Podcasting...

Over the weekend I had a chance to listen to some interesting pod casts. The First one was extremely hilarious. It was an interview with Ad Age publisher and the Geico Gecko (the actually little green guy). Though most of the content and questions were rather comical and irrelevant to the industry, there was some great insight leaked.

It was rather entertaining to listen to this reporter ask some serious questions, and hear the cocky little Gecko respond back with his witty remarks. When asked what the Gecko has to do with car insurance, he defensively responds, "what does a giant have to do with beans, or a fat little boy made out of dough do with rolls?"

But as the humor fades, the truth still exists, Geico has been seeing huge increases in ROI, sales, and other great improvements. So what has this little green gecko really done to Geico?

"...that's why I exist, you can talk about Geico's great rates all day long, but if you don't do it in an entertaining way, people are going to change the channel."

This quote by the gecko is true, if your advertising doesn't hold the audiences attention, let alone gain it at first, your message will never stick with them.

As the gecko closes he states,
"the day i look the the mirror and I'm not amused, is the day I look away..."



The Second cast involved participation between Edelman's Steve Rubel, Michael Wiley, Ming Yee, and Leah Jones. They debated the involvement of companies and PR in Wikipedia. It is an interesting subject, whether or not companies should be controlling the content that people are posting about them. Of course, there is going to be negative subject matter on the posts, perhaps even misrepresented facts. If the companies know that this site is not purely credible, is it correct to be monitoring what they want?

Steve Rubel starts off the debate by saying it’s not really necessary for the companies to be involved with other people's "editorials." To correct any mistakes, a company should use the "talk pages" of Wikipedia by posting several other sources disproving the original error. Though most agree, this only gives rise to more debates about what is in fact an "error." We should all know that Wikipedia is not based on pure facts, or at least doesn't need to be. An error--like writing about Starbucks lacking of free wireless Internet--is only wrong in the company's eyes. With it being a stab at the company, criticizing certain aspects, should employees and CEOs be allowed to omit this information?

The debate goes on to discuss the topics of "notability," "padding," and more Wikipedia policy.

I was unaware of such a topic, and now, find myself rather intrigued. I feel it is unnecessary to become involved with such a site, but on the other hand, think it’s crucial for companies to monitor false, or harmful information. With that said, this does not mean they should omit certain discussions that they feel negatively about (even if true). I was even subject to posting false information about a site in my last bog, and was contacted in a very polite way (and now the issue is corrected). As long as companies go about the issues in a truthful, polite way, I feel their involvement is fine.


(*Interesting note, podfade=too much time passing in between postings.)


Learning through pod casts is just as entertaining and beneficial as learning through blogs/articles. The narration and dictation can sometimes prove to be even better.
I suggest people to start searching and listening to such casts of anything that interests them. It is amazing how much is out there, especially for free...