Great Photo

Seen on the streets of Austin....


Thanks to Martin, our fab creative director here at Pierpont, for the image.

Protect your brand -- and pay Godin $400

I tweeted about this yesterday on the AMA Houston Twitter feed, but in case you didn't see it, here's the scoop: Seth Godin, marketing mavrick and blogger extraordinaire, just launched Brands In Public, a site that aggregates internet comments (think Twitter, blogs, YouTube, etc.) about brands into one simple, easy to use dashboard that anyone can access. The twist -- if there's a page about your brand, you'll have to fork over $400 bucks to "coordinate" it. What does this mean? Basically, you can't change the content that's rolling in but that you can highlight the positive tweets, direct readers to your own company's videos, blogs, or sites, and defend your brand from any comments that may appear. Essentially, you're "curating" a clearinghouse of consumer buzz about your brand.

"Pay me my money -- or your brand gets creamed."

Thus far, Godin has introduced about 100 or so pages for some of our fave brands, and a few (Allstate and Home Depot, for example) appear to have forked over the dough to coordinate their dashboards.

Others are holding off for right now....and many are pissed. Why? Duh -- they feel backed into a corner where they have to pay Godin or potentially risk having a page on the web that highlights all things negative about their brand.

We'll see where this goes and if it takes off. I think what's really going to impact how seriously brands take this new venture is how well the Brands in Public pages show up in search engines. It'll also depend on how well consumers take to the new site. So far, all the talk about Brands in Public has been from marketing and branding folks like me, but if the site is going to take off, consumers are going to have to bite into it and use it.

Thoughts on all of this? $400 bucks isn't that much when you're a Home Depot, but do you think its fair to "hijack" (as some bloggers have said) comments about a brand and then force 'em to pay to defend themselves? And the most important question of all -- will this really help consumers make better decisions about brands??? Let's discuss.

Emmy Red Carpet, 2009....

My faves (and not so faves). So without further ado....

WINNERS:

Mariska Hargitay. Simple dress but she still looks smoking. Her hair is a bit sloppy, but perfection is hard to find.

Entourage cast: Hot. I am especially digging Perrey Reeves' look.

Holly Hunter: Y'all know I love things that sparkle. So obviously, I'm loving this dress. Fits her like a glove too.


John Krasinsk: Um, hello John. Yum. Where's your hotel room?

Heidi Klum: WTF? She's about to pop and still has a hotter body than me. This dress is AMAZING on her.


Debra Messing: Debra Messing looks smoking in this dress. I love the one-shoulder look, too.


Blake Lively: She's a terrible actress but I love her anyways. Plus, this is a great dress....sexy and fun.

LOSERS:


January Jones: January's fashion choice is quite, er, chilly.

Josh Segal: So I admit that I have a secret crush on Josh Segal (I like dorky guys!) but even I've gotta draw the line somewhere. This suit looks like something he got off the rack at Big & Tall. On sale -- or clearance.




Sarah Silverman: Great color....and that's about it. Ew.


Shar Jackson: Omigod, omigod, omigod. What the hell was she (or not) thinking???

Spell check anyone?

Another example of when a little proofing would have gone a long way....

News

Hey folks!

First, apologies for my complete lack of posting. I've been busy. Very busy. Why? Cause I just landed a new job! Starting Sept. 1, I will be working here. I am totally stoked for the new position. Pierpont is an awesome company and I think it will be a great opportunity. Yay me!

OK, promise I'll update again soon. XOXO!

Let's talk about height, baby

I am so excited to read The Tall Book. Why? Because tall people ROCK. (Not that I am biased, being 6'1" and all.) Need more proof that we're super cool? Read this TIME article. Here is an excerpt: "... tall people have a more pleasant disposition and are more easygoing. They don't have to make an extra effort to command attention. When they walk into a room, it tends to come naturally to them." Yeah, we're awesome.

So since I'm on a tall kick, here are some of the best sites for Amazon ladies like myself. Admittedly, most of them deal with online shopping since 1) I hate shopping in stores (malls = hell) and 2) it's impossible to find clothing in a normal store that fits long-legged ladies like myself.

- Barefoottess.com: Ok, not specifically for tall people per se, but since tall chicks usually have elephant sized feet, this site is essential. Cool and fashionable shoes up to size 15? Um, sign me up. (Side note -- my feet aren't that big. I wear an 11 or 12. Ok, fine, I wear a 12.) Make sure to sign up for the newsletter to get access to amazing sales. (I scored $300 Delman shoes for $150.)

- Zappos: Duh. Have you been living under a rock? Like Barefoottess.com, lots of shoes, lots of sizes.

- Bananarepublic.com: Y'all know the mall store, but did you know that the online store sells most of their clothes in tall sizes? And here is what truly makes BR rock: I got a few pairs of nice dress pants for the wallet friendly price of $80 bucks a pair. (Quite the steal compared to the $150 I used to drop at J. Crew, who also sell tall, albeit, expensive duds.) Plus, as I said above, I hate shopping in malls, so this saves me a trip. Yay! (BONUS: Check out sister site Gap.com. Their jeans come in extra long. Sweet!)

- SeatGuru.com: Not only am I very tall, but I am also all legs. My inseam is 36" -- the same as my 6'7" brother Robby. (I know, woe is me right?) So traveling by plane is pretty painful, if not impossible, because my legs barely fit into the tiny seats. SeatGuru rocks 'cause it has all the details about what seats are most comfy, have the most leg room, etc. Essential before any trip.

- Last minute addition: BCBG. No idea why, but their stuff fits me -- and most tall people -- perfectly. Only issue is that the skirts are a tad bit short, but I just don't bend over.

- Tallpersonals.com: I'm kidding.

By the way, want to check out the weirdest web site ever? Click here. A friend forwarded me this a while back, and I just stumbled upon it again. The dude has the weirdest tall fetish EVER. So strange.

Addicted to the internet?

Yeah, me too.

Great Alt Text post on Wired.com that has you rate your internet dependency. Here's how it works: assume that your DSL goes down. What are you going to do? Compare what you would do with the different stages of internet dependency listed on the post...and then go turn off your computer for the first time in 2 months and pick up a book. (You know, one of those bound paper things? Yeah, remember?) Me, I'm stage 4. That's why I don't remember what a book is.

Oh yeah -- HAPPY FRIDAY!

Saving Cali's schools...

...one joint at a time?

Ok, seriously -- check out the new ad campaign brought to us by the Marijuana Policy Project. Apparently, taxing pot will save California's budget deficit? Huh?

This is ridiculous.

Pandora's Box

Is anyone besides me OBSESSED with Pandora? I love it. I have about 10 stations that I switch between while I am at work. Chill hippy music? Check. Really bad 1980s music? Got that too.

My Pandora Station....I think I was listening to my Euro Trash music when I took this screen shot.

Anyway, until earlier today, Pandora was in danger of being shut down. (The horror! You can read about it here -- but to sum it up, it involves royalty payments with music labels.) However, it just reached an agreement with SoundExchange (a non-profit group that works with the U. S. Copyright Office to collect royalty payments for online music) that changes the manner by which Pandora (and sites like it) make royalty payments. It's a little complicated, but TechCrunch sums it up pretty well:

The key part of the resolution involves SoundExchange agreeing to a 40-50% reduction in the per-song-per-listener rates. In exchange, Pandora is giving up either 25% of its U.S. revenue or the new per-song-per-listener rate, whichever is higher. This agreement runs through 2015.

That second part (the "new per-song-per-listener rate" and "whichever is higher") is important -- because these rates are pretty heavy on the wallet, Pandora is implementing a 40 hour per month usage cap on users. For most people, it's not a biggie -- in fact, it only impacts 10% of Pandora's heaviest listeners. But guess what? I'm one of the 10%! In fact, I got an email today from Tim Westergren, Pandora's founder, that said this:

While we did the best we could to lower the rates, we are going to have to make an adjustment that will affect about 10% of our users who are our heaviest listeners. Specifically, we are going to begin limiting listening to 40 hours per month on the web. Because we have to pay royalty fees per song and per listener, it makes very heavy listeners hard to support on advertising alone. Most listeners will never hit this cap, but it seems that you might.

Wow...I had no idea I was listening to that much music. Anyway, I'll still be able to get my Pandora fix pretty easily -- once I reach my 40 hour limit, I simply pay $.99 to continue listening to unlimited music for the rest of the month. Seems like a sweet deal to me, and well worth the buck. After all, Pandora has introduced me to a ton of new artists and genres....artists and genres I wouldn't have been exposed to had I just been listening to my iPod, cds, or (heaven forbid) the whirl of my computer.

Anyone else a crazy Pandora addict? Or am I the only one? If they had Pandora's Anonymous, I would so have to join....

Tom Cruise makes a commercial. Or, to be more accurate, his freaky weird religion does.

It starts out ok. In fact, it actually seems like a decent, half-slick spot. Is it a new cotton commercial? Another annoying AT&T ad? Nope. Just wait.



Quite a change from the old ads, eh?



Eek. Just remember: If your religion needs commercials, run away. Fast.

Thanks to Consumerist for the links.