im-media-te impact by Brian Reich

09:44 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Watch and Learn

You want a resolution for 2009?  Watch more TV and heed its lessons.  Two examples of why:

Every weekday morning Bravo! airs two episodes of the West Wing - the Emmy Award winning drama about life inside the west wing of the White House.  I was watching this morning and caught this excerpt from an episode in 2002, featuring an interview between a local Philadelphia TV station and the fictional President, Jed Bartlet, about energy policy:

TV REPORTER: And joining us now from the Mural Room of the White House is President Bartlet.  Good morning, Mr. President.

TV REPORTER: It's 16 past the hour. We'll be back with traffic and weather as Wake-Up Philadelphia continues.

Turn on the news and you will see the same debate taking place today -- six years after the episode aired.  That's right -- even though the show has been off the air since 2006, the reruns demonstrate that the writers understood the pulse of the nation (then and now) and had a better sense of where American policy was headed, or should head, than most of the nation.  I wonder why nobody heeded their advice (on this issue or many others)?

My wife and I have also been watching Mad Men, the AMC original series about the life of advertising executives in the 1960s.  If you can see past the clothing (thin ties are back, aren't they?) and rampant sexism of the time, what you will see is that the advertising industry hasn't changed that much.  The ideas are being recycled, money is flowing to most of the same venues, and many ad industry folks, it seems, are still sitting in their offices thinking up slogans and strategies without truly understanding what the audience they are trying to reach really thinks or wants.  Are people from the ad world not watching, or not willing to acknowledge that some of the same blind spots still exist today?

I thought TV was supposed to reflect our society, but more and more I think the best shows are teaching us how to act, or at very least the lessons we need to learn and mistakes to avoid.  I suppose if the problems in our government or advertising industry are so obvious that television dramas can exploit them to drive ratings, it may be past the point where acknowleding the change is enough.  But I think there is the potential for change if our leaders, as well as those who aspire to lead, pay closer to attention to what is on TV.  We must be willing to watch and learn.

Clearly, since the auto industry and the government haven't made much progress on the energy issue, and the advertising industry is still making the same mistakes it was forty years ago, there are lessons waiting on our TiVo's still to be learned.  I say tune in and step up.

08:17 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

A Letter To Anyone Who Sells/Produces/Promotes/Coordinates Stuff

Dear [Insert your company, non-profit, educational institution, etc name here] -

Why won't you listen to me?

I buy lots of stuff, including books, clothing, music,  electronics, even a new car recently.  I am a subscriber, to two different print newspapers and more than a dozen magazines, and satellite radio.  I watch at least ten different television shows on a weekly basis, some live, some through my TiVo, and a couple online.  And that doesn't count the time I spent tuned in to sports and news events.  I listen to the radio, in my home, in my car, and through applications on my iPhone.  I travel.  I go to sporting and cultural events.  I donate, to a half dozen charitable organizations and almost any cause a friend or colleague is involved with and organizes to support.  And of course I spend hours and hours a day online surfing for information, doing my work, communicating with my friends, and exploring new and interesting things.

I am the kind of person you want in your audience, or as a customer.  I am 31 years old.  I am a father.  I am educated. I am gainfully employed and own my own home.  I pay for all these things and buy them for people as gifts.  I talk about my favorite products and services to friends and colleagues.  I blog about them.  And even as economic times have gotten tough, I am buying more to try and do my part to keep the organizations I support in good standing.

And yet, for some reason, you don't listen to me.  You don't respect me.  You don't care about me. 

You cancel my favorite shows.  You change the times of the flights I take regularly so they are no longer convenient.  You buy out the reporters who do the best writing or replace their regular column in your publication with advertising.  You stop printing books on the topics I find interesting (if you even print books at all).  You trade my favorite players for cheaper ones, even though it doesn't help the team.  You "improve" the products I have been buying for years, but in doing so make them less effective or desirable to me. And when I call or write you to ask for help inquire about service and support, you ignore me or outsource my question to someone who doesn't care. 

Its not for lack of trying on my part.  I fill out all the surveys you send. I send letters to the editor to highlight great work.  I blog about my favorite things.  I scream and yell in support at events, and at the television when I can't be there in person.  I speak for work regularly, and mention you often.  I give interviews, and use you as examples.  I tell you exactly what I want.  I tell anyone who will listen what I love about you.  And I let you, and everyone else, know when you are in the wrong -- and more importantly, things you can do to improve.

What do I get in return?  Nothing.  Nada.  Zip.  Zilch.  Bupkus.

I understand why you act this way.  Your only goal is to make money.  You don't really care about me as a member of your audience or as a customer.  You don't care about the world I live in, or the people around me.  You just care what I do.  I am a nameless, faceless sale or donation.  I am part of your fan base, but my individual preferences don't matter.  The only time I matter is when I am part of a large enough group that does something so you can make you a healthy profit.

Sadly, in most cases, you aren't making money.  I know why that is too -- because you aren't doing a good job anymore. I am not the only one who can't find the products they like anymore.  I am not the only one who doesn't find what you print as compelling or relevant as I once did.  I am not the only one who feels there are better ways to spend my time and money than dealing with your organization. 

Wouldn't it make more sense to make your audience happy?  Isn't the easiest way to get more people to buy things (thus resulting in revenue for you), spend more time (thus resulting in deeper loyalty to you), or tell their friends (thus resulting in greater awareness for what you do) about what you do be to offer things that people want to buy, enjoy, and talk about?  The answer to that is yes.

I assure you, I want to buy your products, watch your shows, donate to your charities, read your articles, and attend your events.  I have money to spend, I have time to devote, I have interests to serve.  Please, please stop serving your own interests and trying to pad your bottom line at my expense.  Please, please listen to me, observe my preferences, and offer the things that I am asking for.  Its not as hard as you think to please me, and millions of people in your audience and customer base just like me.

Thank you for listening.  If you ever want to talk directly I am always willing and if you have any questions I am more than happy to answer them.

Sincerely,

Brian Reich
Cambridge, Massachusetts

10:33 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Covering The Mumbai Attacks: What Can We Learn?

I have a question: Will we learn anything from the terrorist attacks in Mumbai last week?

I'm not talking about international politics, or security.  I am talking about media -- how do the ways in which we consume and share information today change how we feel about this kind of event?  I am talking about technology -- could all the phones, cameras, and other ways to connect online help to prevent these kinds of tragic events in the future?  I am talking about society -- does being more diverse and more connected, as a result of the digital age, make us feel differently about this event, compared to other tragedies or happenings?

I don't know.  I am hoping you will tell me.

Thoughts?

07:19 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

The Motrin Fiasco: All Is Forgiven (Sort of)

This past week, the makers of Motrin posted a video ad on their website criticizing moms who carry their babies.  They noted how carrying their babies - in slings or bjorns, and the like - causes back, neck and shoulder pain and questioned what social motivation would compel a mom would put herself in such discomfort.  Moms, especially mommy bloggers, were angry and marketing experts, especially those who focus on social media, were astonished.

The makers of Motrin didn't set out to anger or insult mothers, but that it what happened.  Blog posts and Twitter messages numbering in the hundreds (maybe even thousands) came from all directions and there was near consensus that Motrin had not only made a huge mistake but possibly damaged their brand forever.

Then, they apologized.

Within hours of the first negative posts going online the folks at Motrin took their site down and began to rebuild it.  They posted a short note apologizing for their error in judgment and promising to begin the hard work of rebuilding the confidence of their customers.

All is forgiven, right?

Well, its not that easy - to simply post a note of apology and expect the ill will to simply melt away.  Moreover, all those comments and blog posts are now archived on the web and avaialble for people to see for years to come.  But, the folks at Motrin did demonstrate both a knowledge and interest in what the online world has to say, and that probably saved their brand for ever.

What worked?  First, they listened -- by acting quickly, they demonstrated that they had been tracking what was happening online or that the conversation among bloggers and others online was important to them.  Even in this highly connected digital age you don't see many companies doing that.  Second, they apologized -- marketers seem to think they are smarter than consumers, especially when they get into hot water.  They generally aren't, and acknolwedging that they made a mistake goes a long way in beginning the process of rebuilding the relationships that were damaged.

Mommy bloggers and social media experts will talk about this one for a long time.  But rather than highlight the mistakes that Motrin made (we all have bad ideas, remember), I hope they focus on how quickly they responded to fix their issue and the work they do going forward to make things better.

06:02 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Women and the Web Community -- The Key to Solving the Financial Crisis?

Could the global financial crisis have been averted if more women were in the leadership of banks and financial institutions around the world?  Are women the key to finding solutions to the economic turmoil?
That is the suggestion of the World Economic Forum. 
This morning on the BBC World Service I heard an interview with Saadia Zahidi, Head of Constituents at the World Economic Forum (WEF) and one of the authors of a new report about the gender gap that exists worldwide.  WEF is meeting to brainstorm ways to get out of the global financial crisis. Zahidi explained that the WEF believes the world needs to examine the basic operating systems that drive our economies, markets and societies and aim for a fundamental "reboot” -- and one of the vital elements to doing that is to put more women in senior leadership positions within governments and financial institutions. 
I can't find a link to the story from the BBC.  But you can get some details about the report here.
The argument is sound and I agree with it.  Clearly, the group of (mostly) old, (mostly) white, (mostly) men who got us into this mess should not be the only ones working to get us out of it.  At the same time, I think there is a larger opportunity here than just looking to create balance between men and women. In the digital age, when we are all connected and the actions of one individual or institution can have an impact on us all -- shouldn't we be tapping into the community for help?  Isn't there a way to crowd-source a better solution to this, and other problems, that plague our society?
I am not suggesting that we put our financial future in the hands of anyone who has a screen name (can you imagine - the next Treasury Secretary or head of the IMF becoming known as 'dollardude19' or "m0neyhunny'?).  But I do believe that tapping into the community for ideas and input could yield new, fresh thinking.  Who knows, perhaps a world-changing idea for how to restore confidence in the markets, and financial security to consumers is out there, we just haven't been looking in the right places?
Invite-only gatherings of economists and government insiders haven't resulted in anything groundbreaking and even the best economists will admit they don't have a perfect answer to the problems we are facing.  Maybe there isn't a perfect answer.  Or maybe, we aren't asking the right people to help.  More women need to be a part of this discussion, for sure, but there is an even broader audience of 'outsiders' that we should be engaging also.  And the web is one of those tools that might be able to reach them.

08:56 pm | 0 recommendations | 2 comments

Obama's Use of Social Media: Less Than Adequate?

I have lots of thoughts about the Election, and especially the use of technology and social media by the Obama campaign.  My brain is fried from two years of tracking every twist and turn in the campaign cycle, so I don't know how much sense I will be making today.

There is much to celebrate and even more to learn from, on both sides.  Certainly, Barack Obama's campaign is getting all the credit for their work online, but when the dust settles you will see some tremendous innovation (and measurable results) out of the McCain campaign as well.

Personally, I was a little disappointed that the Obama campaign didn't do more with its big database, its command of social media and new technologies, and its giant war-chest to dig deeper into serious issues and give voters - struggling to find some little bit of serious discussion amid all the mud-slinging - the real facts they needed to make a choice in this election.  They basically ran a substance-light, play-it-safe, don't-make-any-mistakes kind of campaign.  Too bad, because the Obama campaign had the potential to achieve so much more.  There were so many opportunities to invite supporters to contribute ideas and policy suggestions, not just money and time.  There were so many issues where a simulation or calculator would have cleared up all the confusion.  They welcomed feedback from their audience, but never seemed to integrate much of it into their operation, suggesting they simply knew better than the wisdom of the crowds.  And maybe they did -- the Obama campaign knew what was needed to win and they did that.  They found some creative and effective ways to use the tools available today, and got a lot of credit for revolutionizing politics (though I say it really hasn't changed at all).

Then-Senator-now-President-Elect Obama's campaign barely scratched the surface of what is possible, and what is necessary if we are going to truly repair the damage that has been done to our democracy over the years.  I have high hopes for how an Obama administration will use technology, and the internet, to open up the process of running this country and give all of us all a little opportunity to change and improve things ourselves.  Governing, far more than politics, is the place to experiment with the uses of social media to increase participation and drive deeper levels of engagement by citizens around issues.  Idealistic and possibly even naive, I realize, but anything is possible in today's age, so its time the next President threw out the old playbook and tried something entirely new.

11:36 am | 0 recommendations | Be the first to comment

Market(ing) Correction

I am not an economist, so I can't say for sure whether the US Economy is in a recession.  I do, however, watch television and read the newspaper, talk to friends and clients, and generally live in the real world -- so I see that the economy is struggling and people are facing tough times.  If nothing else, the boom times are over (for now) and we are in the midst of a pretty significant market correction.

As I understand it, businesses are suffering because the credit markets are frozen, making it near impossible to secure cash for basic needs, let alone to consider push new products or  opportunities.  Meanwhile, anxious consumers, not sure where their next paycheck might come from or how much less their investments will be worth by the end of the day, simply aren't buying anything right now.  Non-profit organizations are suffering because corporations don't have as much money to give away, and those who do still have money aren't interested in giving what limited funds they have available to support a good cause (as opposed to holding on to it, with the expectation that more tough times are ahead).  And, as the end of the year approaches and the giving season gets into full swing, nobody expects individual donations to charitable groups to be as large as they have been in the recent past either (if they happen at all).

It should come as no surprise to anyone that as organizations - both corporate and non-profit -- cut back in anticipation of even tougher times, one of the first things to go is the marketing budget.  This belt-tightening makes sense on one level -- promoting your brand to an audience who isn't paying attention, or trying to sell a product or service to an audience that has no available funds, is hard to justify.  At the same time, people can't stop buying stuff completely  and never fully lose their desire to show support for the causes they care about most, even when the money in their bank account begins to run short.  What changes is how they shop, who they give to, and what their priorities are overall.  In short, everything changes, but nothing goes away.

I believe there is an opportunity for businesses and non-profits to use this downturn in the economy to do more than just save money.  A slowdown invites a refocusing of your efforts, an opportunity to review how you promote your work generally, and specifically what different strategies and tactics can be employed, to gain efficiency or increase your impact.  That's right, its time to consider a "marketing correction" in the midst of this market correction: a top to bottom review of how money is spent on marketing and promotion and how time and energy are applied when reaching out and engaging an audience.

In coming posts, I will try to identify some of the key areas where a different focus in terms of marketing or promotion by an organization can result not only in a short-term gains (actually being able to raise money or sell products, depending on what your goal is), but also a longer-term shift in the way groups market as a whole.  For example, companies are starting to cut back on advertising, or shift their spend to PR to maximize their limited budget.  It would be nice if they realized when their marketing budget is restored that wasting money on ineffective advertising doesn't make any more sense in good times than it does in bad.  Or, consider when you are building community online, whether its through a social network or by amassing a large email list -- the reasons why people join include wanting to be a part of a group that shares their interests, or seeing an opportunity to have a greater impact working together as opposed to on their own.   The people who join your list or your group are not looking for how they can help bolster your organizational profile or meet your bottom line, so groups need to find a way to have a measurable impact on an issue or offer something of value to their audience, or people will simply tune out.

These are tough and confusing times.  Everyone seems to have questions, and I don't claim to have all the answers.  But I know that what we are doing right now, as marketers and strategists, online and offline, simply isn't working as well as it should.  So I am interested to figure out what needs to be different, and I think this is the time to go explore.

More soon.

NOTE: This is cross-posted at the EchoDitto Blog and my personal blog, Thinking About Media.

03:58 pm | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

Opportunity for Newspapers?

A new report from the Newspaper Association of America (written up in the New York Times) shows that growth in online advertising has slowed and revenues at newspapers are, once again, on the decline.  Online advertising as an industry is still strong, but hopes that online advertising can, on its own, provide the needed financial support for newspapers going in to the future are now in doubt.

Obviously, for an industry that is already finding it challenging to compete in the digital age, this is especially bad news.

Keep in mind, newspapers - and the news industry in general - are experiencing a resurgence.  Newspapers are adding new features, like blogs and video, and with the help of citizen journalists and more distributed online networks, have increased their reach and influence in recent years.  The audiences for online newspapers and the traffic to newspaper sites are both growing in as well.

Where is the disconnect?

I think newspapers, and those who analyze the media industry, are looking at this challenge the wrong way.  

First, the industry folks see larger, more engaged audiences as an invitation to serve more advertising.  It's not.  Readers are flocking to online news sites because the content is interesting, the discussion is compelling, or the site offers something of value in their news experience.  There is plenty of opportunity to generate revenue starting with content -- offer information, experiences, or stuff of such high quality and value that readers want to pay for it.  

Second, there is no doubt that the level of sophistication in online advertising continues to rise.  You can target users based on demographic, psychographic, and behavioral information.   The ads themselves feature video, some are interactive.  Still, when you look at the content of the advertising, something is missing -- the content of the ads is unrelated to the content of the news, the experience following the click-through is blah, or the ad itself intrudes on the news experience of the user (by expanding over the story or similar).  The venues and advertisers alike should focus on creating and serving better advertising, that meets users interests or needs.

Finally, the strategy for generating revenue in the news industry - and for most groups that operate online for that matter - has shifted too much towards single transactions, and away from building relationships.  The goal for any organization that operates online should be to develop a long-term relationship with their audience.  The analogy I always use is dating: when you meet someone who you think you want to date, the appropriate next step is to strike up a conversation, maybe ask for a phone number, and over time go out on a few dates, remember their birthday, shower them with affection, or whatever.  Online, the equivalent is to collect an email address and then start to converse with them, offer access to special content or create an experience that is unique for your subscribers.  Unfortunately, too many groups take an email sign up as a sign that you are ready for a commitment -- and begin pushing some transaction that benefits the group (and not as much the user).  The equivalent in the dating world would introducing yourself and then almost immediately propositioning them follow you home to 'close the deal' (fill in your verbiage).  I suppose its possible that strategy will work, but its far from a sustainable model.  There is plenty of revenue out there for newspapers operating online if they focus on building their subscriber base, and then look at the opportunities that creates.

So much attention in the newspaper space is given to the advertising, unfortunately at the expense of content, relationship building and so on.  I know what I am willing to pay for, and I know there are many others like me -- so I also know there is revenue out there for newspapers, and even larger and more engaged audiences as well.  But here is a hint: its not the advertising I am interested in seeing when I log on to get the news or find out what is happening in the world.  So don't take the news that advertising revenues are slowing as a sign of bad news, but rather an opportunity to explore more and better options for serving audiences that will result in financial success.

06:05 am | 0 recommendations | 1 comment

A little rant about politics...

I just have to rant a little about politics.

It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if what you are doing isn't working anymore, you need to make a change.  

That's true in business -- if your product isn't selling, you need consider a different way of marketing it.  That's true in sports -- if your team isn't winning, you need to consider hiring new personnel or adjusting your style of play.  That is true in media -- if nobody is reading the print edition of your newspaper anymore, you need to consider putting more content online.  That is true in life -- and there are countless examples you could apply.

Why doesn't that concept apply to politics?

For years, candidates have been running campaigns that don't reflect the will of the voters.  The voters ask for a discussion of the issues, the candidates respond with soundbites and rhetoric.  The voters want to understand the candidates' records, and the campaigns respond by distoring their opponent's positions and smearing their character.  The campaigns keep doing the same thing, over and over.  How do the voters respond?  They tune out -- only a fraction of eligible voters show up at the polls, while nearly everyone who is asked expresses frustration, if not distaste, for the state of politics.

This cycle was supposed to be different.  Barack Obama and John McCain both ran against politics-as-usual.  They vowed to wage a campaign that focused on issues and avoided negative attacks.  They even flirted with the idea of holding town hall meetings, barnstorming the country and listening to voters concerns together.  

Then the gloves came off.

Last night, in the second of three Presidential debates, John McCain and Barack Obama went on the attack.  I don't think either candidate gave an answer (and I use the term 'answer' loosely because very few of the statements the candidates made actually responded to the questions that there posed) that didn't include a reference to the other guy.  They barely made eye contact the whole night.  And in TV and web ads, stump speeches and interviews that follow the debate, and consume our attention for the next 29 days, we'll see more of the same.

That's not what voters want.  There are important matters facing our country -- the economy, the war, healthcare, and education to name a few -- that deserve real debate.  We want to pick a President who we feel confident understands, and has a plan for addressing these critical issues.  But how are we to decide which candidate is best when neither one seems interested (or capable) of putting forward their own views, choosing instead to undermine the credibility and character of their opponent.  

Politics is broken.  What the candidates and campaigns are doing simply isn't working any more.  Something needs to change.  Its not likely to happen this cycle, and there is little prospect that politics will improve in the near future.  But that doesn't mean we don't deserve, and shouldn't demand better.

07:16 am | 0 recommendations | 4 comments

The Olympics Experience I Want

I have been waiting for the Olympics to begin for a long time.

I am drawn to the sports - the diversity of the skills on display, the high level of competition, and the powerful emotions behind every run, throw, stroke, spike, vault, lunge, and lift hold my attention for the full two weeks, and inspire me to be active.

I am intrigued by the global political implications - so many different languages and cultures on display, the pride and the patriotism athletes show as they represent their entire nation, and the ability to use sport to bring war, famine, poverty, AIDS, human rights and the challenges of world diplomacy into clearer focus for so many people who have chosen to ignore them the rest of the time.

I am fascinated by the logistics - the schedule, the geography, the details of the construction, and all the things (like the playing of all the national anthems) that makes the games uniquely complex to conduct yet seemingly effortless to pull off.

And with the XXIX Olympic Games in Beijing, the first in the broadband area, I have something else to pay attention to - the media.

There is nothing new about the Olympic Games being broadcast on television, written about by tens-of-thousands of reporters, or even having scores and highlights posted online in real-time. In fact, as sporting events go, the Olympics offers so many storylines (the Olympics isn't really one event - every athlete, in every event, is being covered by someone, and watched with interest by people in their home country) that no single organization or medium would suffice. But, as technology evolves, the internet expands, and the silos and borders that represent our traditional media environment break down, the challenges are many, new, and intriguing for sure.

In the United States, the exclusive broadcast rights for the Games were purchased by NBC. Over the course of the next two weeks, they'll share over 2000 hours of coverage - live and tape-delayed - across all their stations (NBC, CNBC, MSNC, USA, Telemundo, etc.) and online. Much of their prime time coverage, of course, will be tape delayed because Beijing is some 12 hours ahead of the United States (meaning 8pm EST in the United States is 8am in China, the beginning of a new day of competition). Meanwhile, the broadcast rights for every other country in the world has been sold to local and regional providers, like the BBC, Terra (the largest internet company in Latin America) and Organización de Televisión Iberoamericana, the African Union of Broadcasting (AUB) and the South African Broadcasting Corporation Limited (SABC), CCTV in China and so on.

And that is where it gets interesting.

As the New York Times reported on the first day of the Games, "NBC’s decision to delay broadcasting the opening ceremonies by 12 hours sent people across the country to their computers to poke holes in NBC’s technological wall — by finding newsfeeds on foreign broadcasters’ Web sites and by watching clips of the ceremonies on YouTube and other sites."

I admit, I was one of those people. I spent much of Friday morning refreshing my Twitter feed hoping to get live updates of the opening ceremonies from friends in attendance at the Birds Nest (and then using my insights to enhance the commentary I provided to my wife, and our two dinner guests, while watching the ceremonies on Friday night). And, though I am consuming as much live coverage through NBC's TV and Internet coverage as possible, I am also looking at the BBC and other foreign sites for video highlights and context from the preliminary rounds of competition in soccer, swimming, team handball, weightlifting, air pistol, fencing (which, interestingly, was dominated by the United States but still received very little coverage on this continent) and other sports where the US-centric coverage offered by the American media isn't complete or sufficient.

Even with all the coverage on TV and online from NBC (which thus far, I have to say is better than expected - the notable exception being any appearance by Chris Collinsworth, who I never see as adding value to a broadcast, even when the subject is football, his expertise), the peacock folks doing everything they can, it seems to make it more difficult for me to get my full Olympics fix.

Again, from the New York Times:

"In response, NBC sent frantic requests to Web sites, asking them to take down the illicit clips and restrict authorized video to host countries. As the four-hour ceremony progressed, a game of digital whack-a-mole took place. Network executives tried to regulate leaks on the Web and shut down unauthorized video, while viewers deftly traded new links on blogs and on the Twitter site, redirecting one another to coverage from, say, Germany, or a site with a grainy Spanish-language video stream."


I am not an expert in television rights, and I am certainly not on the hook for the billions of dollars that NBC has invested in this venture (roughly $900 million alone for the rights to broadcast Beijing, not counting the actual costs for pulling it off). I spend my time exploring how people get and share information in today's information age and what that means for organizations - of all types and sizes - in terms of communications, engagement, and mobilization. And even without that knowledge, I could have told you that NBC's plan presented some serious challenges.

Instead of trying to control every aspect of the information experience around the Olympics, with an iron fist no less, NBC should have focused on creating a better information experience for their audience, with the confidence that we would tune in to see the coverage wherever that experience was available. What does that look like? NBC should be syndicating its coverage to all the US networks who want to purchase a feed, offer online sites willing to embed NBC-driven players the offer to share their favorite highlights, and inviting individuals to pay a small fee to be able to access and customize extra coverage, on their terms.

There are hints that NBC understand this, and is trying to adjust their model. And certainly, NBC deserves a lot of credit for how it has planned its programming (I watched Michael Phelps win his first gold medal last night, live on NBC at around 10pm EST - what a treat!) to deliver as much live programming as possible. But the New York Times article, and other comments on blogs, from conversations I have had with friends in the media business, and my personal observations suggest that NBC is still operating with too much of a finger-in-the-dyke mentality. There is still so much more they can do.

I will keep watching, these games and all those that follow. And the early ratings from the opening ceremonies (34.2 million people in the US, and over a billion people worldwide tuned in) suggest I am far from alone in my commitment as a viewer/consumer. I just hope that NBC and all the broadcast groups around the world will continue to evolve their offering, and work together, to recognize what fans want from their Olympic experience, and try to deliver it. I know I am not alone in that.

(This is cross-posted on my personal blog, www.thinkingaboutmedia.com)