Details Magazine has a cover story in its August edition.  Noting:

“Exalting the handmade, the painstakingly crafted, the authentic, is not just for hipsters in Portland and Brooklyn anymore—small-batch has mass appeal. How the artisanal movement became our national consumer religion.

Yes, indeed it has.  Of course if you’d downloaded and read Future: Present, you’d be well aware of that trend and its implications for your brand.  The eBook will be free only for a few more weeks– so download the pdf or the audio while it’s still free.

Much has been written about Miley Cyrus and her recent change to distance herself from her Hannah Montana character. It was ta terrible idea as the New York Times points out today.

So last month, when Ms. Cyrus released her post-adolescent anthem, “Can’t Be Tamed,” her once-adoring fan was unimpressed, unmoved by, among other things, the singer’s sexy music video.

“It was weird,” Perry said of Ms. Cyrus’s bird wings and black ribbon corset. “I feel like she acts 25. She looks so old. She is too old for herself.” She, like others her age, has had enough. First-week album sales for the more adult “Can’t Be Tamed” tallied a mere 102,389, according to Nielsen SoundScan, which tracks music sales. That was 72 percent less than her 2008 solo debut, “Breakout,” and 33 percent less than last year’s “Time of Our Lives,” both of which were popular with teenagers.

Readers of my book will recognize this failure to be utterly predictable.  Ms. Cyrus and her strategists should never have equated sexuality with maturity.  Kids are generally alienated by the quantity of sex in their media. The movement to conservatism continues on the young end.  Not only can Taylor Swift sing better– her style is more on pitch as well.

This is just so brilliant I had to steal it from Mashable–  mostly so I won’t forget it.

You shouldn’t either.

Ricky Van Veen’s 10 Web Content Urban Legends

Myth #1). People will want to watch your branded content: Why would anyone watch this? If you don’t have a good reason, don’t make it. If your goal is 75% to entertain and 25% to sell a product, you already have a handicap.

- Brands need to be flexible. IE, College Humor is a racy site — so if you want to partner with a media outlet like this, its content will be racy. Embrace that. To remedy this issue, you can present content that is not explicitly branded, and then reveal your involvement later.

Myth #2). People will be patient with your content: 35% tune out soon after starting to watch a web video. Also, one third of web activity is executed while watching TV.

- So, get to the point — quickly.

Myth #3). People will find your content: Your video will not necessarily go viral. Over-saturation is not the key, either.

- Have a strong seeding strategy.
- Team up with an established brand or platform.

Myth #4). The Internet is a level playing field: A link on Drudge Report yields more results than some dude’s blog.

- Tap into power users.

Myth #5). We have no idea why things go viral: There are no rules for making a viral video. But all viral videos give the user a reason to pass it on. This all has to do with identity creation: What does passing this video on say about me?

- College Humor has a hit strategy: Only hit for nines and 10s.
- The shorter the better.
- The hook comes within the first 20 seconds.
- Sweet spots College Humor taps into: Topical issues and “Candycorn” (cultural touchstones that everyone knows, but doesn’t actively think about).

Myth # 6). Experience beats documentation: We have a new generation that puts documentation above experience. It’s all about Flickr feeds and Facebook status updates. It’s basically high-tech bragging.

- if you’re a marketer, create experiences that allow people to show off how cool they are.

Myth #7). You should build your own community and tools: The web values simplicity and openness. Don’t limit the openness of your project. Make all tools open and easy to share. Don’t build your own features — if you want people to share photos and whatnot, use Facebook and Flickr. You get much more exposure and reach in that way.

Myth #8). Keep things professional: Show the people behind the scenes. It gives your site personality and makes it sticky. Personality drives your brand. Post photos of staff as well as videos and other content. Perez Hilton does this really well, according to Van Veen.

Myth #9). Traditional media is irrelevant to the web: TV is not over. Content creators are always working to get to TV and film — that’s where the money is. The average American watches 151 hours of TV a month, so that’s nothing to sneeze at. You get a stamp of approval thusly.

Myth #10). People will create good content for you: This is the biggest myth of all.

Just brilliant.  I’m going to frame it and hang it on my wall.  Thanks Ricky.

Everyone who blogs about marketing and media should write about the Nestle issue. There can not be enough written about this. (Some good things here, here and here .)

Why?

Because its get to the root of social media and big business. The very value of social media. Nestle is getting hammered and guess what? They deserve it. Ya wanna know what else? They’ll be the better for the lickin’ they are taking.

Still one has to wonder how it is that a billion dollar conglomerate who sells fructose as baby formula figures its a good idea to go out into social media without hiring help. Cheese on a Ritz fellas, who walks out on stage in a stadium without practicing?

So there it is– we all owe a huge smattering of thanks to the corp comm geniuses at Nestle for doing the social media thing and showing everyone how not to do it.

Here’s what I learned:

If you are a gigantic food processing or agro-business –STFU. Seriously. You’re only asking for trouble. You want to defend high fructose corn syrup in moderation or the benefits of genetically modified grain? Go buy a congressman like the rest of your buds.

If you’re still not convinced that you are better staying out of the conversation, or somehow still feel the need to leverage this great new form of media, try fixing your Wikipedia page. See, not so easy is it? Once you master that community, you’re ready for twitter and a solid monitoring program. Got that box checked? Well then, by all means, go ahead and jump in people’s facebook streams. I love getting updates about sustainable palm oil refining next to updates from my sister-in-law. That’s sarcasm. Go slow and consider the community you are entering. Some places are best left unattended until you are ready.

I suspect Nestle would like to step away from Facebook, but of course, now its too late. Leaving would make them look weak and guilty. So now they must endure the slings and arrows of the great unwashed. Certainly Nestle has come to realize that no one can talk over an angry mob. Maybe now Nestle will listen.

Because that’s the thing: I’m not sure social media is so much about about letting go of your brand or even transparency. To me, it’s more about listening. Yes, listening effectively is often more expensive than running your yap. This is the trap of social media for so many businesses. They are so used to talking, and since that’s easier and less expensive than listening, “how hard can it be?” they ask themselves. Then they wind up blog fodder like Nestle.

Listening correctly, a business the size of Nestle can save millions of dollars in market research. By listening respectfully they could uncover the weaknesses in their oppositions’ arguments. If they listen deeply they might find a way to do well by doing good. It’s a myth that people hate big business. People hate dumb big businesses. Being dumb in social media is way more expensive than just being quiet.

In related news Ryan Seacrest learned the hard way about spoiler alerts on twitter

Dick Hardt explains digital identity.

So Sidewiki has a bunch of communication pros knickers in a twist but I, for one, do not see Sidewiki as cataclysm. Yes, its potential for abuse is barely enormous– but we’ve been here before and so far so good, honestly.

BTW- I’m certain that more than a few people will read this diatribe of moderation and spam my site to prove to me how bad it really is. So be it. I suspect that that time would be better spent on Halliburton’s site (which has NO sidewiki entries as of this writing), but that’s just me.

No longer can corporate leadership sit in a bubble and complain that they don’t know what the customer is thinking. Now It’s right on their website. How bad can that be? Senior leadership craves real input. There it is on their home page. Careful what you wish for.

The fundamentals of what Google Sidewiki is and what it does are here and here. I won’t rehash it. What I will do is try to give some depth to the POV I put on twitter Tuesday.

1. For the love of all things holy: Get There first

• This means (provided David Hurowitz hasn’t beat you to it), provide your company’s info and desire to help. Comcast’s Frank Eliason did a perfect job on the Comcast site. Check it out.

2. Welcome constructive comments in sidewiki itself

• Perhaps is goes without saying but welcoming comments and discussions is always a good idea. One of the things that makes Frank Eliason’s entry so good is that it seeks to move discussions off side wiki and into more manageable channels. That’s good for both sides.

3. Monitor continually

• While I’ve not found anyone spidering Sidewiki as part of automated social media monitoring, (Amber at Radian 6 says they are working on it. If they are working on it, it will be here shortly. ) for now, two visits a day should suffice for all but the largest and most visited sites.

4. Report every abuse

• Reviewing both the page and the tool itself, you can see how to report abuses and vote down useless whining. Hey, it’s your site. if its not constructive nobody wants it there except for vainglorious trolls who are looking for attention. Again those of you who would disagree, by all means, fire away.

5. Follow traditional crisis management fundamentals. Plan messaging in advance.

• (Again following the excellent example from Comcast) messaging on point– addressing the concerns and providing useful information to direct the communication in a useful way.

While Google Sidewiki may become a great place to slam brands, my sense is that it will bring way more good than harm. Fear of posting there will only lead to heartache. I saw many good companies thrown into utter (and completely unnecessary) chaos at entries on their Wikipedia page. Any digital communicator worth their salt can manage this. The good news is that you can effect what is said about you on Sidewiki. You can comment, refute, repair and address and redress any grievance. You can report abuse and you can vote about an entry’s relevance. Some have even suggested you can stuff the ballot box and push it down.

An old saying goes: “trust in God but tie your horses.” As with all things digital and social on corporate world, be TRANSPARENT. Everyone talks about trust. I think transparency comes first; and its harder. Like “word of mouth” or “viral”, trust is a result, not a tactic. Transparency is both the strategic and tactical means to an end called trust. Transparnecy makes verification easier.

It all boils down to this: the ability to ignore the haters, while listening to the critics. What likely scares all the communicators wringing their hands over Sidewiki is concern about their leadership understanding the difference. Nut up gang. Be active, vigilant and transparent on Google Sidewiki and you’ll find your fears dissipating and your social media confidence growing.

Sidewiki’s detractors should re-assess their concerns and have a swig of their own Kool aid. Control is gone– has been for years. Everyone whose written intelligently about Sidewiki–pro or con– knows this. Detractors must face the reality in the same way they’ve advised their clients about social media since the start. Yes, potential for abuse is high; but not any higher than Wikipedia. We managed that right? So lighten up. Let your communication team load-up the toolbar and get in the conversation. This is reality–it has been for years. With all apologies to the doomsayers, it may be the easiest most accessible form of social media yet. Close-talkers need social media love too.

Want more? check out this brilliant argument from Dan Rochman. He’s not very transparent, but his thinking is sound.

Whatever business you are in, you are also in the content business. There is a lot of competition in the content business.

In 1993 AT&T gave a remarkably clear view of what things would be like in 2009. Remember these ads?

From the bright folks at UNmarketing:

Ad Age has a nice piece on what advertisers want from radio.  Maybe I’m just projecting, but it seems simple enough:

• Content that enforces the advertisers’ brand benefits
• Ending the long set of commercials.
• The ability to leverage the power of personality.

Seems simple enough.  It’s time to end the 60 second commercial and re-enlist talent in the process of marketing the station and its sponsors.  Radio needs to be “break free” and entertain all the time.  Sponsors need to be partners.  The wall between programming and sales has to come down.