________________________________________

October 15, 2009

Jon Leibowitz, Chairman
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20580

Dear Mr. Chairman:

So there I was last Saturday, about to send out on my Twitter feed – which automatically updates my Facebook page and links to my personal blog – a photograph of this wonderful baked halibut dish I’d just made as a surprise for my wife. I was in the middle of typing a rave review of the recipe, which I’d pulled from my favorite cookbook, Delicioso! The Regional Cooking of Spain by Penelope Casas. But before I could press the “post” button, I stopped and canceled the whole thing.

I remembered that the book was a freebie, sent to me by an editor at the Alfred A. Knopf publishing house 13 years ago. And I didn’t want you guys to haul me into court and fine me for violating the rules you’ve just promulgated to muzzle social media.

I know what you’re thinking – I’m just confused. But so are the 22 million bloggers currently collecting audiences in the United States and the close to 140 million Americans registering news and opinions through social media channels like Facebook, MySpace, Friendster, and Twitter. The source of the confusion: The new set of “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising” issued on October 5 by the Federal Trade Commission that you chair.

As you’re undoubtedly aware, the revised “Guides,” an update of principles the Commission originally established in 1980, have generated a firestorm of controversy within the ad-supported interactive media industry. Of particular concern are footnotes, asides, and elaborations in the Guides – as well as reported commentary by Commission staff – which indicate that opinions published by individuals have less protection than speech promulgated by large corporations; that “traditional” distribution channels deserve more protection than innovative online channels; and, finally, that the Internet, the cheapest, freest, most accessible communications medium ever invented, should have less freedom than other media.

It’s the Commission’s own words that have sewn this controversy and confusion. On pages 47 and 48 of the 81-page Guides, your staff
acknowledges that bloggers may be subject to different disclosure requirements than reviewers in traditional media. In general, under usual circumstances, the Commission does not consider reviews published in traditional media (i.e., where a newspaper, magazine, or television or radio station with independent editorial responsibility assigns an employee to review various products or services as part of his or her official duties, and then publishes those reviews) to be sponsored advertising messages. [...]
In contrast, if a blogger’s statement on his personal blog or elsewhere (e.g., the site of an online retailer of electronic products) qualifies as an “endorsement” – i.e., as a sponsored message – due to the blogger’s relationship with the advertiser or the value of the merchandise he has received and has been asked to review by that advertiser, knowing these facts might affect the weight consumers give to his review.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman: Huh? Does the FTC really intend to probe America’s opinion-mongering apparatus this closely? Do you have a team of Freuds and Jungs able to examine “the weight” consumers give such opinion – and the way they weigh that weight?

Naturally, this expedition from Oceania – that’s the place Big Brother ruled – should be worrisome to all Americans, and to all viewers, readers, listeners, users, and providers of any communications medium. But for the 400 members of the Interactive Advertising Bureau, most of which are small and medium-sized enterprises struggling to build their businesses in the face of the worst decline in marketing spending since the 1930’s, the implication that online social media represent a separate class of communications channels with less Constitutional protection than corporate-owned newspapers, radio stations, or cable television networks is of particularly grave concern.

They – and we – are not arguing that bloggers and social media be treated differently than incumbent media. After all, most newspapers, magazines, radio stations and television networks, in recognition that Americans are embracing new forms of social communications, have established their own blogs, boards, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and the like. Rather, we’re saying the new conversational media should be accorded the same rights and freedoms as other communications channels.

All of us would agree that false and deceptive advertising should be stopped, and penalized when it slips through and is caught. We agree that paid testimonials and endorsements should be labeled. But in taking business ethics and attempting to give it the force of law, the Commission is stretching the definition of remuneration to ludicrous lengths. More frightening – certainly to the 22,000 womens-issue bloggers” on BlogHer, the 218 sports-fan facilitators on SB Nation, and the 302 people Tweeting to me daily – is that the FTC’s new Guides open the door to extremely selective pursuit and prosecution of those least able to defend themselves against government’s hammer: the solo entrepreneurs and opinionated individuals who are most vital to the functioning of our democracy and economy.

That fear, I fear, is supported by the Commission’s own words. For example, in an interview with the blog edrants.com, FTC Assistant Director of Advertising Practices Richard Cleland took decades of common practice in offline media – specifically the acceptance by reviewers of free books from publishers – and said that bloggers engaging in the same activities could be subject to prosecution. “The primary situation is where there’s a link to the sponsoring seller and the blogger,” said Mr. Cleland. The repeated supply of free books could constitute “compensation,” thus triggering an FTC review and, possibly, sanctions.

“You can return it,” Mr. Cleland said, when asked how a social mediator could avoid this fate. “You review it and return it. I’m not sure that type of situation would be compensation.” Otherwise, “if a blogger received enough books, he could open up a used bookstore.”

The ignorance of established offline media practices is more than mildly surprising. Take a walk through New York’s mecca of used books, The Strand, or the Portland emporium Powell’s, and you’ll find bin upon bin of “reviewers’ copies,” direct contravention of Mr. Cleland’s declaration that “most of the newspapers have very strict rules about that and on what happens to those products.” (My own shelf of review copies from my days as a journalist attest to how wrong he is.)

But of greater concern is that the Commission is translating this ignorance into rules that would specifically shackle online media while exempting our offline cousins and competitors from equivalent constraint. Publish? You might perish: “Consumers who join word of mouth marketing programs that periodically provide them products to review publicly (as opposed to simply giving feedback to the advertiser) will also likely be viewed as giving sponsored messages.” Have a lot of Facebook friends? Better watch it, you dot-commie: “If that blogger frequently receives products from manufacturers because he or she is known to have wide readership within a particular demographic group that is the manufacturers’ target market, the blogger’s statements are likely to be deemed to be ‘endorsements.’”

Indeed, to copious industry protests that provision of free samples, tickets, and services to independent reviewers has been a staple of media since media began and shouldn’t be regulated more strictly online than off, the Commission simply disagreed and said it will “consider each use of these new media on a case-by-case basis for purposes of law enforcement.” So if Niero Gonzales fails to flash “freebie” across each review of a first-person shooter posted on his gamer site Destructoid.com, will he be dragged down to Pennsylvania Avenue for a civil investigation? If I blog on randallrothenberg.com about the dozens of free management books I receive each year from publishers, will I, John Wiley & Sons, or Harper Business be subject to a penalty? Again with all due respect, Mr. Chairman, the Commission’s Guidelines really provides no guidance at all.

You must know that, because in the days following the release of the revised Guides, the FTC has been furiously backtracking about their implications, in an apparent attempt to soothe the blogosphere. “We are not planning on investigating individual bloggers,” Mary Engle, the Commission’s Associate Director for Advertising Practices, told reporters this week. “We will be focusing any enforcements on advertisers, not on individual endorsers.”

But the Commission is being disingenuous. “The recent creation of consumer-generated media means that in many instances, endorsements are now disseminated by the endorser, rather than by the sponsoring advertiser,” the Guides state. “In these contexts, the Commission believes that the endorser is the party primarily responsible for disclosing material connections with the advertiser.”

In other words, the Guides do allow you to pursue bloggers. They do hold individuals more liable than larger corporations. They do explicitly say online social media have less protection than offline corporate media. They do obstruct online companies’ opportunities to drive cultural conversation more than offline companies’. They do threaten with prosecution book publishers, movie producers, and other companies that supply products to individual social media conversationalists.

This confusion easily could have been avoided. The IAB and other industry organizations clearly identified the risks to free expression and provided the FTC significant, formal First Amendment guidance when you first mooted the new guidelines earlier this year. We offered to bring in bloggers, social media executives and others from among our membership and work with you to develop practical guidelines and self-regulatory mechanisms that would protect consumers from real harm, while assuring that independent opinion in digital media isn’t stifled.

But Commission staff did not follow up with us on our offer, held no public hearings on the proposed Guides, and ultimately dismissed our concerns. Instead, they took the perverse – and Constitutionally dubious – step of saying that individuals writing in social media bear greater liability than do those writing for offline, one-way media.

Mr. Chairman, these are the types of vital regulatory issues that, if decided without due care and reasoned judgment, will impair the continued growth of news and content in the online space. I urge the Commission to retract the current set of Guides and to commence a fair and open process in order to develop a roadmap by which responsible online actors can engage with consumers and continue to provide their invaluable content and services.

Regards,

Randall Rothenberg
President and Chief Executive Officer
Interactive Advertising Bureau

IAB Calls on FTC to Rescind Blogger Rules; Questions Constitutionality

NEW YORK, NY (October 15, 2009) — The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB ) today called on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to withdraw recently issued enforcement guidance regarding the opinions and commentary of bloggers and other participants in social media, saying the rules unfairly and unconstitutionally impose penalties on online media for practices in which offline media have engaged for decades. In an open letter to FTC Chairman Jon Leibowitz, Randall Rothenberg, the President and CEO of the IAB, called the FTC’s distinction between offline media and online media, “constitutionally dubious.”

In his open letter to the FTC Chairman, Mr. Rothenberg said portions of the “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising,” would explicitly muzzle online media, while exempting offline media from equivalent scrutiny or penalty.

“What concerns us the most in these revisions is that the Internet, the cheapest, most widely accessible communications medium ever invented, would have less freedom than other media,” said Mr. Rothenberg, “These revisions are punitive to the online world and unfairly distinquish between the same speech, based on the medium in which it is delivered. The practices have long been afforded strong First Amendment protections in traditional media outlets, but the Commission is saying that the same speech deserves fewer Constitutional protections online. I urge the Commission to retract the current set of Guides and to commence a fair and open process in order to develop a roadmap by which responsible online actors can engage with consumers and continue to provide the invaluable content and services that have so transformed people’s lives.”

The Guides include revisions that specifically address online media and will require that bloggers who receive free products to review must disclose that they received those products for free or be subject to civil enforcement penalties.

There is a longstanding practice in traditional media of providing products and services to journalists including freelancers, for the purpose of reviews. Mr. Rothenberg writes in his column:

“They—and we—are not arguing that bloggers and social media be treated differently than incumbent media. After all, most newspapers, magazines, radio stations and television networks, in recognition that Americans are embracing new forms of social communications, have established their own blogs, boards, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and the like. Rather, we’re saying the new conversational media should be accorded the same rights and freedoms as other communications channels.”

Pages 47 and 48 of the Guides emphasize the FTC’s disparity in the treatment of online media versus traditional media:
acknowledges that bloggers may be subject to different disclosure requirements than reviewers in traditional media. In general, under usual circumstances, the Commission does not consider reviews published in traditional media (i.e., where a newspaper, magazine, or television or radio station with independent editorial responsibility assigns an employee to review various products or services as part of his or her official duties, and then publishes those reviews) to be sponsored advertising messages. [...]
In contrast, if a blogger’s statement on his personal blog or elsewhere (e.g., the site of an online retailer of electronic products) qualifies as an “endorsement” – i.e., as a sponsored message – due to the blogger’s relationship with the advertiser or the value of the merchandise he has received and has been asked to review by that advertiser, knowing these facts might affect the weight consumers give to his review.

To learn more about the IAB’s Public Policy work, please go to http://www.iab.net/insights_research/public_policy.

The full text of the letter follows in my next post.

About the IAB:
The Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) is comprised of more than 375 leading media and technology companies who are responsible for selling 86% of online advertising in the United States. On behalf of its members, the IAB is dedicated to the growth of the interactive advertising marketplace, of interactive’s share of total marketing spend, and of its members’ share of total marketing spend. The IAB educates marketers, agencies, media companies and the wider business community about the value of interactive advertising. Working with its member companies, the IAB evaluates and recommends standards and practices and fields critical research on interactive advertising. Founded in 1996, the IAB is headquartered in New York City with a Public Policy office in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.iab.net.

IAB Media Contact:
Marla Aaron
Director, Marketing Communications
212.380.4714
marla@iab.net

PS. This Press release was composed on the fantastic and unbelievable Sony Vaio, featuring the amazing Microsoft Word software. The author was wearing a spiffy pair of Levi 501’s from The Gap and hopes to dine tonight at Taco Bell. These are the best dang products in the world, so buy them right away.

Other uses for the album?

1. The demise of DRM as we know it. Wrong fight at the wrong time. While the industry was on the sideline watching the disappearance of its traditional promotion and distribution networks (radio and record stores), they refused to empower an entire universe of micro distributors online who could have completely and profitably redefined the model… instead pricing or litigating them out of business… The industry shot themselves in the ass.
2. The demise of the Album Package (thanks to industry and iTunes, the album as a package is dead. Focusing increasingly on individual tunes and not acting quickly enough to create a new rationale for the package of songs… The industry shot themselves in the gut.
3. The demise of FM radio. Allowing the reality-driven, localized, free-exchange culture of FM radio to commoditized and homogenized destroyed the only real example of push marketing in media… The industry shot itself in the heart.

If I only had a heart! Well, in the mid 1960’s, entertainment found a heart, in the form of FM radio. Prior to that time, broadcast TV was well on the way to becoming the behemoth that it is today, controlling the airwaves with 3 channels whose programming was becoming increasingly packaged and similar (see the rise of Ted Turner). AM radio had already begun to give way to “programming from above” and restrictive formats. FM radio arose out of the dramatic change that occurred in music itself, in the process creating a multi-billion dollar industry far beyond the original intent of the manufacturers who had created the 45 as a jukebox novelty.

The arrival of the British Invasion changed the face of the record business. Artists were no longer solely the “creation” of songwriters and labels… They were bands… small groups of talented individuals who came together for a purpose… to create great music and share their passion with their audience. Lyrics became more personal, point of view was important, musicianship became valued, and the identity of the group became as important as the music itself. Fueled by a robust SOCIAL NETWORK of clubs and venues, given relevance by the VIRTUAL RECOMMENDATION ENGINE of FM radio, music became the most culturally relevant global force of the 60’s, and found itself at the epicenter of a cultural revolution that is still felt today. So. what happened?

The recording artists of the 60’s were self-contained media properties, utilizing the distribution and promotion engines of the recording industry, but extending their impact beyond the stage into the cultural fiber of society. Lyrics became more personal, song formats changed, rules were broken and broken again.

As the artists changed, the audience changed. They became more involved in the ideas and thoughts behind the band. They wanted to connect not just with the song but with the artist behind them. FM radio provided that connection. Then came the internet. Adam and I actually sat in meetings where record executives of major labels spoke of the net as “going the way of CB radio” and said things like “our music will never be on the internet”. Breaker, breaker, good buddy… you’re screwed!

While the labels ignored the shifting sands, the artists didn’t. The internet exploded and became the new social ecosystem of entertainment. Artists began to re-package themselves to reach their audiences directly, led by an amazingly talented genre and creative force, hip-hop. Hip Hop artists proved that labels were obsolete as artist breaking machines and went on to completely redefine artists as media franchises, launching tours, ringtones, clothing, television and movie productions and other innovative areas of revenue generation. The hit song went from the apex of an artist’s career to a value-add. Artists 1, labels 0.

Network Exec's Head Explodes

What can the tv business learn from this death spiral? Here it is: New media is not re-purposed old media. Just as the CD created a momentary spike in revenue as fans restocked their album collections from albums… Hulu and their ilk are just TV on your PC. More dilutive than accretive, having the same collective effect of iTunes on the recording industry… the de-bundling of programming.

While Television is fighting the 500 channel fight, an entirely new generation of producers are taking media to a different level, not necessarily better or worse.. d i f f e r e n t. New media producers use the tools and social constructs they were raised with… YouTube is a video repository, not an entertainment network. The new entertainment network brings together, video, audio, gaming, blogging, twitting, socializing into an extended entertainment format that is at the same time disturbing to old-school Television producers and absolutely refreshing and engaging to the audience. New media producers are busily re-defining the concept of the entertainment format and new networks will help them build their independent value franchises. On our network as well as others, audiences are growing to compete with the GRP of top traditional shows but with a far greater opportunity to generate value.

And what about TV’s sugar daddy, brand advertising? The perfect union is now turning into the perfect storm as Agencies implode trying to defend their business model to brands who just aren’t that ignorant. Brands understand audience. Brands know that connection means survival. The connection is occurring as what was once on brand one voice, becomes one brand, one thousand voices. How will brands connect in the near future? What can TV do? The building blocks for creating a true new media business are right here on the net. The model is very different and the potential to create sustainable revenue and value eclipses that of current media companies.

Stay tuned as we discuss what Old Media Companies can do to get on the train and not in front of it.

“The viral videos of YouTube 1.0 — dog-on-skateboard and cat-on-keyboard — are being supplemented by a new, more vibrant generation of online video. Production companies are now creating 10- and 20-minute shows for the Internet and writing story arcs for their characters — essentially acting more like television producers, while operating far outside the boundaries of a network schedule.”

Here is the question… Why rival television? Why is it important to to “act like television producers?” Does this mean the NY Times needs to act more like a traditional newspaper? The challenge with the television landscape begins with the infrastructure costs related to delivering a consistently attractive product over time. As audiences atomize, it gets increasingly difficult to effectively monetize the programming. In short, its not the video… its the business!

It is not the ability to operate outside of a network schedule that is the gating issue. It is the ability to underwrite and promote a new generation (and some old) of creative producers, actors, cinematographers, writers, etc. who have grown up outside of the network framework. And it is the opportunity to entertain what is now more than three generations of audience who have grown up WITHOUT television as the epicenter of their social environment.

In order to effectively create a new media industry, we must create a new model of generating revenue for the 100’s of thousands of creative people who’s work must fuel the revolution. It is not about the length of the content. Movies are movies… and they come to the net with literally 100’s of millions of dollars of promotion behind them, typically after exhausting all other channels.

So, if TV is the answer, then what is the question? Shorter? Longer? More dramatic? How about reality? This conversation sounds like its own sitcom… didn’t we just finish 50 years of this in mainstream media? While all of the talk is going on about video clips, a new model is quietly forming that will provide the platform that ignites the online entertainment revolution. It will utilize video, social tools, and the power of creativity and personality in partnership with innovative brands and companies who see that they can become intimately involved in a relationship with their audience through the power of this new format of entertainment. – It doesn’t matter if the network changes, the audience already has!

Coming up… What the TV business can learn from the Music Business (is there still one of those?).

“it always gets darker just before it gets pitch black”

Welcome to the downturn. To listen to the talking heads, its definitely dark and getting darker. There is no reason to doubt the prognosticators other than that they are almost always wrong. However, for those of you who are trying to understand our current economic doldrums/castatrophies, let me add my bit, and maybe even shed a little light.

WHA’ HAPPENED?

We are experiencing the the implosion of a credit bubble, which is completely different than an equity bubble. Although it is a cycle, it will last longer and touch more people than any financial cycle in our lifetime. The primary impact of this meltdown will be a global reset of debt, equity and finance. It will be a global whipping, with the consumer feeling the brunt end of the stick.

But what does this mean for you? You will have to adjust your personal lifestyle to live in a less credit-dependent world. Sound easy? Don’t bet on it. Your personal economics will fundamentally change, and those economics will dramatically change your behavior. We are a nation of consumers, and consumption is driven by social interaction, our economic DNA. I think of it as a “social economy”, driven by personal lifestyle choices that and “display-based” consumption. Think of the dramatic impact on the economy as we shift from “look at what I have” to “look at what I saved”. From the lowly consumer, straight up the economic foodchain, things will constrict, or even collapse. Make no mistake about it, as a result of this credit debacle, your spending habits will invert and your lifestyle will change dramatically. And therein lies the opportunity.

OPPORTUNITY! Am I crazy?

Let’s look at some assumptions that I have made. Our current economic spiral will have these four effects:
1. More people will travel less
2. More people will spend less
3. More people will spend more time at home
4. More people will spend more time online

In some ways, the technology boom-bust-boom of the late 90’s has prepared us for this effect. In many ways it will feel like sacrifice, in some others it may be an opportunity. I believe we will begin to see a transition into a “Stay At Home Economy” and this change will create an incredible opportunity for online entertainment.

With the rise of web cams will be the rise of web conferences. Businesses will take on an entirely new shape as they move into the modern world of Telepresence (sen Ken Rutkowski’s article) . Business and personal lives will increasingly co-mingle (Ray Lane and the “Human Enterprise”). “At-Homers” will redefine the nature of online entertainment and begin to consume media in different ways. Producers will begin to seize the market and create new entertainment formats to reach this new audience on their computers, TV’s and phones. Entertainment socialization will rise from 2.0 social networks, creating living reality programming. New entertainment networks (PLUG: like MEVIO) will begin to package and deliver this new type of programming to an ever-increasing audience. Brands will realize this is the single greatest ground-floor branding opportunity since TV. New revenue models will materialize. This process will begin to multiply and proliferate and voila, The micro economics of broadband entertainment will go macro.

The Perfect Platform for the Crumbling Economy

So here is the big opportunity. We have spent 10 years and billions of investment dollars creating the platform for the crumbling economy (not a great positioning statement). Now is the time to put it to use. Will it lead the economic recovery? No. Will it change the world? Maybe. Who will win? We are about to find out.

More on this coming.

In our inaugural launch, my partner, Adam Curry has taken the mantel, and can be seen in daily programming on our tech channel, TeXtra. Have a look at TeXtraTV, or check it out in our player widget below:

Want to get involved? Let us know!

“The editorial staff at FierceOnlineVideo is pleased to announce the Fierce 15 “Online Video Movers and Shakers.” We’ll be rolling out the full list over the next four business days, introducing companies based upon what category we see them in.

To qualify for consideration for the Fierce15, companies had to be privately owned and U.S.-based. In narrowing the field, we took into consideration innovation, a company’s impact upon the ecosystem and general marketplace, market share, and significant partnerships, among other criteria.”

It is nice to be up there with the likes of HULU. We’ll keep working to be better.

Full story? Right here: MEVIO Named Top 15 Video Online Movers and Shakers

]]> http://www.ronbloom.com/?feed=rss2&p=15 0 http://www.ronbloom.com/?p=14 http://www.ronbloom.com/?p=14#comments Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:40:52 +0000 Ron http://www.ronbloom.com/?p=14 Here is a three-part series of interviews I was fortunate enough to have with Rob Cohen, the Director of blockbuster movies such as The Fast and Furious and The Mummy III.
]]> http://www.ronbloom.com/?feed=rss2&p=14 0 http://www.ronbloom.com/?p=13 http://www.ronbloom.com/?p=13#comments Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:30:41 +0000 Ron http://www.ronbloom.com/?p=13 In our ongoing effort to upgrade the user experience at MEVIO, we are in the process of rolling out a new site. In the upcoming weeks you will begin to see an evolution through both the user interface and the content experience. Have a look at MEVIO and try clicking on one or more of the Channel Images directly beneath the player. They will launch pre-programmed channels that you can sit back and enjoy or lean forward and change to your liking. We have literally hundreds of channels in our CHANNEL GUIDE, new music at MEVIOmusic and many more features that will be launching over the coming weeks.

This is a beta rollout, so expect changes and bugs, and please leave your feedback.

]]> http://www.ronbloom.com/?feed=rss2&p=13 0 http://www.ronbloom.com/?p=12 http://www.ronbloom.com/?p=12#comments Thu, 16 Nov 2006 01:37:43 +0000 Ron http://www.ronbloom.com/index.php/2006/11/15/becoming-1/

A little over a year ago, PodShow lept to the head of a movement focused on independent media.  Adam and I founded PodShow to bring the best of podcasting to what we felt was an audience who was increasingly diverse, disenfranchised and disillusioned with traditional media (the Three D’s).  We have experienced hyper-growth in the subsequent year.  We’ve created the premier podcast network.  And, in the process we’re enabling creative people from around the world to connect with a growing audience and make money.  For those of you who have produced content on PodShow, we thank you.  For those of you who have come to trust PodShow as your source of new media, we thank you, and we encourage you to start creating, sharing and connecting. In earlier interviews and publications, I put forward the 5/50 rule that predicted within 5 years, over 50% of the content consumed would be created by other consumers.  From my vantage point, I’m now thinking that I underestimated the percentages.  Over the last year, PodShow’s reach has grown significantly by developing and investing in new forms of programming and by creating new feature functionality that enhances our platform. We see podcasting as an important piece of a larger media strategy and we have been hard at work turning that strategy into action. We have created partnerships, expanding our presence in other countries, and we are opening up our delivery platform to audiences accessing media through mobile devices and IPTV.   

Today, PodShow produces thousands of hours of audio and video programming, and we enable the distribution of hundreds of thousands of hours of content to millions around the globe. And we have dozens of leading brand marketers creating promotions, sponsorships and advertising campaigns across our network.  Because of this, we absolutely believe that now is the time for a new media network to emerge that can effectively compete with traditional media networks, and we are fully committed to being that network, the #1 New Media Network in the world.    We believe that there is a chasm separating online social networks and traditional media networks… and in that space lives an audience of millions, hungry to experience and participate in a new form of entertainment.  Audiences are changing.  We see it, hear it… our audiences show us how they interact with media. They don’t separate media into silos, like “single-dip” video, social networks, online music, indie film, or any other old-media channel or network.  They multitask, mash and recombine their content into their personal collections and channels and then share the best with others. They respond to content by creating more content.  They gravitate to content they enjoy and expect something new and different.  In the coming weeks, you’ll hear a lot of news out of PodShow – new products, new product features, new releases, new partnerships that are designed to fill that space, and to build on our audience.     

Starting today, I encourage you to enjoy the first fully-integrated new media network, a platform that is actually four networks in one, encompassing people, videos, music and shows.  Even on a daily basis, we will continue to introduce new ways to enable creative people to connect with a broad audience, and provide the marketing and advertising support to allow independent media producers to realize their dreams and quit their day jobs.  And we will continue to invest in great content and innovative technology that takes our growing audience to the next level of entertainment.  PodShow is focused on enabling global audiences to discover and enjoy the best in the fresh new content that is redefining entertainment.  So, check out theShow, and give me your feedback.

 

 

]]> http://www.ronbloom.com/?feed=rss2&p=12 0