought this survey and the conclusion that its negative press in '06 hasn't hurt its brand takes quite a leap of logic. The press release issued by Landor doesn't even *mention* Sony or how it did in the survey, never mind make any attempt to pass off the company's positive survey results as evidence of anything. No, to believe this was part of a PR plot, you'd have to believe that Sony/Landor bet the entire scheme on its confidence that a writer (in this case me) would request the supplemental survey findings (which again make no special mention of Sony), notice Sony's appearance on the '06 and '07 "winners" lists, draw the conclusion himself that it proves the Sony brand to be bascially immune to the battery/rootkit disasters, post that opinion to his blog, have Slashdot pick it up, and, presto, instant corporate whitewash. Now that *would* be clever PR. Of course, it is always possible that I, too, am part of the conspiracy, but if that's the case my check must have gotten lost in the mail.
Let us not overlook the contributions of Lyger and Jericho at attrition.org, who brought us the tale of "The GPA Hack That Wasn't"... not to mention those squirrel pictures.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/9999
I noticed the billboard for the first time yesterday. Don't know for sure when it when up, but I go by there every day and can't imagine it would have escaped my attention (he says, knowing full well that's not exactly true).
Customers *always* like to hear that their vendors are playing nice-nice together; the details matter little -- at least in the short run.... Or maybe it's just that Microsoft and Novell have wowed 'em with these cool billboards that are beckoning drivers in the Bay Area and Massachusetts: http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/9636
My kingdom for a few mod points. What exactly is "insightful" about a rant against Hemos that makes no point whatsoever except that *opinion* may have crept into a post on Slashdot? And fairly well couched opinion, at that, given that the phrase "that I am aware of" should be easily understood by most.
While the journalist in me applauds the decision, I have to wonder how far the underlying principle is going to be taken. If victims of libel can only pursue action against the original poster, what about cases where the original poster is anonymous? If no one but the original poster holds responsibility for the content -- even when it's known to be false and defamatory -- the opportunities for intentional, unfettered smear campaigns would seem to be enormous.... I mean even more enormous than under our previous understanding of libel protections. I'm willing to pay an awful lot for free speech. Just hope I'm not on the receiving end of one of these smears.
As someone who works for a longtime print-and-online publication, it's my view that the answer to the question of how long print will survive is really quite simple: for as long as print continues to be profitable. There will be unprofitable publications hanging on for no reason other than hope, of course, but even with a significant culling of the print herd there will continue to be vast audiences who simply prefer print or cannot consume their news (or whatever) any other way. There's no print-vs-online religion involved here. Readers will decide for themselves. And, in my opinion, enough of them will continue to choose print that print will survive for a very long time.... Also, I believe that those who are cheering the ongoing attrition are unaware or unappreciative of the price the public is paying as the ranks of professional reporters shrinks as print pubs struggle for survival. Scorn these folks all you want, but the fewer of them out there the less we're all going to know about our governments and our societies.
This blog entry from yesterday includes links to Berners-Lee's past writings on the subject, as well as a summary from an '05 meeting of the minds in London at which this effort was apparently first kicked around.
This is why the North Attleboro High School football team stomps all over their coddled counterparts from Attleboro High School virtually every Thanksgiving Day.... NAHS, '75.
The notion that Google's deep pockets will *deter* lawsuits seems completely wrong to me. The world is full of lawyers willing to take on tobacco companies and car makers, despite the armies of lawyers those companies keep on payroll. And, while Google has indeed stepped up its lobbying efforts in Washington, they're still new kids on that block and by no means guaranteed protected status. They're going to get sued, all right, and they better be prepared to win on the merits.
Absolutely, as Dr. King said: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all music formats are created equal and anyone should be able to share anything they want with anyone they want."... Uh, maybe the civil rights analogy needs work.
Slashdot Mirror
... the fact that so many Slashdot readers, a brilliant bunch by their own admission, will drop the same *obvious* wisecrack into the comments section even though they've been beaten to the punchline by a string of others?
Doh! ... And to think that I get *paid* to edit others.
The British, too, have expressed their concerns to Google, and Google insists it takes them seriously. http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/1044 5
And this homeland security expert believes the issue is worthy of discussion ... not only because his son is about to be deployed to Iraq.
http://stephensonstrategies.com/2007/01/29.html#a1 093
Can't think of a more deserving campaign or a more deserving company. However, it's worth noting that Sony does this kind of thing because they are confident -- and apparently have good reason to be confident -- that the public at large won't notice or doesn't care, witness these poll results:
6 7
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/102
At the very least, they can be sure that the benefits of such deceitfulness will outweigh the costs. Too few people pay too little attention.
... and even took out a billboard in an attempt to warn Novell. But did Novell listen?2 9
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/104
I've told this story so many times I'm no longer sure if it's true or apochryphal: The Northeastern News, my college newspaper in Boston, is covering the debut of the first-ever women's crew team back in the '70s. Headline:
"Virgin Crew Strokes Charles at Dawn."
They're exactly alike, at least according to the Texas lawyer who who filed this asinine suit. He says "these virtual sites are no different" than a daycare center in terms of their responsibilities to keep children safe. I went off on a bit of a rant this morning on my blog trying to explain the difference to him, if you're interested:7 4
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/105
Henry Kissinger.
Hey, a healthy skepticism is essential in all walks of life. ... Now I have to use some of that Sony payola to go feed my kids. Nice chatting.
I do indeed have a financial motive: As long as I keep writing and enough people keep reading, well, I keep getting a paycheck from Network World (I can't even tell you if Sony advertises or not; don't know). As for what I described being the norm in PR these days? Nope. There isn't a PR person alive who would have tried to sell Sony on that particular sequence of events, which isn't to say that marketers don't use indirect tactics, they do ... just not *that* indirect. I can't tell you who paid for the survey (it wasn't important to my point about Sony, seeing as how I don't share the PR stunt suspicion), but my *guess* would be that Landor paid for it. Release said this was the fourth year running they've done this particular survey. I'd guess they do it to generate publicity for their firm and build their own brand as being experts about brands. (And just to show I can be as suspicious as the next fellow, my question to Landor -- if they were the subject -- would be what happens if a Landor client shows up on the "losers" list?)
... to believe that Sony bought this survey and the conclusion that its negative press in '06 hasn't hurt its brand takes quite a leap of logic. The press release issued by Landor doesn't even *mention* Sony or how it did in the survey, never mind make any attempt to pass off the company's positive survey results as evidence of anything. No, to believe this was part of a PR plot, you'd have to believe that Sony/Landor bet the entire scheme on its confidence that a writer (in this case me) would request the supplemental survey findings (which again make no special mention of Sony), notice Sony's appearance on the '06 and '07 "winners" lists, draw the conclusion himself that it proves the Sony brand to be bascially immune to the battery/rootkit disasters, post that opinion to his blog, have Slashdot pick it up, and, presto, instant corporate whitewash. Now that *would* be clever PR.
Of course, it is always possible that I, too, am part of the conspiracy, but if that's the case my check must have gotten lost in the mail.
Let us not overlook the contributions of Lyger and Jericho at attrition.org, who brought us the tale of "The GPA Hack That Wasn't" ... not to mention those squirrel pictures.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/9999
Press aide who tried to hire hackers has been fired.1 5
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/100
Yup, that's the phrase that jumps out at those of us who don't speak UNIX. Fun with piping cats on this blog post:4
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/976
I noticed the billboard for the first time yesterday. Don't know for sure when it when up, but I go by there every day and can't imagine it would have escaped my attention (he says, knowing full well that's not exactly true).
Customers *always* like to hear that their vendors are playing nice-nice together; the details matter little -- at least in the short run. ... Or maybe it's just that Microsoft and Novell have wowed 'em with these cool billboards that are beckoning drivers in the Bay Area and Massachusetts:6
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/963
My kingdom for a few mod points. What exactly is "insightful" about a rant against Hemos that makes no point whatsoever except that *opinion* may have crept into a post on Slashdot? And fairly well couched opinion, at that, given that the phrase "that I am aware of" should be easily understood by most.
We've got that "Gates for President" coverage right here:0
5
... at least not from anyone who likes him.
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/943
Even have a followup, of sorts, today, headlined 'Gates for President': Stocking-Stuffer Edition': http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/949
Doubt the Massachusetts CIO will be getting any of this stuff
While the journalist in me applauds the decision, I have to wonder how far the underlying principle is going to be taken. If victims of libel can only pursue action against the original poster, what about cases where the original poster is anonymous? If no one but the original poster holds responsibility for the content -- even when it's known to be false and defamatory -- the opportunities for intentional, unfettered smear campaigns would seem to be enormous. ... I mean even more enormous than under our previous understanding of libel protections. I'm willing to pay an awful lot for free speech. Just hope I'm not on the receiving end of one of these smears.
As someone who works for a longtime print-and-online publication, it's my view that the answer to the question of how long print will survive is really quite simple: for as long as print continues to be profitable. There will be unprofitable publications hanging on for no reason other than hope, of course, but even with a significant culling of the print herd there will continue to be vast audiences who simply prefer print or cannot consume their news (or whatever) any other way. There's no print-vs-online religion involved here. Readers will decide for themselves. And, in my opinion, enough of them will continue to choose print that print will survive for a very long time. ... Also, I believe that those who are cheering the ongoing attrition are unaware or unappreciative of the price the public is paying as the ranks of professional reporters shrinks as print pubs struggle for survival. Scorn these folks all you want, but the fewer of them out there the less we're all going to know about our governments and our societies.
This blog entry from yesterday includes links to Berners-Lee's past writings on the subject, as well as a summary from an '05 meeting of the minds in London at which this effort was apparently first kicked around.
3
http://www.networkworld.com/community/?q=node/910
Why is voting different? If your ATM and stockbroker were not able to give you a paper receipt you wouldn't trust them either. That's why.
This is why the North Attleboro High School football team stomps all over their coddled counterparts from Attleboro High School virtually every Thanksgiving Day. ... NAHS, '75.
The notion that Google's deep pockets will *deter* lawsuits seems completely wrong to me. The world is full of lawyers willing to take on tobacco companies and car makers, despite the armies of lawyers those companies keep on payroll. And, while Google has indeed stepped up its lobbying efforts in Washington, they're still new kids on that block and by no means guaranteed protected status. They're going to get sued, all right, and they better be prepared to win on the merits.
Absolutely, as Dr. King said: "I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all music formats are created equal and anyone should be able to share anything they want with anyone they want." ... Uh, maybe the civil rights analogy needs work.