It’s been a while since I last posted. Teaching, work, and preparing to retire from the Army have kept me away from the blog for a while. I hope to do better.
Variety Magazine (of which I am a loyal reader and subscriber) ran an article a couple of days ago titled, “Hollywood calls ‘Truce’ on war films.” Basically the article was proclaiming that the war genre is dead…at least for now.
Hollywood calls 'Truce' on war films
After reading the article, I felt compelled to comment on their website…as did several other people. This blog entry is the same as my comments on the Variety site…click here to read the comments of other readers…I would love to hear what you think?
My comments follow:
Full Disclosure: I am Lieutenant Colonel Gregory Bishop, the U.S. Army’s Entertainment Liaison, here in Los Angeles.
I disagree with the premise that the war genre is dead. Rather, the political-war genre is dead.
Americans outside Hollywood are starving for a real war movie. One like the classics where there are good guys (the U.S. Military) and where there are bad guys (the enemy that’s trying to kill us)…CALL OF DUTY (Modern Warfare 2) video game made $550 million in 5 days…we were the good guys.
The American people are ready for a realistic portrayal of our Soldiers, not an amped-up, over-the-top, unprofessional portrayal. They crave one that depicts our troops as they are, patriotic volunteer-professionals with the courage to fight the enemy, and one that depicts the enemy as they are…brutal cave-dwelling religious zealots who want to kill any and all Westerners.
The problem with recent war movies, and their box-office failures, is that they are insulting to our troops, and offensive to many Americans. One was full of ridiculous scenarios, including war crimes, that went beyond “hollywood-ification.” The other is a political movie that happens to take place in a war zone.
In the war genre, American audiences don’t want to be preached to, nor told we’re the bad guys…they want to feel pride and patriotism, because we’re the good guys.
My question for filmmakers is, “What is it about war that isn’t dramatic enough for you?” War, and the war genre, has all the elements of a great story, and inherently has hundreds of mind-blowingly dramatic REAL stories waiting to be told.
Hollywood is alienating millions of potential core audience members. There are 23 million veterans in the U.S., two million active-duty military members, and millions of loyal civilians who either work for the Department of Defense or are somehow connected to the troops (contractors, local communities, etc.).
Hollywood is clearly missing the mark on what your audience wants, and missing an opportunity for box-office success. Honor the troops with accurate or plausible portrayals, and more importantly, leave your politics out of it.
FULL DISCLOSURE AND DISCLAIMER- I am a Public Affair Officer for the U.S. Army, and thus an employee of the Federal Government. The following are my opinions and should not in any way be perceived as an official statement or position of the U.S. Government.
Red Bull USA
Most marketing pros these days have either expressed, or heard of the idea that brands can be/are/should be their own production studios. I mean, current technology allows it. Studio quality HD cameras and full editing suites are now even affordable to individuals and don’t require the massive investments they used to. Traditional advertising is less effective and more expensive, so it makes sense to venture into this new territory of brand-based entertainment. Lots of major brands are already doing it…Coca Cola, McDonald’s, Red Bull, GE, BMW, etc., etc.
So, if brands are essentially becoming (or have already become) production studios, creating compelling and entertaining content, what is going to happen to government brands? Will they jump on the production-house band wagon, or will they be left behind? After all, our government is full of brands. Every Congressman and Senator is their own brand (like any pro athlete or entertainer), nearly every department (CIA, FBI, EPA, Army, Marines, Treasury, etc., etc., etc….) is their own brand (like any corporation), and you could even argue that the Supreme Court is their own brand (as a body and as individuals).
Government agencies are already producing their own content. The military has its own network of global media outlets. Granted most of them are targeting internal audiences, but cable providers distribute “The Pentagon Channel” nationwide. The Army has even produced entertainment content, although they are legally permitted to do so provided it supports their recruiting effort…but that’s a broad and easily defensible test. Where’s the line? Who draws it? Technology is moving faster than our legislative bodies are able to adapt, so who’s keeping our government from overstepping its bounds?
The U.S. Army iPhone App
Today, nearly every government agency has a web site with its own internally produced
news items, and some not-so-newsy-items. The government, like everyone else, used to rely on the media to communicate and filter their messages. But not anymore. Frankly, we can all go direct to our audiences now. The Army, and even the White House now have their own free iPhone applications (both are free…you should check them out for yourself, click here for the THE ARMY APP and THE WHITE HOUSE APP). But how healthy is that for a democracy when the government skips the “fourth estate” …who arguably is asleep at the wheel while dying on the
vine (excuse the mixed metaphors please). Where are the watchdogs in all of this?
The White House iPhone app
Further, in this emerging era of “transmedia” where the lines between news and entertainment, tv and the internet, fact and fiction are getting blurrier with every evolutionary phase of Moore’s Law, when does government communication become propaganda?
“How is it that the federal government can produce propaganda?” Well, the answer is rather simple: the laws of our nation do little to stop propaganda.
If you search American law, the U.S. code [http://uscode.house.gov/] for the word “propaganda,” you won’t find much. You might read that “foreign agents” who propagandize must register with the U.S. government, but you won’t find any law that prohibits the U.S. government from promoting the U.S. and its policies to citizens in other nations. “Public diplomacy” and, in the military context, “information warfare” are permissible and have long been practiced by the federal government.
But, what about federal propaganda targeting domestic audiences? (5 U.S.C. 3107) prohibits our government from using federal money “for the compensation of any publicity expert unless specifically appropriated for that purpose.” And Congressional appropriations acts often include provisions stating “No part of any appropriation contained in this Act shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes not heretofor authorized by Congress.” Together, these prohibitions might seem like a formidable bulwark against federal agencies and officers engaged in activities to promote government policies and people.
Why, one might wonder, don’t they? Well, a host of minor reasons might be cited, but the big problem is that Congress never bothered to define what constitutes “propaganda” or “public relations.” 1 A search of the public record for Congress’s intent turns up only a brief colloquy in 1913 before the adoption of the prohibition against the employment of publicity experts. Rep. Frederick H. Gillett (R-MA), who was displeased to learn that the Office of Public Roads of the Department of Agriculture sought to hire a publicity expert, proposed an amendment to an appropriations bill. Rep. Asbury F. Lever (D-SC) sought clarification — “The gentleman has defined the publicity expert … [as] a man whose business is to extol and exploit the virtues of [an] agency. The gentleman does not undertake in this amendment to prevent some one employed by the Department of Agriculture, for instance, giving to the country information as to the work of the department?” Rep. Gillett responded, “Of course not.” And there you have it — the law prohibits hiring a public relations flack to promote an agency itself, but does not prohibit the promotion of an agency’s policies or works.
Readers might be tempted to condemn Congress for failing to define what constitutes acceptable agency communications with the public and what is “propaganda.” The problem, though, is that defining good government communications from bad ones is not easy task. Crack open the Oxford English Dictionary and one finds “propaganda” defined as the “systematic propagation of information or ideas by an interested party, especially in a tendentious way in order to encourage or instill a particular attitude or response.” Defined thus, the Department of Transportation’s media campaigns to discourage drunken driving and nearly every campaign for public office might constitute “propaganda.” A peek at Dictionary.com also doesn’t carry one much further — “The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.”
The challenges of defining propaganda are formidable and may call to the reader’s mind Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart’s concurrence in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), which involved a theater manager being arrested for showing an erotic French film. Stewart wrote, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description [of “hard-core pornography”]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it…” or a more thorough discussion of this subject, see Kevin R. Kosar, “The Law: The Executive Branch and Propaganda: The Limits of Legal Restrictions,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, 35, no. 4, December 2005.
OK, it’s been a while since my last blog. Too long really. I planned to take a break during the holidays, but then it extended a little beyond that. Why? Well, I started teaching a class at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism (PR Research & Analysis), work has been pretty busy with Season 4 of Army Wives kicking back up production and assorted other projects big and small, and I spent the last four days in Park City, Utah at Sundance with the movie “The Dry Land“…how’s that for excuses.
But, this blog entry is titled “Finding the right entertainment projects for your brand” not “lame excuses for not blogging lately,” so here we go.
People often ask, when they realize what job I have, “how does the Army decide what projects to support and what projects they don’t?” While our M.O. is slightly different from commercial brands because they have to pay for their brand integration and we have the luxury of being the only organization with tanks, military helicopters, recent war experience, etc., so they need us, the decision process is the same.
Bottom line, it’s all about strategy.
What are your organization’s strategic communication goals? What entertainment properties will help you accomplish those goals? And can you integrate the two into a seamless brand experience without taking the audience out of the story for one of those “ahhh, look….a product placement ad stuck in the middle of my TV show” experiences.
A great example of this is the aforementioned “The Dry Land” movie. This movie is about a Soldier who returns from Iraq and is suffering from PTSD (Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder). A lot of people wondered why the Army was supporting a movie that wasn’t a “pro-Army” movie. Well, the answer was simple. It fit our strategy.
One of the Army’s top priorities is taking care of our wounded troops, thus one of our top communication priorities is to talk about what we’re doing to help our wounded warriors. While this movie doesn’t address that directly, it will present opportunities to further the dialogue. Moreover, it will demonstrate to our Soldiers that the Army is comfortable talking about this issue, thus encouraging them to seek help openly and fearlessly.
Ok, but following strategy is pretty obvious…how do you FIND projects?
We like to think in terms of offense and defense (or proactive and reactive).
Offense. One obvious place is to keep up with the trade pubs, websites, etc. But sometimes their “radar” doesn’t extend far or wide enough. There are other ways to get serious about this.
We don’t use agencies to find brand integration opportunities. But if your organization doesn’t have a presence in Hollywood or lacks the cache or network to find projects on your own, it’s not a bad idea to partner with some experts. There are a lot of agencies that provide this service. Some specialize, like BNC, Momentum Worldwide, and dozens more, and others dabble, like most advertising agencies who are scrambling to find a position in this marketing space. Most of the big talent agencies are also very much involved in this business.
The benefit of using talent agencies is that their tentacles are in every aspect of the business. They rep writers so they know what scripts are in early development, directors so they know how the scripts will be interpreted, and actors so they know what cache the project will carry. They are excellent at marrying brands to projects. But this kind of help is pricey.
Another great place to start is The Lounge at the LA Office. It’s a social network of branded entertainment professionals from corporations and most of the major networks, studios, video game companies, agencies, etc. who are shopping their upcoming projects to potential brand partners. It’s a little costly for individuals, but it’s a great deal for firms.
The defense. For the U.S. Army, we are in the fortunate position that projects typically find us first. Like I said earlier, we’re the only organization with the latest tanks, helicopters, tactical experience, etc., so we typically find ourselves in reactive mode. However, if you’re able to make it known in the industry (through networking or other means) that your brand is openly and actively seeking brand integration opportunities, the projects may very well find you as well.
Again, the bottom line, it’s about strategy.
Producers of entertainment properties are looking for new revenue streams, and integrating brands into the story is one of the ways they’re doing that. It’s not new…frankly it’s how TV started, but there are still a lot of unanswered questions regarding monetization, value, etc.
Would love to hear thoughts on this post! Send your comments or questions!
That’s the question that’s been on everyone’s mind for the last 12 years or so, ever since director James Cameron released what would go on to become the highest-grossing film of all time and a star-making vehicle for its two young stars. While various rumors have circulated through the decade-plus since the pride of the White Star line met its cinematic fate about what the director would do next there’s been nothing in the way of actual output aside from producer credits on a couple of documentaries, including at least one the revisited the Titanic’s history but without the schmaltzy bookending.
Of course it’s not as if Titanic was Cameron’s arrival on-screen. He had already built up an amazing list of credits, including both (to date) Terminator movies, Aliens, True Lies and others that had already cemented him as a Hollywood powerhouse, meaning he was going in to Titanic with a lot behind him.
So the anticipation has been huge about how Cameron would return after such a long absence. But whatever it was going to be, the one thing that everyone was more or less agreed upon was that it was going to be huge.
Anyone who’s seen how the movie/tv sausage is made knows that there are a LOT more film reels shot in a production than is actually depicted in the final project. So what should producers, directors, studios, etc, do with all that footage? It sure costs a lot…could/should it be used for other purposes?
I read an interesting “white paper” from BNC Public Relations (one of the biggies in Hollywood) titled “Tech Down This Wall” (found it after reading about their recent merger and checking out their site).
It’s an interesting paper, although it’s really only a slide show…and only the text is white…but whatever, it’s interesting still. It explores “How traditional ways of working in the Entertainment world are being radically changed.” It begins with the standard 24-hour news cycle, blogs, social media stuff that we’ve all heard a million times, but there’s a section (among several interesting ones) on what they call “zero waste productions.”
Now before all my tree huggin’ friends get all excited about the movies actually going green (even though some of them are…was on the Sony set of “Battle: Los Angeles” and they are doing it successfully), I don’t mean not ‘wasting’ as in using too much, rather I mean not wasting as in “you shot it, might as well use it for somethin’.”
BNC recommends filmmakers use their ‘scrap footage’ creatively and strategically to tease the audience and build their brand. I certainly think it’s worth exploring, depending on the production, target fan base, marketing strategy, etc. Let your hard-core audience in on the process (to a point), and use it to build brand loyalty, improve the customer’s experience and their understanding. Creatively leveraging this otherwise wasted asset, could prove valuable.
I wonder if filmmakers would ever relinquish their unused footage to the public for a “build your own movie trailer” contest? …or to create their own back stories? Or if brands would allow their “brand-base” to make their own commercials. Sure you’ll get the knuckle-heads that mock your brand/movie, but it’s still publicity, right?…and like most ‘haters’ in social media environments, the masses tend to fend them off.
And who says “making of” videos need to come out with the DVDs? Was that standard started because it was the only way to distribute that type of content back then? And now we’re just stuck in a “that’s the way we’ve always done it” routine? In this emerging era of “transmedia” and “social media” and “branded entertainment” why not push some of that content out before the movie via new media distribution methods? I know a lot of movies and shows are beginning to do a little of this…but would it serve them to do more?
Or does giving too much away distract from the final production? Will it diminish the fantasy of the movie experience? Will it help or hinder box office returns?
Either way, these are certainly interesting times in the worlds of entertainment, advertising, PR, social media, and technology. People in the industry would serve themselves well by stepping back and looking at their landscape with fresh eyes, like BNC has.
Would love to hear your thoughts on these ideas, and your own ideas on this concept.
…oh, and the BNC paper is worth reading …there are lots of other ideas in there too.
OTHER TOPICS:
– How fans impact the scripts of your favorite shows
– Do Nielsen ratings matter anymore?
– The heart of all content is the story
Augmented what? Yeah…that’s what I said the first time I heard the term.
What is Augmented Reality (AR)?
There are several examples in this posting that will explain what it is, and I hope I’m able to spark some ideas on what more it can/will be.
First, AR, at least at the consumer level, is by no means a mature technology yet…yet. Don’t get me wrong, there are functioning AR technologies out there, but many are just barely getting past the “pong” stage, to use a hackneyed video game metaphor. AR is clearly in its infancy, but it’ll be exciting to watch it grow-up.
Ok…but what is it?
AR technology is the nexus between our physical/real environment and the electronic data within our computers and the internet. AR uses a camera of some sort (typically a web cam) to bring the physical world into the computer, where it then synchs and merges it with data. It does this using a surprisingly simple method for pattern recognition, often just a pattern printed on a piece of paper, for reference points, and it uses these reference points to merge data (animation, video, whatever) with reality, synching it in space and time with what you see on the computer.
Here’s a simple example of one of the most widely used demos of AR (that I’ve seen so far anyway). It’s a Mini Cooper clip, about an ad in a German magazine…so forgive the language barrier, unless you spreckenzie…
Cool, eh?
Ok…so, that’s kinda cool…but so what?
The novelty will wear off quickly for users because that really doesn’t DO anything. So how can brands make AR something more than a novel experience for their customers, and make it functional? How can they bring their customers closer to the brand, enhance their brand experience, inform them, and better yet, inspire their customers to take action?
Here’s a great example of how “Lego’s” is using AR in some of their point-of-purchase displays (I found this clip on Funkadelic Advertising’s Blog):
So you can see they’re doing a bit more with AR. They are getting the attention of the child customer (and his brother, and his mother, and probably everyone else walking by), sparking intrigue, causing the customer to act (picking up the product), but anyone can do that with just about any POP gimick…but Lego’s strategically uses AR to take the customer further. It actually takes the customer inside the box, to show them what’s possible. This is perfect for Lego’s because Lego’s is a toy about imagination and creativity. They’re sparking the imagination in the customer, in 3-D, and in a new and innovative way that they’ll remember. I’d be willing to bet that the child asked his mom to buy that Lego kit!
But let’s take it a little further.
Yelp!, the social site that allows everyday folks to review and comment on their favorite places, is on the leading edge of AR in the mobile world (Droid users may think “Google Goggles” is too, but click HERE to see why it’s not). Yelp has a function called “monocle” on its iPhone app (3Gs versions only). See this posting from Ben Parr at MASHABLE to see how it works…THIS is functional AR:
Ok…That was cool. But how can brands incorporate this technology for their specific brands (not that Yelp! isn’t a brand, but they’re a brand that depends on other brands).
AR will change the way brands advertise
I think that in the not-so-distant future, AR will change the way brands advertise. In fact, I think it may also actually SAVE the way we have BEEN advertising…let me explain.
Anyone in the marketing communication business knows that the advertising industry is spinning in circles trying to develop business models to replace their current practices, which are being left in the dust by accelerating technologies. DVRs and the internet are killing TV advertising while the internet and social media fueled demise of newspapers and magazines are killing the print ad biz…both traditional cash cows for the advert folks. The industry seems to be in a tailspin.
I’ve read several articles on AR and it’s potential in advertising, but I feel there’s something missing. I think too many people are looking too narrowly at its potential. They seem to be fixated on the notion you need a webcam, and a computer. Well, it’s ridiculous to think someone would take a newspaper ad and hold it up to their web cam so it could interface with their laptop…that’s cumbersome, awkward, and would quickly wear-out its novelty. But today most mobile devices have cameras and large screens. And I think it would be much easier to maneuver my phone around a static ad rather than an ad around a static web cam. I think people would readily use their phones, but how would this bring people closer a brand experience?
Imagine sitting with your morning paper, a coffee, and your mobile device. You see an ad for a restaurant you’ve heard your friends rave about, so you take your mobile device, open an app, point the camera at the ad, and ‘poof’ an Augmented Reality graphic pops off the printed page. The graphic has a link to the menu, and links to make reservations, to get directions to the restaurant using your GPS enabled phone (iPhone and Droids have this), a special discount code for interactive customers, and allows you to read reviews on, oh, I don’t know…Yelp! maybe?
This could work with any brand, on any type of print ad (billboards, bus ads, point-of-purchase displays, mall signage, bus stop signage, whatever). These ‘interactivated’ print ads could be used to drive traffic to desired physical locations (an ad for a pair of shoes could send you to the nearest store that carries them) or internet locations (airline billboard lets you buy tickets from your mobile device). They could be used for promotional purposes to enhance brand experiences (discounts for interactivated ad users), or increase product knowledge (a car ad that links you to more specific product details…and even nearby dealers). The opportunities are endless.
And imagine, advertisers will now have metrics for their print and out-of-home ads that internet ads offer! Newspaper, magazine, transit ads, and other movable media that would run in multiple books or locations could use unique codes to determine which is giving them the best return. But static medium (billboards, bus-stop ads, etc.) could use the GPS functions to know what ads are getting the most traffic.
I’d love to hear from some tech folks on the specifics, but I’m pretty sure the technologies exist, right now, to make these scenario possible. Do we even need the little pattern symbols on our ads (see above videos if that doesn’t make sense)? Aren’t all ads unique enough to be their own character recognition pattern (except for movable medium that may have the same ad in various locales mentioned above)?
AR, in my opinion, will not only revolutionize advertising, it will save print advertising, and who knows…maybe even newspapers and magazines?
Would love to hear your thoughts and ideas!
Here are some interesting articles/blogs on the subject if you’d like to see what others are thinking:
When Reese’s Pieces lured a shy little alien from the bushes in the 1982 blockbuster E.T., sales for the bite-size candy shot through the roof. Fast forward to the summer of 2009: the aliens are much, much bigger and so is the opportunity for brands that appear in Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Like other brands featured in the film, The United States Army takes its screen time seriously. Lieutenant Colonel Gregory Bishop , Branded Entertainment Liaison for the U.S. Army, joins The Brand Show to offer his perspective on the value of entertainment as a branding vehicle. The seasoned officer discusses his organization’s role in film and television projects including G.I. Joe and Army Wives.
Listen as Lt. Col. Bishop talks with our hosts from Two West about:
The process of choosing projects that fit a brand’s strategic objectives.
How the U.S. Army measures the effectiveness of branded entertainment.
The delicate balance between creative storytelling and authentic messaging.
The conversation usually goes something like this…
“So Greg, what do you do?”
“I’m in the Army,” I reply.
“Really? Huh…in the Army…what are you doing here in Los Angeles? I didn’t know they had any Army in LA.”
“Well, I have one of the coolest jobs in the Army…I work in the Army Entertainment Office.”
…and then it comes…”You do WHAT for the Army?” ….if I only had a nickle…
Yes, the Army is in Hollywood…and we have been for about 60 years. But before you think, “well, that makes sense…war movies, right?” We’re actually much more than war movies.
The United States Army is arguably one of the oldest brands in the country, and one of the most recognized brands (for better or worse) around the world. While most people know the Army has Public Affairs personnel, the folks who interact with the news media, few people are aware of the Army’s entertainment office…even though most of you have seen our work.
Our mission statement includes “…educate the American people and global audiences on the U.S. Army’s mission, capabilities and values through entertainment media.”
We are the gateway between the entertainment industry and the U.S. Army. We’re located in Los Angeles (same building and just a few floors below Showtime) and we work on entertainment projects ranging from the “Armed Forces Week” on The Price is Right to major motion pictures like this year’s “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” and “GI Joe: Rise of Cobra.” We coordinate most of the military programming you see on Discovery Channel, Nat Geo, Military Channel, and any of the other scores of cable stations. We also work very closely with Lifetime TV’s hit show “Army Wives” and Electronic Arts‘ upcoming video game “Medal of Honor” that’s due out fall 2010. We’ve even supported cooking and baking shows highlighting Army cooks, style makeover shows for female Soldiers, home makeover shows for needy Soldiers and their families, and science and technology shows demonstrating existing and future Army technologies. So you can see, we cover a broad spectrum of entertainment media.
Support typically includes script reviews, location support, technical support, dialogue coaching, uniform/costume review, tactical consulting, equipment support, and generally doing what we can to help filmmakers and producers create entertainment projects that realistically or plausibly portray the Army and its Soldiers. We also work closely with the Army’s Accessions Command to develop “transmedia” opportunities that assist in their recruiting efforts, when possible.
Our office is very small, but an extremely effective asset in the Army’s communication strategy, reaching millions of people in our key audience segments…and it’s a blast!
I discovered a cool new iPhone app the other day that’s like having a broadcast satellite truck in my hand. It’s awesome.
But first, FULL DISCLOSURE, I have NOTHING to do with any app company, nor Apple….unfortunately, I’m not even a stockholder of Apple. But, I will disclose that I am a freakishly dedicated iPhone lover…I love my iPhone….LOVE it. Non iPhone users can “yeah, but the coverage sucks…blah, blah, …Verizon’s better….blah blah….i love the bberry….blah, blah”…whatever. For me, the iPhone rocks and it’s revolutionizing the way we communicate. But I digress.
The other day I downloaded the app “U-Broadcaster” from the company “U-Stream.” Their web site’s “About Us” page explains their business as follows:
“Ustream.TV is the live interactive video broadcast platform that enables anyone with a camera and an Internet connection to quickly and easily broadcast to a global audience of unlimited size. In less than two minutes, anyone can become a broadcaster by creating their own channel on Ustream or by broadcasting through their own site, empowering them to engage with their audience and further build their brand.”
And it’s true. And more importantly, it’s FREE! Yes, download the app, set-up an account on the U-Stream website, and within minutes you can broadcast live video over the internet. It’s kind of crazy. Now, this is not a pitch to get an iPhone, or the U-Broadcaster app. It is about how this technology will/can help brands connect to their customers, how it will potentially impact the journalism industry (those poor folks are freaking out these days), and how we’ll all interact with each other differently.
With U-Broadcaster, you can link your account to your Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, and/or YouTube accounts. So, when you begin your broadcast, you can notify all your friends/followers on your social media sites that you’re beginning your “show” and they can tune in, all with a simple click (or you can just record your video, and upload it later).
Think about this….what used to require a big truck, satellite connections, a technical staff, camera-person, on screen reporter, a satellite, uplink, downlink, frequencies, etc., can now be done with a cell phone…or a laptop, whatever.
As I type this entry, the site is broadcasting the University of Colorado’s graduation ceremony (deployed parents in the military could watch this). Yesterday, I watched Snoop Dogg get his hair done…he and his crew also seemed to be sharing his favorite hand-rolled cigarettes…and I was sitting there, with Snoop (or so it seemed). Ocho Cinco (star receiver for the Cincy Bengals) has a video where he’s cooking in his kitchen. This is like being a voyeur and a stalker without the legal issues!
But think beyond celebrity and you’ll quickly realize the value of this technology…Brands could use it to show how their products are made, or how they rigorously conduct safety tests of their products, or bring them closer to event promotions that before only had local or regional reach, and now have unlimited reach. Organizations can broadcast meetings to employees, town hall meetings can now be fed to the world, local bands can perform in their garage to audiences larger than U2 ever dreamed of…imagine if we had this on 9/11, or if the Iranian students had it during the riots a few months ago…we saw video, but I’m not sure how much of it was streaming live.
I now have a broadcast satellite truck in my hand. It’s presenting unlimited opportunities to reach existing and new audiences. Professional communicators owe it to their organizations to at least look at this technology, and see if it fits their communication strategy…and it’s free.
***In future posts about technology: how we can, with current technologies, turn physical print ads, billboards, outdoor advertising, into interactive (and trackable) advertising…and how augmented reality will make it even cooler!
White House now have their own free iPhone applications (both are free…you should check them out for yourself, click here for the 
The Bishop Blog 