Read the article here

I just want to say that Twitter is going to go down as the most over-hyped phenomena in the history of tech. It's utterly mind blowing how SMS messaging gets so much press coverage. I've got nothing against Twitter and can fully appreciate the value it offers to both personal and business environments - but let's come back to earth here (no pun intended), it's just mass SMS.  It's no different than having your personal e-mail subscription list where you blast emails to hundreds of people at once - except Twitter has a 140 character message limit and is posted to the Web before being blasted out.

The obsession with Twitter, if you ask me, is in the name. People just love saying the word 'twitter'. And it has gained such notoriety that journalists love putting the word 'twitter' in their story headlines - it's an immediate attention grabber.

Twitter will eventually move out of the hype cycle, just the way Facebook, MySpace, YouTube and every other social networking application does. Which won't make it irrelevant, but the coverage it receives will transition to a more realistic perspective.

You've got to give it to Twitter though - phenomenal job on the publicity front. They've managed to sustain an incredibly high level of external interest despite the service being no more disruptive or world-changing than any other 2.0 application. In fact, I'm surprised there has yet to be any major backlash on Twitter - whose user community base could arguably be seen as self-obsessed Gen-Y'ers who feel the need to let the world know what they are doing every 5 minutes.

Check out the funny video below for an example of how twitter has become this unique phenomena where it is both praised and mocked at the same time.

While praising AIG's commitment to PR, I also was critical of the lack of information on their Web site. Well, they finally have included a section called "Moving Forward" that includes some Q&A's and various other documents. While it could certainly be built out quite a bit more, it's a move in the right direction.

I've always been a big believer that a company's Web site is the most defining medium in terms of its brand management. And yet, so many company's do not leverage it as such. I suspect one of the reasons is that posting static public content requires multiple levels of vetting - which is time consuming. Management are generally extremely busy and don't have time to review Web pages - they often view the Web as a 'marketing tool' as opposed to a 'communications medium' in which marketing is merely part of the brand equity mix.

Press releases and public statements can be drafted quickly and authorized by management and  corporate lawyers within hours - which explains the attention and priority they receive. 

Not often - actually I can't remember ever - seeing an innovative ad for Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Yet their recent 'Waking up Canadian' campaign is actually really well done. They also achieved quite a bit of media coverage south of the border relating to this policy... in no small part, I'm sure, to the fun and fresh ad they created. The only thing missing from the commercial is a Molson Canadian - but can't really fault them for that =)  Anyway, this is a good example of how marketing and PR are tied at the hip - too often PR has to combat bad marketing, raising interest when a marketing campaign has failed to do so. Nothing is more enjoyable though than when marketing hits a home run and PR can pick up the ball and run with it.

http://www.thestar.com/unassigned/article/617982

Quick summary: Amazon had a cataloging computer error that removed a wide section of gay and lesbian books from their site - or at least made it harder to find such books. Folks saw this and quickly accused Amazon of being prejudice against gay literature. Turns out it was a computer error that effected other book genres as well.

Good job by Amazon's PR folks to nip this crisis in the bud as best they could.  It's shocking the amount of coverage this 'non-news' item got. Common sense would tell you if they were selling the books in the first place, that's a pretty good indication they aren't prejudice against such books. But for some reason the media just pounced on this.

I guess it's the 'What if?' appeal of the story - what if Amazon had intentionally made gay literature harder to purchase. So thumbs up to the PR folks who replied to the media quickly explaining the situation. While stories still ran, they accurately reflected that the event was nothing more than a computer error.

Time recently had an article that asks whether AIG is spending too much on PR - Is AIG Spending Too Much on Public Relations?

AIG has four firms retained to handle their PR - Sard Verbinnen & Co., Kekst & Co., Burson-Marsteller, and Hill & Knowlton.  Kudos to AIG for realizing how important communications is during a time of crisis. But at the same time, I've got to scatch my head. If you visit AIG's web site, there isn't a single drop of info on AIG and the government bail-outs - not even a statement of appreciation to the American tax payer or outlines of plans on how the bail-out money is being used.

This seems to suggest that AIG doesn't see the public-at-large as one of its target audiences. Which is why I have to scratch my head, given it's the women in pink shirts and people twittering to CNN live who are holding the pitch folks. Perhaps AIG felt that communicating with the public-at-large was a no-win scenario given the gravity of the situation.

While I applaud AIG's recognition that PR is an essential tool in facilitating their restructuring and stability initiatives, it would be nice to see them extent that philosophy beyond Washginton politics to the general publics - who are funding their recovery and who buy their services.

I was really impressed with Sprint's new commercial. Notice how the message is being embedded in a conversational tone of marketing. It's not in your face, here's our product, buy our product type of marketing. It's more 'hey let's talk about how how our product is a part of your world' - from spam to twitter to youtube to search patterns - it's all centered around how Sprint's offering fits into the individuals evolving 2.0 lifestyle. I mean, by the end of the ad, you have no clue what Sprint sells (you see a quick shot of a cell phone only) - there's no product offering, no real product shots even - but they are successfully incorporating themselves into the individual's conversational psyche - and by extension embedding their brand as the de facto authority on everything communications. I also love how they take the brand equity of youtube, twitter, etc. and tie it to their own brand. Brilliant marketing if you ask me. 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123854056373275583.html

What strikes me as odd is how there seems to have been no forethought given to how the media would report on the increase in cigarette taxes prior to communicating the event. As a result, the stories coming out are sympathetic to smokers, and in many cases actually pushing into the market counter productive messaging that maybe smoking isn't really bad for you. CNN quoted an 83-year-old woman who had been smoking for 50 years - and as seen in the cnn clip below this man outright states he doesn't think smoking is that bad. While adults will see through these views, kids hear them and use them as a defense for smoking.

This a good example of how not thinking about post-announcement coverage can hurt your overall cause. All they had to do what toss in some statistics about the cost of smoking on the health care system and the media probably would have run with a more balanced approach to the story.

For decades the government has been vigilante about getting the message out there that smoking is bad and they should have taken steps to protect that message when making their announcement regarding tax increases.

[disclosure: While I am a fierce advocate against smoking, I myself smoke.]