Dear Chrome.. it isn't you.... it's me

First off, I am a big fan of Google Chrome. It is, actually, the best browsing experience I have had.

But.... I am no longer using it.

Three reasons why:

1- No Mac client. In my personal life, I am a Mac user and bit of a fanboy. Not being able to run it at home wasn't the worst thing, but it would be a nice option to have.

2- No Google Toolbar- The irony of this is pretty thick. I use the Google Toolbar an incredible amount. From short cuts to easily finding a story I am looking for on a site, I may actually use the toolbar more than I use Google.

3- There are some pages I view every day, whether it's the media database I use at work (which, by the way, the Firefox extension that lets me run IE through the Firefox platform is amazingly convenient) or something a little less sophisticated. If web pages I view on a daily basis won't render, there's really no use in sticking with Chrome.

What about you? What's keeping you from using (or sticking with) Chrome?

Day 1 of a cableless life...maybe a coincidence

Any idea what's fun?

I'd start with telling your cable company that they are being replaced by a better technology that's more convenient to you.

Then... they'll say something fun like:

No problem, we understand that you (my edit: accurately view us as dumb-pipe) have your own needs... we're happy to make the adjustment to your account.

An hour later, having agreed with my cable provider that I would keep their full service until next Saturday, because that's the point where I will be turning my cable box in, my "menu" option on the cable box (you know.... the same service I agreed to pay for until next week), will no longer work.

Roku.... what a weird coincidence.... On Day number 1 of me trying to become your biggest fan... you get a heck of an opportunity. Please don't screw it up like Time Warner.

Re-taking the plunge to a cable-less life

Upon moving to Brooklyn a few months ago, I decided it was time to again become a cable subscriber. After all, there's SO much on all the time, I would have a huge variety of things I wanted to watch, and the hardest choice would be selecting the "best" of what's on... right?

Wrong, it didn't work out that way, and the only "huge" thing I ended up with was the bill.

As such, today, I ordered the Roku Netflix player, and will be canceling my cable when it comes. Look for updates on the switch to a Cable-less life on occasion here.

What about you? Could you live without cable? What's your experience with the Roku?

Off Topic: One of the greatest pics I have ever seen

At heart... I'm a bit of a numbers guy.... which is why I'm such a baseball fan.

As such... this might be one of my favorite pictures of all time:




The numbers represent the likeliness of victory at any given point in last night's Redsox game.

My take on In-Game Advertising

Yesterday, my buddy Anthony, who's a heck of a social marketer and general all around good guy, posted about how he was excited that the Obama campaign has looked at non traditional advertising venues, including in-games ads.

My take is a lot different from his, and reflects what I was thinking when I wrote about mobile advertising.

To me... in the case on both Mobile Ads and In-Game ads, it's a clear case of double-dipping on behalf of the manufacturer, and it's a model that only the Cable companies have managed to succeed on (you pay for cable or satellite TV... while ALSO being advertised to).

If I'm going to shell out $70 for a game... or $100 monthly for my cell service.... I don't want it to come with ads. Pure and simple.

I think for mobile ads or in game ads to be something I'd be willing to live with, there would have to be some sort of trade-off. For example, if EA Sports wanted to send me a free copy of Madden 2009, with the expectation that I'll deal with advertisements (preferably non-intrusive advertisements at that), I'd be much more likely.

For Sprint, if they wanted to knock off 40% of my cell phone bill, in return for me putting up with a couple texts a day advertising something (think of the GPS and hyper-local targeting that could come with this... it's a market's dream come true), I'd be down with that.

But for me... I am only going to be accepting of new forms of advertising when the company hosting the ads gives me something in return.

To comment, or not to comment... that is the question

I have a question for both the Hacks and Flacks (both terms said with love) who happen to read my blog.

As part of being a flack, I've reached out to different reporters and analysts about a story they've written, whether it be to suggest a follow up piece or to (respectively) point out something that I think they may have missed. That's not to say I am the flack who would argue with a reporter or send the scathing e-mail that @bmorrissey would berate. It's most often with one of 2 aims:

1- to introduce a reporter/analyst to a company they may not have heard of
2- to find out, based on the fact that they haven't written about the subject before, if this is a new beat they'll be looking at, or if this is a one-off piece based on no one else being available to cover it, and not something they'll be looking at again. (i.e. I am not going to pester this person forever because they wrote a one-off... and I hope most reporters/analysts appreciate this).

That said, I've had quite a few Hacks respond to me with some variation of the following response:

Hey, thanks for the feedback. Please feel free to post a note along these lines in the comments.

So... here's my questions (and gut feelings on how I would answer below in italics).

-To Hacks (analysts, bloggers and reporters)- Should a PR person respond in the comments to something you've written, even if it's counter to your view or says "hey, you missed it"? Is it better said from someone at the company that the PR person represents?

-To Flacks - Do you respond in comments to Hacks? Have you recommended that your clients do the same (either in addition to your comment or in lieu of it)? If so, what has the feedback been?

I'd love to hear your thoughts in the comments.

My take: A PR person shouldn't be the one doing the commenting. It isn't hard to trace an IP address. Also, it just plain looks tacky... even if the flack discloses the fact that they are a flack. If a company's CEO wants to respond, I think that carries a LOT more weight... but also caution the CEO's that I work with that a response could spark additional conversation, and that they should be prepared for an open, and honest dialogue... not a one-off response