BI Revolution

Vidrack Is COOL
Imagine you could have a customizable video button on YOUR website that activates and captures video from THEIR (your visitors;) mobile, PC or laptop camera. 

Video captured goes to an admin where you approve (so spam or who knows what doesn't make it live all the way out to your website). 

Here are some cool uses of a simple, cool technology:

* Q&A - Ask a question and let your customers / visitors record their answers. 

* FORM Killer - never ask for a form to b completed again. Just ask people to create a short video sharing the way THEY would like to be contacted. 

* Real Time - ask customers to shoot video of your product in use. 

* Real Time Promotion - as customers to shoot videos wearing or using your branded merchandise. 

* Video Storytelling - create the beginning of a story and ask your customers / visitors to finish it with a video.

* Ask For Content - Let's say you need architecture detail content, ask customers to video their favorite architecture details. 

* Ask for Reviews / Feedback - Maybe this tool can do something Amazon struggled to create - video reviews. 

* Video Travel - ask customers to share videos from their travel. 

* Video Funding - videos already play a big role in crowdfunding, nonprofits should ask visitors to share WHY they support them since others will be moved to do the same. 

* Video Conferences - since you can approve videos you can hold a class, ask questions or responses and edit videos submitted to make your point. 

* Video Teaching - Your customers may have cool and unique ways to use your product, ask them to share and teach other customers. 

* Video Fashion - How do your clothes really look on real people? Ask customers / visitors to create and share what they are wearing today and why. 

* Video Commentary - Have a controversy, nothing creates more attention faster online than controversy easy to ramp it up with UGV (User Generated Video). 

Could go on and on since THEIR video content is so much more valuable than YOURS. This is a content conclusion I've come to recently. Your content creates legitimacy for your brands and ideas, but THEIR content in the form of reviews, comments or even filled out forms can create social shares. 

If there is anything more important than social shares in Internet Marketing today I don't know what it is. If someone clicks on your record button, submits a video almost 100% will follow with social shares if you alert them to their video's approval and publication to your website. 

Cool tool.  

Good idea to review the Art of War with the commons in mind. The commons may be the most misunderstood of Google's instructions. Google's desire is to find relevant authority.

In a recent video Matt Cutts used the New York Times as an example of an organization with quality content. NYT is a content engine built around specific rules and practices to insure content quality.

Interesting to use a newspaper since newspapers are under such pressure. I agree with Cutts that the NYT creates quality content. I don't see the NYT as a leader in other relevant Internet practices (social, mobile).

Cutts is saying NYT starts with an advantage because they are so dedicated to content quality. I grant the point, but wonder if the NYT is a tad solipsistic (self referential) for this time.

Does the New York Times stop the news world as it used to? Not even by a little bit because there are so many other high quality and niched information offerings.

The commons is a tactic every newspaper could benefit from. The commons views whatever we are creating as a combination of US and THEM. By taking an active community approach the quality and quantity of content goes up fast and in affordable ways.

The commons, that area where we've both invested, can now turn around and repay the debt by driving links back to its creators. In the case of the New York Times this would be finding the 1% of contributors who are "Times Worthy" and including them more fully in the paper's content strategies and tactics.

Think of Amazon's Top 1,000 Book Reviewers - a list people fight to achieve - and you see how the Times could be a leader in User Generated Content curation. "Could be" but unlikely TO BE because newspapers don't value, use, reward or curate the rich vein of UGC they could easily mine.

To reward the "Cult of the Amateur" would be below most newspapers (goes the thinking). I used to read the New York Times Sunday edition like a religion. Not so much anymore because I have friends who fill the need for amazing content I care about now.

Every newspaper COULD have become the source of legitimacy for the 1% of content creators who could work on staff at the times or the observer or at any paper. Increasingly these "reporters" leave institutions like the times because they seek freedom to publish and know their following has power.

Is there a role for newspapers still? Of course, but it is a very different role than they are used to or, at least so far, seem to want.