Anthony De Rosa

xoxosweetheart:

Kid Cudi ft. MGMT: Pursuit of Happiness

shaneguiter:

Apple Keeping Tight Wraps on iPad as Lucky Developers Gain Restricted Access - Mac Rumors

matthewcerrone:

LINK: Consumers Engaged Via Social Media

“67% of Twitter followers are more likely to buy since connecting with the company on social media.”

This is because, in society, people look to navigators.

Like I mentioned in the previous post, there is SO MUCH information online, on billboards, on TV, in print, etc., it can all be overwhelming… so, it helps to identify and narrow down a one or two people in a specific area, who you trust, and can go to for guidance and direction.

For instance, when I need to buy a television, I call my friend CJ.  I’m thinking about buying a MAC, but before I do I will call my Dad and my friend Gil, and I’ll read reviews on TechCrunch and Mashable. 

These people are my navigators, and they exist on blogs, on my phone, next door, on Twitter, and any other place people connect.

Word of mouth is the real valuable advertising now, and companies can only really get involved in a way that seems authentic, which is really, really hard. Most of us are way too savvy to be sold something by a company that wants to be our “friend” on twitter, or be shilled by someone, like a Julia Allison, who tries to work product placement into “lifestreams” in subtle ways.

Advertising is mostly dead, except in the old school sense, for branding. It’s sad that digital ad salespeople have used metrics to such an extent that they’ve diluted the value of their traffic. Nobody knows the click-through rate of a television commercial or an ad in a newspaper or magazine because there isn’t one, unless there is some specific call to action, but it’s still not nearly as trackable as an online ad. The trackability has, as Mel Karmazin said, “stolen the magic” from advertising, which used to be mostly smoke and mirrors.

It comes back to just creating something valuable and getting people to know your product exists, the rest just comes off like a used car salesman. Social media is more for customer support and customer service. We don’t want to be sold something, we want to know you’re there if we have a question or a complaint.

cerealcommas:

I’m jumping this back-and-forth over from Twitter, because that whole 140 character thing drives me fucking crazy, but Soup posed a very interesting question about why sites like Gawker, Gawker.TV, Mediaite, etc. can get away with posting (and, in some cases — like Mediaite’s — even overlay their own ads) others’ content and face no legal retribution by the content owners.

Beginning with the caveat that my knowledge of copyright law is fairly limited, I have to say the situation doesn’t appear to be differ much from your typical fair use case.

Broadcast news, entertainment news, and shows like The Soup and The Daily Show, for instance, do this all the time. Whoopi coins the term “rape-rape,” and every major news program is airing the clip by 6 p.m.

Are they all paying royalties to Disney? Probably not, but they’re still making hella bank on the revenue from sold ad time. (Certainly more than Gawker’s making off its pageviews ”unqiues,” I’d imagine.)

Sure, part of the reason sites like Gawker, Mediaite, et al can “get away” with this is because they’re just not a big enough thorn in content owners’ sides to warrant any legal action (indeed, they probably see it as free publicity).

But even with that aside, I’m not sure I see how they’re doing anything wrong. If Viacom sued Mediaite for posting Daily Show clips and embedding its own ads, it’d have to demonstrate there’s a substantive difference between a banner ad on the side of a page, an interstitial ad you must click through before reaching the content, or an overlay ad that you have to close before you can watch the clip (or, to drive the analogy home: the commercials ABC airs between segments of Diane Sawyer’s warbly newscasting).

In other words, they have to answer the question: How does this type of ad (as opposed to these other, accepted types of ads), negate the fair use purposes of this video/article/blog post/etc?

So yes, it’s kind of strange that you can take someone’s work and slap ads on it, but it’s not exactly a novel practice? And as long as it’s not a rote regurgitation of the borrowed content (in other words, as long as there’s some kind of context or commentary or transformativeness involved), odds are — especially in the context of disseminating news — it can still be called fair use.

(But if you really want a good mindfuck, let’s go back and read Gawker.TV’s coverage of the so-called “Late Night Wars.”

Yes, it was timely; comprehensive; an excellent resource for people to get the story’s highlights; and featured some great, analytical follow-up posts; but the initial nightly recaps of each host’s monologues consisted of mostly just clips and transcripts, with (at least initially) little or no substantial commentary. And several of the commenters even said the reason they appreciated Matt’s posts so much was so they wouldn’t have to consume the actual product.

Hell, you’ve got purpose and character, nature, substantiality, and effect on value rolled into one! So if you want a ripe example of an iffy fair use application to start picking apart, that’s actually a good place to start.)

Great job here by Sergio. I don’t have the answers, that’s why I am asking the questions. He sounds like he knows what he’s talking about, but it seems like everyone has an opinion on if it’s legal or ethical but nobody really knows for sure.

It goes back to enforcement, most content creators look the other way because it’s good publicity and they hope it eventually converts into actual viewers. Others view it as theft and go after them, like many have gone after YouTube, who doesn’t want to be bothered with figuring out Fair Use.

And then there are the people who see it the way Sergio does, that it’s no different than the way The Daily Show uses clips mixed in with commentary on their show. It’s a mash up.

Who is right, who is wrong? I don’t know, but I wish there was more time spent trying to figure this out. Seems like most people are too scared to even deal with it.

tanya77:

Now all we need is a migration to SCRIPTED NARRATIVES. C’mon; is that so risky, so new, so dangerous?

(via)

thisiswhyyourefat:

Screw basketball, we’re all about the Pie vs. Cake Tournament going on at Jezebel. 

tanya77:

(via)

Oasis : Supersonic (Live)

The Replacements : Unsatisfied

Please reblog, tweet, etc.

rillawafers: Really…

You’re absolutely right, but if you’re going to be fair, you can’t just point the finger at me and plead ignorance when it comes to Funny or Die.

Gawker, Mediaite, me, we’re all responsible for propagating content without permission of Viacom, but Funny or Die is at fault as well for the same reasons I made before: recreating the old studio system where the only people getting fat off the profits is so far upstream that the actors and crew are relegated to non-union slave labor. They don’t pay their actors. SAG isn’t endorsing what they do and they hire non-union. How much do you think they pay their crew? NOTHING How much do you think they pay for outside-produced content? NOTHING

Oh, and that user submitted content? Per their Terms of Use:

by submitting the User Submissions to Funny or Die, you hereby grant Funny or Die a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicenseable and transferable license to use, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivative works of, display, and perform the User Submissions in connection with the Funny or Die Website and Funny or Die’s (and its successor’s) business, including without limitation for promoting and redistributing part or all of the Funny or Die Website (and derivative works thereof) in any media formats and through any media channels.

If we are getting technical, you have no idea what you are talking about, but I still understand and agree with your sentiment. The Daily Show offers embedded clips on their site, which means it’s ok for Gawker/Mediaite to embed their own. During the last union negotiations, the big media corporation lawyers INSISTED that they be able to show long clips and even entire episodes and not pay residuals because “it’s just promotion.”

Is it right? No, but neither are the business practices under which Funny or Die is running their company.

So yeah, the whole system sucks, I’m part of it, and we should and can do better.

The Jon Stewart Clip That Will Have Glenn Beck Crying Real Tears

rillawafers:

The Secret to Funny or Die’s Success: Celebrities, Product Placement, and Above All Else, Funny

I’d like to think it’s all about “swears and tits” too.

Actually I think the secret to Funny or Die’s success is getting union actors to work non-union and not pay them even through ALL their ad revenue is BECAUSE they have celebrities in their videos.

They’ve even gone so far as to brag about not paying anyone when speaking on panels. These actors could be kicked out of SAG if SAG wanted to get tough. I’m willing to bet the actors have NO idea that FOD is causing them to work possibly the first non-union jobs of their lives.

The SAG New Media contract is 100% negotiable. You are bound only by California minimum wages, so we’re talking $100 a day, big fucking deal for FOD to pay that.

jayparkinsonmd:

I did my pediatric residency at St. Vincent’s. As this doctor says, this is reality.

“Oh my God! That is sacridorable.”

30 Rock compares Comcast, future owner of NBC, to a porn company.

Jack Donahey : “At one point my obituary was going to say CEO of GE…now, middle manager of a Philadelphia based porn distributor”

VIV Mag Motion Cover - iPad Demo

unsolicitedanalysis:

The thing that gets me excited about health care is that legislators seem to have the balls to pass a bill in spite of its controversy.  That’s amazing, because it honestly isn’t something I’ve seen in my adult life.  The last time was what, 1992, when GHW increased taxes in spite of his “read my lips” pledge because he truly believed in attacking the deficit?

If we can seriously, finally pass a bill of real meaning to angry, passionate people it might encourage me to be less of a political nihilist.  That’s a big win, even if I disagree with some of the bill’s approaches.

I knew it all along.

azspot:bartcop.com

sxswonblast:

Pics or it didn’t happen, eh? Well: IN. YOUR. FACE.

iDied! Chloe. Sevigny.

I’m jealous of myself.

I sat next to Chloe at the NWK gate on the way home.

atencio:

This is why I don’t go to SXSW. Or Burning Man. Or Tok, Alaska.

rillawafers in regards to Funny or Die

I love Funny or Die’s content, their videos are some of the best on the web, but I hate going to their website. First, I hate the black background, it’s murder on my eyes, and makes a lot of what is slapped on top of it hard to read. The use of whitespace is poor, they seem to want to try and squeeze as much as humanely possible in every single pixel.

In summary, FOD is trying to fit too much on one page on every page of their site, and is in serious need of an art director.

That’s just my opinion, others may not care or think it’s just fine. I still watch the videos, they usually come to me by other means than their actual website.

Embargoes (via arik)

iGroups: Apple’s New iPhone Social App in Development

skybarn:

Paul Westerberg and Alex Chilton

Teenage Fanclub : Have You Ever Seen The Rain

(via fek)

neighborhoodr-eastvillage:

With reaction from the community.

Read the whole thing here.

baitandswitch:

catbird:

newspeedwayboogie:

Alex Chilton honored in Congress by Rep Steve Cohen.

Mentions the Box Tops, Big Star, the Replacements and SxSW.

Wow, that is really awesome. Major props to Rep. Cohen for doing that.

RIP, Alex.

this is my representative. when i was 18, i worked as his volunteer coordinator and was given the responsibility/ the pleasure of taking warren zevon to al green’s church.

and this made me cry.

buzzfeed:

Matt has taken Tiger Woods’ nasty text messages and paired them with adorable kittens. You need to see them all! 

Kittens and Tiger Woods’ Sexts

I want to give the Internet a group hug today.

Had to be done.

rillawafers:

The Secret to Funny or Die’s Success: Celebrities, Product Placement, and Above All Else, Funny

I’d like to think it’s all about “swears and tits” too.

Great content but their website is a complete mess, perhaps on purpose.

savingpaper:

Warren Buffet does his best rendition of Axl Rose for a guest appearance in a power ballad music video produced by employees of Geico, the insurer he owns through Berkshire Hathaway. [via NYT]

(via andrewmcclain)

Let Me In by Mario Testino

ryanbrown:

My favorite one.

+1 but I still loathe Phish.

ninety9:

People will still sext with abandon tomorrow.