Google – OnMedea

October 10, 2013

People Enjoy Watching… Everything Online

Manka Bros., Khan Manka, OnMedea, Jill Kennedy, YouTube Original Channels, Google, Larry Page, Eric E. Schmidt, Sergey Brin, Nikesh Arora, David Drummond, Patrick Pichette, Alan Eustace, Amit Singhal, Andy Rubin, Dennis Woodside, Jeff Huber, Kent Walker, Laszlo Bock, Rachel Whetstone, Salar Kamangar, Shona Brown, Sridhar Ramaswamy, Sundar Pichai, Susan Wojcicki, Urs Hoelzle, Vic Gundotra, L. John Doerr, Diane B. Greene, John L. Hennessy, Ann Mather, Paul S. Otellini, K. Ram Shriram, Shirley M. Tilghman, Hank Green, Kim Rosen, Alex Gibney, Gilbert Gottfried, Richard Belzer, Robert Kyncl, John Green, Felicia Day, Jennifer Garner, America Ferrera, Gotham Chopra, Deepak Chopra, Jon Avnet, Amy Poehler, Rainn Wilson, Jay-Z, Rodrigo Garcia, Virginia Madsen, Julia Stiles, ClevverStyle, Fawn, HelloStyle, Look TV, The Stylish, u look haute, my damn channel, the onion, danceon, ds2dio, american hipster, awesomeness, bammo, blackbox tv, geek & sundry, mymusic, the nerdish channel, cartoon hangover, yomyomf, young hollywood network

Hey, there was a new survey by the Pew Research Center about what people like to watch online.

Turns out – people like to watch pretty much everything…

Comedy: 58%

How-To: 56%

Educational: 50%

Music: 50%

News: 45%

This is a silly survey because it says 28% like to watch Animation; 27% Political; and 27% Sports.

People just like to watch what is interesting. To stick it in genres is pointless.

Does that mean now more people will try to create comedy? Or educational videos?

No, there will still be just as much crap and just as much good stuff on the internet.

Silly survey.

Jill Kennedy – OnMedea

March 5, 2013March 21, 2018

The Pathetic, Sleazy World Of Facebook ‘Likes’

1000Memories, Accel Partners, Amish Jani, Andrew Hyde, Andrew Mason, Andy Sack, Ashton Kutcher, Aydin Senkut, Ben Silverman, Bin 38, Bob Davis, Bob Iger, Brad Feld, Brian Kempner, Chris Hughes, Christopher Steiner, Dan Nova, Daniel Gaisin, Danielle Hootnick, Dave McClure, David Brown, David Cohen, David Kirkpatrick, Demi Moore, Demo Day, Diego Gutierrez, Dustin Moskovitz, Edmond Yue, Eduardo Saverin, Emmett Shear, Eric Lefkofsky, Fergal Mullen, FirstMark Capital, Founders At Work, Francis Duong, Gaurav Tewari, Gerald Levin, Gerald Poch, Greg McAdoo, Greylock Partners, Harjeet Taggar, HBO, Highland Capital Partners, Irena Goldenberg, Jared Polis, Jeff Bewkes, Jeff Weiner, Jeff Zucker, Jessica Livingston, Jessica Mah, Jill Kennedy, Joanna Shields, John Hsin, John Palfrey, Jon Miller, Jr., Justin Kan, Justin.tv, Khan Manka, Larry Wilson, Laurence Albukerk, Lawrence Lenihan, Li Ka-shing, Loopt, Manish Patel, Manka Bros., Mark Cuban, Mark Zuckerberg, Matt Cohler, Matt Nichols, Michael Arrington, Michael Gaiss, MySpace, Nick Marsh, Nicolas Carlson, OnMedea, Owen Van Natta, Paul Buchheit, Paul Cianciolo, Paul Graham, Peter Bell, Peter Thiel, Reddit, Richard de Silva, Richard Heitzman, Rick Heitzmann, Robert Morris, Ron Conway, Rudy Adler, Rupert Murdoch, Sand Hill Road, Scott Shane, Scott Switzer, Sequoia Capital, Sergey Nazarov, Shabbir Dahod, Shawn Broderick, Sheryl Sandberg, Sterling Phillips, Sumner Redstone, Tapzilla, TechCrunch, TechStars, TextPayMe, Toy Story 3, Trevor Blackwell, Y Combinator, google, Eric Schmidt, Tina Brown, The Daily Beast, Barry Diller, Dan Lyons, Google Smear campaign, Burson-Marsteller, Chris Soghoian, Jim Goldman, John Mercurio, Mark Pincus, Zynga, Spotify, Facebook Like

Companies who believe that having millions of “Likes” on Facebook is important to their bottom line have it absolutely wrong.

“Liking” Coke or “Liking” The Avengers on Facebook isn’t going to make a person drink more Coke or see The Avengers more times – it just means they’re going to get nothing but product blasts for the rest of their lives.

I would argue it might actually make you drink less Coke because you’re so fucking annoyed with the relentless marketing from the Coca-Cola Company.

Social media would be incredibly valuable if companies would just leave it alone, make products people really like (not “Like”) and stay out of our faces.

People talking with each other (real people) and texting and emailing and chatting, etc. is the greatest marketing tool ever invented (and it wasn’t actually invented by anyone – save God). And companies are figuring out new and clever ways to fuck that up.

If you mention in your status that you are running out to Starbucks – there is really good chance your Picture and Status Update will appear in one of your friends News Feed as ads.

So, you are now, unwittingly, a Corporate Shill for Starbucks. Most people don’t like to be Corporate Shills. The term “Corporate Shill” is not a term of endearment. It makes your real friends hate you just a little bit more than they did before you pushed a product on them.

I did a little experiment over the past month. I decided to accept everyone who requested to be my friend on Facebook – http://www.facebook.com/jill.kennedy.5095

I had my own little circle of work colleagues and college friends (around 30) – but decided to accept all comers in the hope that I could expand the number of “Likes” on my newly-created Company page – http://www.facebook.com/MankaBros

So I accepted and sort of went begging for “Likes” as so many people do. “If you ‘Like’ my page I’ll like your ebook or Erotic Blacklight Art Page in return…'” etc. etc. etc.

This was an eye-opening and humiliating experience – I now have 768 Friends (and counting) and not many “Likes.”

But, surprise, suddenly there was pornography in my News Feed.

There was every kind of racist Poke imaginable. Scary sexually advances. (And, to be fair, a few genuinely nice people.)

But, in general, a stunning display of what’s really out there.

Not pretty.

Are these the people Coke wants to “Like” them?

The marketing world’s latest buzz phrase is “Big Data” – gathering everybody’s information. Seriously, there are people out there whose information should never be shared except with some type of law enforcement.

Personally, I can only speak for big media companies (and myself), but I can imagine it applies to every company (and person) out there – be careful what you wish for when you start your social media campaigns because once people “Like” you, they never leave you alone.

Jill Kennedy – OnMedea

P.S. – “LIKE” ME ON FACEBOOK!” – http://www.facebook.com/onmedea

October 4, 2012October 4, 2012

Facebook Is Irrelevant

So… Facebook has announced it has passed ONE BILLION USERS.

Sounds like a reason for a huge celebration. What an amazingly awesome global community!

We should all rejoice together because we built it… together!

But unlike the supermarket that rewards its one millionth customer with balloons, gifts and plaques and everyone is so happy for the store, the only reaction to Facebook’s announcement is people commenting “Facebook sucks!” “Are they counting all 10 of my accounts including my dogs?” “I quit Facebook months ago.” etc. etc. etc.

Facebook has a problem and it’s one that it will not overcome.

Facebook is irrelevant.

Nobody cares about it anymore. There are no balloons, no cheers, no tears, just… meh.

Sure, people use it to post photos of drinking, of babies and bike riding for charity but we, the connected world, have moved past that boring old shit that used to be slightly cool.

I’m sure to that comment Facebook would say – “No, no, wait, you’re wrong, Jill – people also post funny sayings and signs that they find amusing.”

Indeed, they’re right. How am I supposed to know I should “have an awesome day” if I didn’t see it posted in the morning by one of my “friends”?

In the past, I have written that Facebook Is Worthless, Overvalued, and Must Be Stopped – but now, I just don’t care about it anymore.

I have become Facebook indifferent – it means absolutely nothing to me.

That’s not the way it was supposed to be.

The swagger and smirking of the executives and investors before the IPO made it seem like this was a company like no other on the planet – a truly game changing experience that would actually… change the world.

The world did not change because of Facebook.

We all have the same problems that generations before us had. Politicians still use the same rhetoric. American flags are still burned at overseas Embassies. Famine and hurricanes still occur.

The only positive thing Facebook ever did was allow us to see what our high school and college friends look like today. It doesn’t mean we’re going to have dinner with them or have an actual conversation. But we do get to see if they got fat. That’s it and I suppose that’s worth something.

During the first Presidential Debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney the social media winner of the night was… Twitter.

Nearly all the media outlets and pundits were talking about what happened on Twitter during the debates. Not Facebook. Not LinkedIn. Not Google Plus.

To be serious, I have no idea how they add their numbers to conclude that one billion people are on Facebook.

Perhaps they should say one billion accounts have been set by about 200 million people? We all know people who have multiple accounts (almost everyone) – accounts for dogs, literary characters and just plain fake names that we all use to hide from our “friends” and supposedly Facebook is cracking down on this practice. (By the way, you can “friend” me here.)

And that’s another reason the site sucks – who wants to be completely real on Facebook?

We’re not trying to get a job. We’re not running for office. We’re just trying to spend a few minutes out of our day looking at drunken babies and trying not to be monetized.

So congratulations, Facebook on one billion users – one billion bored, indifferent, and dissatisfied users.

Jill Kennedy – OnMedea

P.S. – I just thought of a way Facebook could be relevant… they could buy Twitter.

July 24, 2012July 26, 2012

Should We Believe Facebook’s Earnings?

Today is a big day for FB:NASDAQ.

The first earnings release after a pretty crappy IPO.

Needless to say, earnings and guidance must destroy expectations.

This is important for everyone who has a stake in the company – from those who had blind faith in the IPO and bought whatever meager shares they could, to the early investor billionaires and millionaires who were counting on a lot more than they’ve received thus far (greed’s a real pisser), to all the Facebook employees that have lost a bit of their swagger (and future riches) over the last couple of months.

In fact, Silicon Valley as a whole has lost its swagger a bit because of this IPO flop.

A blow-out earnings report would allow all those who were doubted and shunned to say “nah nah nah nah naaaah – told you so – we rock you suck, etc.”

Which makes me wonder, if, indeed, this is a blow-out earnings report despite what many analysts are predicting (consensus: not a blow-out), should the numbers be believed?

Is there a temptation by management and the number crunchers to goose things a bit for this very important first earnings report? Juggle some things. Move stuff around – make it up later. I’m sure they feel they’re smart enough to get around that little “random regulatory audit thing.”

They’ve got millions of made-up users – why not millions of made-up dollars?

There must be that temptation, right? I mean, how much could the SEC fine be in the scheme of things?

I’m sure the immediate reaction to such a wild, speculative (and probably fictional) premise is – “I’m shocked! How dare you presume that Facebook – with its long history of supreme ethics and outstanding morals would even dream of such a thing?”

Maybe it’s just me.

But if we hear on Thursday that there are now over 1 billion users – I’m just not going to believe it (especially when you take out the 200-300 million users that are either animals, aliases or fictional characters).

If they say that people are spending more time than ever on Facebook – I’m just not going to believe it.

If we hear on Thursday that advertising on Facebook has never been better and will continue to grow into 2013 – I’m just not going to believe it.

It is Mark Zuckerberg and Sheryl Sandberg’s job on Thursday is to convince us that things are awesome and getting ‘awesomer’ every day. And when they say that, I am not going to believe it.

But, truth be told, I am not the most bullish person when it comes to Facebook.

After all, I did write “Facebook And The Disappearing Valuation (A Fairy Tale),” and “Facebook Is Worthless,” and “Facebook Must Be Stopped,” and “All The Facebook’s Men,” and “Advertise On Facebook And Reach More People Than 10 Super Bowls,” and “Facebook To Reach 7.3 Billion Users By 2015,” and “Y Combinator Is a Stupid Idea” (I just threw in that last one for fun).

But you do have to wonder – it is soooooo important NOT to disappoint and pressure is coming from everywhere to make sure that they don’t.

Jill Kennedy – OnMedea

July 6, 2012October 17, 2012

YouTube’s Original Content Strategy Is Working

That’s a frightening headline for the Hollywood studios.

It wasn’t supposed to work.

It was an ill-planned experiment that was supposed to fail.

Seriously, who would watch that crap?

Well… give one point to Silicon Valley in the Great Content Wars of 2012.

(This doesn’t mean I’m giving any sort of credit to that jerk Paul Graham – who issued a war on Hollywood. Graham and Y Combinator, in my opinion, represent all that is bad in Silicon Valley.)

When YouTube announced last year that they would put up $100 million dollars to fund original content channels, no one in Hollywood gave it much notice.

What most people expected was something like Paul Rudd walking around, eating Doritos and throwing out non-sequitors.

Basically, that no one would give a shit or watch – and if they did, big companies certainly wouldn’t throw any advertising money at it.

“We’re saving our big dollars for high-quality, professional Hollywood content, goddamnit!” (Imagine them saying it with big cigars in their mouths for greater effect.)

Cut to one year later and there is something real going on at YouTube – and they are just getting started (see all the “Coming Soon” labels on the left graphic of the channels yet to launch).

Channels are launching with the buzz normally generated for broadcast TV or feature film premieres – and for a lot less money.

Here’s a snapshot of the numbers (July 4, 2012). These are significant numbers.

Granted, this new “premium” content on YouTube is NOTHING EVEN CLOSE to the quality of a major studio feature film or TV series. Everything about it screams “slapped together.”

So if that’s true, then why should Hollywood be scared?

Because the generation growing up with YouTube does not distinguish between NBC, ESPN, Hulu, iPhone Apps, etc.

Eyeballs can only look so many places at one time and Broadcast Networks are asking you to keep them locked for three hours at a time (and watch the ads).

That’s fine for my mom (and, frankly, fine for me, too – though my iPhone is in my hand while I watch) but not fine for my daughter.

No chance does she one day turn to me and say “You know what, mom? I’ve become a Broadcast Network junkie. Those shows are what I love to watch the most.”

And this is true all around the world.

The kids who are playing online games, watching videos and surfing around the various social networks are not suddenly going to watch Broadcast Networks when they turn 30.

“Now that I’m older and finished with my wandering gadgets, I’m ready to settle in my easy chair and watch quality programming and check out some of the interesting advertising that happens during those shows.”

Never going to happen.

And, of course, duh, the big media companies know this is never going to happen.

But here’s the kicker: Most who grew up with the Internet really don’t care about quality. If they did, Zynga would have never become popular and MP3s would have been shunned immediately for their lack of decent fidelity.

The youth of the world have been raised not to care about such things (of course, I realize there are exceptions).

A couple of years ago, I wrote a piece called “Broadcast Networks: On Death and Dying” and regardless of the few breakout hits that do exist on Broadcast (which results in big profits from International markets and off-net syndication), it’s really expensive content to produce and it’s just not a long-term strategy.

But don’t get me wrong – studios would be foolish to give up this extremely profitable business model while the market is still there. (“Two Broke Girls” just got $1.5 million an episode from TBS – who could give that up?!)

It’s a real conundrum.

Hollywood studios can’t abandon a dying business when it’s still so profitable. But they can’t plan for the future – because the future is the death of their current business model.

And attempting to replicate what YouTube is doing would be a downright embarrassment for studios used to creating such high-priced, high-quality content.

It would be quite a step down.

Next year is crucial for content business. Trends may become irreversible and the next ten years could become crystal clear.

It is possible that both worlds can exist and make a lot of money (one with super high margins, the other with less).

The ratings for this year’s crop of Broadcast fall premieres will be heavily scrutinized. (October 17 update: Ratings have started off terrible with all networks except NBC experiencing double-digit declines without much hope for improvement.)

New shows need to emerge more than they ever have in the history of television (no platitudes here, man). Syndication pipelines need to remain full with bidding wars from multiple channels and station groups.

If that happens, old media and the current way of operating survives for another five years or so.

If not, there’s only so many more spring upfronts that advertisers will show up for.

Next year, I guarantee, the YouTube upfront presentation will get as much press as CBS’ upfront – regardless of how many more stars CBS pulls onto the stage.

Why is that?

Because it’s new. It’s exciting. And new and exciting always wins.

And, remember, this is a reality TV world (created by Hollywood) where everyone can be a star.

And now those stars don’t need Hollywood anymore.

Jill Kennedy – OnMedea

January 27, 2012May 15, 2012

Facebook And The Disappearing Valuation (A Fairy Tale)

Once upon a time, in the tiny hamlet of Menlo Park, California, there was a company called Facebook.

This company was unlike any other (sorry, make that ‘like MANY others’) in that it connected people from around world through a magical and glorious technical achievement called the Internet.

Everyone loved Facebook:

“Oh my God, it is so easy to upload pictures of my baby!”

“I can’t believe I found all my old high school and college friends so easily!”

“Hey everyone, I’m off to get a coffee – can’t start my day without coffee!”

People from around the world chatted, and shared, and reconnected. There was something really exciting going on in the tiny hamlet of Menlo Park.

But then, one day, because Facebook was growing so so so very large – and its bills were growing so so so much – it needed to somehow make money.

Facebook was so kind that they didn’t want to charge people for the privilege of using its service – so it added advertising. Advertising so tiny that the people of the world didn’t even noticed the ads were there.

“There are ads on Facebook? You know, I’ve never seen one – and I certainly have never clicked on one! Good for them.”

Perhaps Mean Old Mr. Advertiser started to realize that no one was clicking or even noticing his ads.

But little Facebook still needed to get paid – I mean, even a whore has to eat – so they decided to work something out with Mean Old Mr. Advertiser.

Maybe they could somehow leverage their size and sell the personal information of their 900 million users. Would that keep Mean Old Mr. Advertiser off their backs so they could resume their happy life of connecting the world and bringing nothing but joy?

Facebook was so kind to its users that they even added a “Like” button (because “Like” is much nicer than “Dislike” and Coca-Cola doesn’t want to see how many people “Dislike” Coke Zero).

It was so simple, users could either “Like” something or choose not to hit the “Like” button. It was up to the user.

That worked for awhile until the users of the world started to realize what was happening. Many users got angry and felt their privacy was being invaded.

About 15 people actually quit Facebook (while another 100 million signed up).

After a few months, things calmed in the tiny hamlet of Menlo Park and the people on Facebook – to a lesser degree – felt fairly happy again.

But then, one day, Facebook decided that the users of the world needed to share every bit of information about their lives – from birth to even death – and put it all into a very conforming and dizzying glop of data called Timeline.

Mean Old Mr. Advertiser LOVED the idea of Timeline.

Finally, Facebook was thinking like him. Now they got the idea. Mean Old Mr. Advertiser could scour the lives of the people of the world and target them with goods and services that they may or may not enjoy.

And somehow, in just a brief eight years of existence – little Facebook grew and grew and grew and became worth $100 BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS! Oh, goodness, pardon me. (An IPO last year would been insane! What a missed opportunity!… but I digress.)

Well, from here the story gets a little tragic.

The beaten down people of the world and users of Facebook grew so exhausted from the daily overhauls of the site (which were necessary to maximize revenue) that they actually stopped spending time on Facebook – instead reading real books to their children and enjoying the outside world.

Comments started to appear on other websites (yes, there are actually other websites) saying they hate Facebook, are never going back and are quitting.

Poor little Facebook. They just wanted to HELP the world – not FUCK OVER the world.

How could a crappy redesign and a selling of their soul piss people off so much?

It’s just a website after all (one that is on its way to becoming WORTHLESS and must be STOPPED for the good of the world!… one more digression).

I mean, why do the people of the world care so much?

Well, we all know how the story ends.

Disgruntled engineers (and let’s assume an MBA or two) who helped create the chaos from the direction of Uncle Mark and Aunt Sheryl, began grumbling about their need to become millionaires and billionaires like so many of their friends.

The only way to stop them from leaving the tiny hamlet of Menlo Park – and going to, oh, say, the dangerous crack alleys of Mountain View and Cupertino to seek their fortune – was to take the company public.

By selling $5 or $10 billion dollars in stock to the ‘public’ (at a BULLSHIT valuation of $100 billion!) everyone could become rich and (yes) happy.

So at least the employees of Facebook will now be happy. The people of the world, who are seriously beginning to hate Facebook and are either leaving or staying away in droves, are less and less happy every day.

But Mean Old Mr. Facebook couldn’t care less – the users can go fuck themselves.

“Just put your freakin’ family photos in the template we have provided, “Like” the new Coke Zero, play the stupid Zynga games, pay for a movie rental, pay for a music subscription, and keep your stupid mouth shut. We’re not getting to a trillion dollar valuation from pictures of your goddamned baby!”

Mean Old Mr. Facebook is right. The User is wrong.

The moral of the story: Don’t screw your users. They’re the ones that built you up and they’re the ones that will bring you down.

Jill Kennedy – OnMedea

September 1, 2011December 12, 2011

Facebook Must Be Stopped

There is an evil temptation that far too many companies are having trouble resisting – the temptation to launch a new product or service on Facebook.

Every month, when the number of Facebook users seem to go up by 100 million or so – to a current tally of 750 million (let’s be serious, about half are most likely fictional or animals), the CEOs of most entertainment and technology companies get the crazy urge to somehow “tap into that customer base.”

This crazy urge must be resisted. Why? So Facebook is destroyed and the people of the world can go on to a much more interesting existence.

In my opinion, doing business with Facebook is the equivalent of doing business with China. Companies feel they need break into the Chinese market because there is FREAKING 1.3 BILLION PEOPLE THERE! “If we just get 0.0001% we’ll be successful. It’s a no brainer!”

And nearly every company goes there with their hat in their hand – giving every insane concession imaginable just to get in the door – and, eventually, come home with a giant footprint on their ass.

Reminder: The Chinese government can do whatever they want. The deal signed means nothing. If they don’t like your attitude or your product or just feel you’re getting a little “too friendly”, they’ll cut you off and send you home a miserable failure. And it doesn’t matter how many cartons of cigarettes or bottles of Slivovitz you give local officials. When it’s over, it’s over.

This is also true of Facebook.

I firmly believe Facebook could absolutely destroy Zynga (and numerous other companies) overnight. They have that power.

Granted, there is too much money at stake with Zynga’s upcoming IPO, so they probably won’t exert that power. But do you think the Zynga executives are going to do anything to antagonize Facebook… ever? Mark Zuckerberg knows the power he has over Mark Pincus.

That is another reason why Facebook must be stopped. Too many people are believing the hype and are afraid of being left behind.

Every day, Facebook dominates technology news. Press release after press release announces Facebook’s new initiatives and services. Their PR department sends out a press release, websites rewrite them slightly and, pow, you have technology news with a narrative controlled by… Facebook.

This week came a “leak” that they will be going into the Music business by blending streaming services such as Spotify, rdio and MOG into the Facebook user experience.

After all, why should anyone have to leave Facebook to listen to music? Why should anyone have to leave Facebook ever?

(I am working on a product that integrates Facebook into my morning shower. There must be a way to combine my Facebook news feed with the water from the shower head so my friend’s status updates directly enter my pores and absorb into my brain. But I digress….)

Spotify is a great service. They don’t need Facebook. People on Facebook don’t complain about having to toggle away from Facebook in order to go onto Spotify. It ain’t broke, don’t fix it!

Spotify and other media companies need to resist the temptation of the 750 million non-paying users (which includes millions of dogs and cats who don’t really care what songs they listen to).

And look at this growth chart (left). 7.3 billion users in 2015 vs. only 7.2 billion people alive on the planet!

Major media companies (including my parent company Manka Bros. Studios) need to realize that Facebook needs them more than they need Facebook. (Manka Bros. is actually working on a ‘Facebook Killer’ – Caligula – to launch later this year but I fear it will be more of the same.)

Content is the driver of everything in media. Put a great movie on a crappy 13 inch black & white TV and it’s still a great movie and people will watch it. Put a shitty movie on a 110″ inch HD television screen with Dolby SurroundSound, movie lighting and a cocktail, and it’s still a shitty movie that no one will watch.

Facebook needs to realize that the only reason they are popular is because we all have this urge to see what our friends from high school and college look like now. That’s it really. It’s not to watch “The Dark Knight” for 30 Facebook Credits or buy pigs on “Farmville” (millions do it, I know, and why not? – it’s right there in front of us and we’re freakin’ bored with our lives).

But I think it’s time to break away and see what else is out there in the world.

Jill Kennedy – OnMedea

May 12, 2011May 12, 2011

All The Facebook’s Men

As soon as I read The Daily Beast story about Facebook’s alleged smear (whisper) campaign against Google, I immediately thought of the scene in “All The President’s Men” with all the newspaper editors sitting around deciding which stories to run the next day.

When Watergate is brought up, there is stiff resistance from a couple of the editors.

This scene (replacing ‘Watergate’ with ‘Facebook’) could easily have played out at The Daily Beast with the change of a few words in the screenplay:

INT. THE DAILY BEAST – BUDGET MEETING

SEXY BEAST EDITOR: Let me tell you what happened when I was having lunch today at Locanda Verde–

TINA BROWN: Correction – when you were drinking your lunch at the bar of Locanda Verde–

The room erupts in laughter.

SEXY BEAST EDITOR: –this Facebook guy, a good one, a pro, came up and asked what is the “Google smear” compulsion with you guys and I said, well, we think it’s important and he said, if it’s so goddamn important, who the hell is Dan Lyons?

INNOVATION EDITOR: Fake Steve Jobs for one – but I digress. Ask him what he’s really saying – he means to take the story away from Dan Lyons and give it to his people at the Sexy Beast.

SEXY BEAST EDITOR: Well, I’ve got some pretty experienced people sitting around, wouldn’t you say so?

INNOVATION EDITOR: Absolutely, and that’s all they do, sit sit sit – every once in a while they reprint Michael Arrington, some reporting–

SEXY BEAST EDITOR: Well, what if Dan Lyons get it wrong–

TINA BROWN: Then it’s Barry Diller’s ass, isn’t it? And we’ll all have to go work for a living.

The room clears, only a couple of Editors and Tina Brown stay behind:

SEXY BEAST EDITOR: I don’t think we should cover this story, period.

TINA BROWN: Go on.

SEXY BEAST EDITOR: It’s not that we’re using unnamed sources that bothers me, or that everything we print Facebook denies.

TINA BROWN: What then?

SEXY BEAST EDITOR: I don’t believe the goddamn story, Tina, it doesn’t make sense.

TINA BROWN: It will, it just hasn’t bottomed out yet, give it time.

SEXY BEAST EDITOR: Look, why would Facebook do it? My God, Google is self-destructing before our eyes – just like MySpace did, Friendster, the bunch of ’em. Why would Burson-Marsteller send emails to bloggers urging them to write negative stories about Google, unless they wanted to get caught? Why would Burson go to Politico, The Washington Post and The Huffington Post, unless they wanted to get caught?

TINA BROWN: Are you saying Google started a whisper campaign against itself?

SEXY BEAST EDITOR: Jill Kennedy at OnMedea thinks it’s possible – Google needs some positive press, corruption’s always a good one. Get off the story, Tina – or put some people on Google’s public relations team – fair is fair, even in our business.

—————————————-

Hey, we’re early enough in this conspiracy where all theories are in play.

Jill Kennedy – OnMedea

Click here to read the scene from the original script of “All The President’s Men”

September 22, 2009May 2, 2011

Yahoo’s New Ad Campaign ROCKS!

Ari Emanuel, Bill Gates, Carol Bartz, David Dibble, Elisa Steele, Eric Schmidt, Google, Hilary Schneider, Jack in the Box, Jeff Weiner, Jerry Seinfeld, Jerry Yang, Khan Manka, Mac vs. PC, Manka Bros., Microsoft, Nicolas Sparks, Penny Baldwin, Steve Ballmer, Tapan Bhat, Terry Semel, Tim Morse, Y!ou, Yahoo!, Yahoo's new ad campaign

It simply blows Apple’s Mac vs. PC ads out of the water. Jack In The Box is Yahoo!’s bitch!

There… that should get a few Yahoo! executives clicking on this entry.

It’s actually a pretty terrible and underwhelming campaign and won’t do anything to help the brand.

On the plus side, it certainly won’t hurt to throw $100 million at the Yahoo! brand. It does need updating. But a more creative and less generic middle-of-the-road approach would have been the way to go.

It’s basically the Jay Leno of ad campaigns. Nice and safe. Your children will be okay if left alone with the new Yahoo! campaign.

You can sit and drink lemonade on the front porch with the new Yahoo! campaign. It’s a Nicolas Sparks novel on a rainy day. It don’t hurt nobody.

Some companies would have gone for a “lock-up your children because HERE COMES THE YAHOO! CAMPAIGN TO TAKE AWAY YOUR DAUGHTER ON A MOTORCYCLE” type of approach. Edgy and exciting.

Maybe in today’s economy, nice and safe is the way to go. We’ll find out soon enough. Microsoft was forced to dump a few crappy ad campaigns in the past – hopefully, if it doesn’t work out, Yahoo! will pull the trigger quickly and bring on the motorcycle gangs.

I wish Carol Bartz luck… I’m a big fan. So is my boss, Khan Manka, Jr.

Jill Kennedy – OnMedea

May 12, 2009May 12, 2011

All The President’s Men – Washington Post Budget Meeting Scene

Here is a companion to “All The Facebook’s Men” – the actual scene from the original screenplay of “All The President’s Men”

INT. WASHINGTON POST – CONFERENCE ROOM

NATIONAL EDITOR: –let me tell what happened when I was having lunch today at the Sans Souci–

ROSENFLED: –correction–when you were drinking your lunch at the bar of the Sans Souci–

NATIONAL EDITOR: –this White House guy, a good one, a pro, came up and asked what is this Watergate compulsion with you guys and I said, well, we think it’s important and he said, if it’s so goddamn important, who the hell are Woodward and Bernstein?

ROSENFELD: Ask him what he’s really saying– he means take the story away from Woodstein and give it to his people at the National Desk–

NATIONAL EDITOR: –well, I’ve got some pretty experienced fellas sitting around, wouldn’t you say so?

ROSENFELD: Absolutely. And that’s all they do, sit sit sit – every once in a while, they call up a Senator, some reporting–

NATIONAL EDITOR: –well, what if your boys get it wrong?

BRADLEE: (after a beat) Then it’s our asses, isn’t it?

SIMONS: (indicates the meeting is over) And we’ll all have to go to work for a living.

As the men rise and head for the door, the FOREIGN EDITOR moves toward BRADLEE and SIMONS who remain seated as before.

FOREIGN EDITOR: I don’t think either Metropolitan or National should cover the story.

Bradlee and Simons look at him.

FOREIGN EDITOR (CONT’D): I don’t think we should cover the story, period.

BRADLEE: Go on.

FOREIGN EDITOR: It’s not that we’re using unnamed sources that bothers me, or that everything we print the White House denies, or that almost no other papers are reprinting our stuff.

SIMONS: What then?

FOREIGN EDITOR: I don’t believe the goddamn story, Howard, it doesn’t make sense.

BRADLEE: It will, it just hasn’t bottomed out yet, give it time.

FOREIGN EDITOR: Ben, Jesus, there are over two thousand reporters in this town, are there five on Watergate? Where did we suddenly get all this wisdom?

Bradlee and Simons say nothing. They respect this guy.

FOREIGN EDITOR: Look – why would the Republicans do it? My God, McGovern is self-destructing before our eyes — just like Muskie did, Humphrey, the bunch of ’em. Why would the burglars have put the tape around the door instead of up and down unless they wanted to get caught? Why did they take a walkie-talkie and then turn it off, unless they wanted to get caught? Why would they use McCord–the only direct contact to the Republicans?

BRADLEE: You saying the Democrats bugged themselves?

FOREIGN EDITOR: The FBI thinks it’s possible–the Democrats need a campaign issue, corruption’s always a good one. Get off the story, Ben — or put some people on McGovern’s finances; fair is fair, even if our business.

He leaves.

Jill Kennedy – OnMedea