Flip the Media has been absolutely the best part of the MCDM for me. I can’t emphasize how many opportunities I have had because of the work I have done on the Flip. Be it covering fascinating workshops at the Sundance Film Festival or having my clips support an overseas research fellowship, my work at the Flip is my best portfolio and resume material from grad school. Flip the Media staff get to put thier creative energies forward in a way that no other class in the MCDM allows. In a program that doesn’t have many rigorous capstone opportunities, FtM is the way to go. A few weeks back we ran a very interesting article about the rise of the “Content Strategist” by Cheryl Lowry, one of our most talented editors. In that article she posits that any organization’s  communications strategy needs people who can produce, evaluate and curate quality content. That is what we do at the Flip. Everyday.

Join the team.

Here are the deets:

Flip the Media, the blog of the MCDM program, is seeking two senior editors for the 2012-2013 academic year.  Editors will act as Content Strategists, managing the flow of content on the blog, editing posts and curating the website, and as Community Engagement Specialists recruiting contributors, managing social media properties, organizing community events and brand evangelizing.

The editors will be supported by independent study students, volunteers and the faculty adviser, but will hold ultimate responsibility for everything that is published on Flip the Media, so this is a sizable commitment of time and effort.

The applicant should be an enrolled or entering MCDM student. Compensation for each position will come in the form of a tuition waiver for one 5 credit course.

To throw your hat in the ring, send a resume and a cover letter explaining why you’d like to take this on, and what vision you have for Flip the Media, to stonehil@uw.edu. Application deadline May 31st.

Applicants will be evaluated by a committee of MCDM faculty and outgoing Flip the Media contributors and editors.

With a flat market share and under pressure from investors, the administrator of the world’s largest advertising budget announced it was eliminating 1,600 non-manufacturing jobs – many from the marketing department – and shifting to digital only initiatives “to contain media spending long-term.”

P&G Chairman and CEO Bob McDonald:

“In the digital space, with things like Facebook and Google and others, we find that return on investment of the advertising when properly designed, when the big idea is there, can be much more efficient.” 

Interestingly enough, McDonald continued by pointing out that digital media’s largely free social distribution options could significantly drive down costs for the CPG manufacturer, citing the over 1.8B free impressions garnered by its break through “The Man Your Man Could Smell Like” campaign for Old Spice from 2010.

Many media theorists and market watchers know that digital isn’t really free despite what some execs profess. What’s important about McDonald’s statement is the indication that marketing executives view digital as a cost-saving channel powered by shared media and that is a job killer.

As consumers of media, we can only hope P&G’s move is in line with the macro-trend of brands shifting away from simply producing ads towards creating awesome, value-adding content.Seattle-based illustrator the Oatmeal recently published a clever “How to” in line with this trend, encouraging people to “put their energy into things that are likeable, not into – me douche social media strategy,” or in other words, “less marketing douchebaggery and more TANKS.”

So, was P&G’s move a cause for celebration for social media purists? Is it an affirmation that the advertising industry continues to evolve from “push” to “pull” strategies?

After interviewing a number of social media agencies of record (abbreviated as SMaoRs), web strategist Jeremiah Oywang has identified a new trend that suggests otherwise. With Facebook and Twitter releasing new ad units that transform popular social content into advertising units, social marketers (many of whom were set to disrupt the advertising industry) are vying with traditional agencies for larger shares of ad budgets.

As SMoaRs join the ad buying game and traditional agencies add social to their competencies, others view 2012 as the year of integration between ads and content. More marketers are making the case that the smart integration of “push” and “pull” strategies creates a whole communications strategy that’s greater than the sum of its parts. Nowhere is this happening more than in mobile, where second screens are enhancing the broadcast TV and branded apps are transforming retail into a networked platform experience.

For digital media professionals, this integration suggests that our future won’t necessarily be in a digital role at a traditional agency or working for a solely digital agency, but rather that qualifiers like these will no longer be relevant. Success will be measured in a company’s ability to market across any medium, channel, device, and audience and do it anytime, anywhere.

Even when the roles of social marketers and advertisers completely converge, consumers will ultimately determine the future of advertising.  Agencies and marketers only win when consumers are happy about the products and experiences being offered to them.  So, with an eye towards Facebook’s upcoming IPO which pins its financial success on its ability to generate ad revenue through its social network, there’s never been a more exciting – and challenging – time to be a digital marketer.

If you haven’t seen them yet, they’re awesome. This week, though, when I saw that the topic was “Popcorn,” my attitude was “meh.” I mean, I’ve seen slo-mo videos of popcorn before, so I wasn’t too excited by it.

But they got some really great footage. And the ‘between’ bits were hi-larious. Once you watch this one, you’ll want to watch all of their videos. So I apologize in advance for the loss of your afternoon of productivity.

Bwa-ha-haaaaaaaaa…

Click here to view the embedded video.

With hindsight I can identify three factors that worked against me while I was trying raise money with Kiskstarter: I could have marketed more than I did; I’m not an established name in the foodie/cocktail world and my video pitch could have been better. There are many other reasons that Kickstarter campaigns win or lose but the most important factors seem relatively obvious…if only in hindsight.

My biggest mistake was probably my pre kick-off marketing. More specifically – there was none. This is the single biggest thing I would change if I was going to run another Kickstarter campaign. In my case, I’d contact many distilleries and spirit companies to let them know about my intentions and give them a preview to the project. Even with no marketing, I had a few companies interested in supporting my project either through products or money. Getting them on board before the project kicked off would have given it a better chance.

Another big thing that I would do differently is to produce cocktail videos before running my project so people could see what they are getting into. I believed that the purpose of my project was to raise funds to buy video equipment to make cocktail videos, so any video I would have made before the project wouldn’t have been visually representative of what I wanted to do. Anyway… I decided to not do them, and perhaps that was the wrong choice. Short, targeted and compelling videos are great for building audience support for projects. They also give you the opportunity to update your campaign over time.

I spent a good deal of time prior to the project thinking about the funding levels. After running this project, I would now set my levels up very differently if I could turn back time. When the project is based around something in which no physical product is produced, I think you need to have fewer tiers of giving and lower corresponding value levels. I tried to have physical products as part of the funding levels, but I think most people want to give a few bucks to see the project take off. If they needed a specific physical product, they’d go buy it. If I decide to run my project again, I’ll top out at $25 with one higher level for distilleries or spirit companies.

What’s next for my Better Cocktails at Home project? Well it is going full steam ahead (minus good video equipment of course), and I’ve started gathering set decorations and building out the project’s online presence. The next major step is building a bar for the set, and once I have that, I’ll be ready to go. For now, I’m planning to use my phone to shoot the video and I’ll go from there.

I’m glad I attempted my Kickstarter project. It is interesting that I still feel committed to doing the project as I feel committed to the few people who supported it with pledges. Most importantly, I’m interested to see where my project goes. The last statistic I saw said that about 50% of projects are successfully funded, but I’m curious to know what percentage of the unsuccessful projects still happen. Perhaps Kickstarter is doing more than facilitating money transfer…maybe it is the catalyst for motivating the creator to do the project.
One interesting thing about Kickstarter is that it lets you run your project again. For right now though, I think I’ll continue to embrace the MCDM motto that got me into this: just do it and see what happens. Why would I let some trivial problem like no video equipment get in the way of making videos?

Its weight was metaphorical as well: had I really been creating content for the same company for a decade? What about the death of worker loyalty? What about the end of the full time job? Yet all around me, obelisks sprouted from windowsills and bookshelves, all suggesting a more stable working reality for  me and many of my colleagues.

A misconception exists that working for a large employer like Microsoft for many years is an easy deal. I can only speak for my profession – technical communication – but remaining competitive and ambitious within a large tech corporation is a prerequisite for survival. Here’s 4 more things I learned from my 10 (OK, 11) years at Microsoft:

1. Love the product more than your title. Large corporations offer an unmatched opportunity to impact products that are used by millions of people worldwide. Don’t accept a role working with technology, products, or services that don’t inspire you, even if the position you hold matches your preferred job title or skills. A corporate re-org can put you in this situation without your consent– don’t be afraid to begin your job search when that happens, either inside or outside the company you’re at.

2. Stay current with skills your company isn’t using at the moment. Large companies often use proprietary internal software tools. This is largely due to their own wealth of technical development resources and the prohibitive cost of licensing large scale mainstream products. Knowledge of those mainstream products, however, keeps you competitive. If your company is using home grown tools for content publishing, metrics, design, or other tasks, make sure to train yourself on the big name equivalents.

3. Embrace the performance review. Microsoft’s review system is notoriously tough, but many big-name corporations are just as competitive. The annual review is largely composed of managing others’ perceptions: Seattle management consultant Walter Oewein writes brilliantly on this topic. Early in your career, find a mentor who can teach you how to communicate your accomplishments to management skillfully during your annual review. Don’t skip this step. It’s more important than much of the busywork that will fill up your year.

4. Don’t overstay your welcome. Here are some signs that its time to make a change:

• You can’t picture your next move within the company.
• You’re more interested in other work.
• You’re afraid to leave, because you love the prestige, benefits, and stability, or maybe you just think that you won’t fit in somewhere else.

I’ve seen many careers derailed because of the third bullet in this list. Always break the golden handcuffs when you’re no longer doing something you love, even (and especially if) you have a family to support. Your career depends on it. In the words of Steve Jobs, “your work is going to fill a large part of your life, and the only way to be truly satisfied is to do what you believe is great work. And the only way to do great work is to love what you do. If you haven’t found it yet, keep looking.”

The video below from the New York Times is extraordinarily graphic and I do not recommend watching it with children or at work.

The video highlighted in this piece is by Robert Mackey and others who made there their way out of Syria in February and March were brought to us by a handful of journalists like the late Sunday Times writer Marie Colvin and murdered French cameraman Rémi Ochlik. Much of that footage is sent streaming via cell phone, a Mac mini and wi-fi technology. But that simple technology may also send a signal the Assad regime can use to pinpoint the position of journalists.

Modern technology is allowing people to record content from anywhere on the planet and deliver it to the world instantaneously. As soon as the videos aired, the world became a live witness to atrocities carried out by the Syrian government. Soon afterward the journalists in this video were also killed. Rémi Ochlik was 28.

In the interview below William Gagan and Geoff Shivley explain to Reuters correspondent Anthony De Rosa how they use technology available at the mall to stream live video from a country that enforces a ban on media with capital punishment. They also claim that Syria attacked their crowd–source funded account at WePay and tracked their Broadband Global Area Network signal. The BGAN is the network that sends phone messages to satellites. While journalists are using technology to bring the eyes of the world to Syria, if William & Geoff’s claim is true, it means that the Syrian government is using technology followed by military force to kill journalists.

So many of my friends are OBSESSED with Downton Abbey. I guess that’s what I get for hanging around with geeks–steampunk and Downton Abbey fill my social media feeds. So this video is for all of you DA aficionados.

I think that this should be the new intro credits for the next season. The only thing better would be if Maggie Smith were to do a rap. That would make my life complete.

Click here to view the embedded video.

While Facebook’s IPO day will almost certainly be spectacular, its long term success is far from assured. As a soon-to-be public traded company, Facebook faces a conundrum – the balance between shareholder and user interests.

Depending on your perspective, the latest numbers show potential for some, but trouble for other. Facebook’s revenue for the first quarter of 2012 was $1.058 billion, down from the $1.131 billion in the fourth quarter of 2011. Profits for the first quarter of 2012 were $205 million, down from $233 million in the same period in 2011 and down from $302 million in the fourth quarter of 2011. While the setback is hardly a disaster, it certainly generated much anxiety from Wall Street.

There are already signs that changes are inevitable. One way or another, Facebook needs to generate more revenue to justify its projected $100 billion valuation. According to a New York Times article, Facebook announced new advertising features in a recent marketing conference. A departure from the current clean look where ads on only placed on the right side,  a new set of “premium ads” will run at different places on the site, as well as throughout a user’s mobile feed. Facebook is marketing itself to advertisers as “a big, fat story-telling canvas.”

What those changes look like is still not clear. One thing is certain, Facebook is attempting to reverse the trend of declining revenue and profit, and it will likely succeed in doing so. How will the user community react over time? Facebook has certainly built up a large enough user base which is not going to abandon the social connections built up over night. However, online trends come and go. After all, Facebook itself was created only in 2004, less than 10 years ago.  New ideas are popping up constantly. Facebook’s recent purchase of Instagram shows just how seriously it takes emerging threats. Instagram’s mobile photo sharing service has been gaining popularity, but it is still in its infancy, with an employee count of 13, according to Wikipedia. Instead of developing its own version, Facebook acquired Instagram for $1 billion cash and stock. Sure, Facebook is loaded with cash, and the upcoming IPO will give it even more financial muscle. But is it going to buy up every new promising innovation to prevent itself becoming the Yahoo of social media?

More importantly, under mounting pressure for revenue and profit, how will Facebook balance the interest of its vast user community, with those of advertisers? Facebook will certainly be watching the numbers closely, and make adjustments. Social media trends are viral and exponential. At the end of the day, the fate of Facebook will be decided not by Wall Street, but by the social networks weaved by its 900 million users.