2 Informative Reads: Social Media ROI - Competition & Innovation

Each morning I set aside 45 minutes to an hour of uninterrupted time to dive into a set of general news and business publications, technology trade e-newsletters and Web sites, and 30 or so technology, public relations and social media blogs.

Context is everything in communications.  The ability to comprehend and articulate the "why" behind a timely news development or industry trend separates the merely tactical practitioner from the strategic thinker.

Here are two articles from today's reading that I found to be interesting and informative:

Does Social Media Have a Return on Investment in Fast Company.  Be sure to check out the reader comments to this article as I share there critical view.

Microsoft Takes Action to Ward Off Competition in the New York Times.  A good reminder that consumers win when there is credible competition.  It stimulates innovation, superior product development and pricing.

The Unpopularity of Tough Decisions

I see him at the health club every few weeks.  He's a rather unassuming guy, yet typically shares a hello and chats with my kids for a moment. 

I even asked him once about this rather unpleasant job he's taken on.  He politely declined to talk citing the privacy of the parties involved.

Yet, to many residents of the Gulf Coast, Ken Feinberg represents the pain and anguish wrought by the BP oil spill.  He's the one who has insisted a process be followed before they can get their hands on some of that $20B the oil giant has set aside for make good payments.

Image from FireTown.com.

And then he has the audacity to raise questions when the information submitted in a claim appears to be a bit...well...fishy.  Like the application for an emergency payment that totaled 2-1/2 times the claimant's total gross sales from its 2009 tax return.

Or the payment request supported with solely a letter from the mother of the business owner.

"I will not pay claims that can't be proven, that lack proof, that are not substantiated," Feinberg told the New York Times.

Amen to that.  Too often people in decision-making or influential positions are swayed by the human desire to be loved and liked.  It happens to politicians, business owners, community leaders, athletes and entertainers.

I don't really know Ken Feinberg.  Yet, I sure do respect him.  He embraces the responsibility of tough decision-making and accepts that he'll never be the most popular guy in the room.

NY Times Takes a Bold Step Towards Paid Digital Content

Two years ago I argued that it was imperative for Web 2.0 and content companies to create multiple channels of revenue to build and maintain a sustainable, growth-oriented business.

My perspective was directed at fast-growth players like Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter that have relied primarily on advertising revenue to fuel the top-line.  However, it is the New York Times -- a company with a 150 year history -- that has moved aggressively to carve out a myriad of revenue sources in the digital age.

Here is a copy of the letter I received today from their publisher:

An important announcement from the publisher of The New York Times

Dear New York Times Reader, Today marks a significant transition for The New York Times as we introduce digital subscriptions. It’s an important step that we hope you will see as an investment in The Times, one that will strengthen our ability to provide high-quality journalism to readers around the world and on any platform. The change will primarily affect those who are heavy consumers of the content on our Web site and on mobile applications. This change comes in two stages. Today, we are rolling out digital subscriptions to our readers in Canada, which will enable us to fine-tune the customer experience before our global launch. On March 28, we will begin offering digital subscriptions in the U.S. and the rest of the world. If you are a home delivery subscriber of The New York Times, you will continue to have full and free access to our news, information, opinion and the rest of our rich offerings on your computer, smartphone and tablet. International Herald Tribune subscribers will also receive free access to NYTimes.com. If you are not a home delivery subscriber, you will have free access up to a defined reading limit. If you exceed that limit, you will be asked to become a digital subscriber. This is how it will work, and what it means for you: On NYTimes.com, you can view 20 articles each month at no charge (including slide shows, videos and other features). After 20 articles, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber, with full access to our site. On our smartphone and tablet apps, the Top News section will remain free of charge. For access to all other sections within the apps, we will ask you to become a digital subscriber. The Times is offering three digital subscription packages that allow you to choose from a variety of devices (computer, smartphone, tablet). More information about these plans is available at nytimes.com/access. Again, all New York Times home delivery subscribers will receive free access to NYTimes.com and to all content on our apps. If you are a home delivery subscriber, go to homedelivery.nytimes.com to sign up for free access. Readers who come to Times articles through links from search, blogs and social media like Facebook and Twitter will be able to read those articles, even if they have reached their monthly reading limit. For some search engines, users will have a daily limit of free links to Times articles. The home page at NYTimes.com and all section fronts will remain free to browse for all users at all times. For more information, go to nytimes.com/digitalfaq. Thank you for reading The New York Times, in all its forms. Sincerely, Arthur Sulzberger Jr. Publisher, The New York Times Chairman, The New York Times Company

Female Entrepreneurs, Capital and a Misguided View

If given the choice, would a venture capitalist or private equity investor be more likely to chase a deal or a skirt?

In the near 20 years I have worked in technology, I’ve had a healthy amount of interaction with equity investors. I’ve represented emerging growth companies, been an advisor to M&A transactions and IPOs, and rubbed shoulders at countless industry forums and networking events.

In no way do I gush over fat wallets, yet I do admire a professional investor’s singular focus on making money for themselves and for their limited partners.

So…I say deal, rather than skirt.

Yet, an article published last month by the New York Times entitled “Out of the Loop in Silicon Valley” portrays a different view of investor motivations.

The story authored by Claire Cain Miller explores a myriad of issues that impact the success of female entrepreneurs, technologists and entrepreneurs – such as education, personal goals related to family and the absence of professional role models. However, for the purpose of this blog post I’d like to explore Miller’s accusation that venture capitalists are inherently sexist.


The article leads with entrepreneur’s Candace Fleming’s frustrating tale of attempting to raise money for Crimson Hexagon, a start-up company she headed. She made the rounds to some 30 venture firms only to come away empty handed and insulted. (Photo: entrepreneur Candace Fleming, image courtesy of the Journal of New England Technology.)

One VC referred to Fleming as “mom.” Another made an indecent proposal involving his yacht and a naked photo of himself. While a third was more interested in discussing the impact biking has on male reproductive capabilities.

“I didn’t know things like this still happened,” Fleming told the NY Times. “But I know that, especially in risky times like the last couple of years, some investors kind of retreat to investing via a template. A company owned by a woman is just not the standard template.”

In no way do I defend the behavior of these venture capitalists. If true, their comments were completely out of line, inappropriate and degrading.

Yet, I also believe Fleming is misguided in her belief that it was her gender that tempered financial interest in Crimson Hexagon. More likely, it was the VCs conclusion that the company was tethered to a faulty business model, or Fleming was ineffective at presenting the company’s vision, strategy and growth plan.

Buried in the NY Times story is the revelation that Fleming recently resigned from Crimson Hexagon because “she had drifted too far from the creative side of the business.” Soon thereafter the company announced completion of its financing and the appointment of a new CEO.

So maybe sexist views didn’t block this start-up from much needed capital. It could have been an ineffective CEO.

Economics of the Unpaid Internship

The Labor Department has launched a scare campaign to goad for-profit employers into compensating their interns. Yet, this “pay them or else” message may backfire, driving companies like Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) to simply kill their long-standing internship programs.

In recent articles in the New York Times and Time Magazine the US Labor Department has clearly articulated its dour view of the unpaid internship.


Nancy Leppink, the acting director of Labor’s wage and hour division told the Times’ Steven Greenhouse, “If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law.”

This government view has been applauded by the defenders of student rights. Robert French -- a faculty member of Auburn University, blogger at Infopinions and creator of student PR network PR OpenMic – weighed in with his kudos:

We're happy to see national coverage of this scandal. PR agencies and all others, take notice. It is very unlikely that your unpaid internships are legal. Give these students the respectful treatment they deserve.

Strategic does not and will not provide monetary compensation to interns when they first join our organization. This decision has nothing to due with respect; or wringing profit off the backs of uncompensated workers; or an attempt to make today’s student adhere some dated, fraternity-esq requirement of “paying your dues.”

Rather, it is about the economics of hiring and our ability to deliver value to a client. When Strategic makes an offer of employment we are projecting future results based on a track record of performance.

Plus, the experience a prospective hire has gained in other professional environments establishes a level of comfort that this person will represent our firm well when interacting with clients, while serving as a positive contributor to our culture.

When dealing with a student who, in many instances, has little (if any) relevant industry experience the hiring criteria becomes trust-based. And, in my opinion, the opportunity to gain a meaningful portfolio of work becomes fair and acceptable compensation.

Of course, Strategic quickly steps up and pays an intern once they’ve proven themselves and desires to stay on with the firm. This typically happens in three months.

In fact, one of our outstanding full-time employees rose to his current position through our internship program. Plus, we’ve had a number of other interns advance to profile positions at communications consultancies, PR firms and corporate marketing departments.

In no way am I defending organizations that view their internship program as akin to slave labor. It’s the responsibility of the company (and the intern) to ensure that the scope of activities is comprised primarily of meaningful, portfolio building assignments.

Yet, take notice…if the Labor Department makes good on its promise then I assure you we’ll be intern-less at Strategic. And that’s a lose-lose for everyone.

Journalism Slides Closer to Its New Reality

The pounding, headache inducing drumbeat of Tiger’s tales of infidelity pushed a number of potentially market changing stories to the back page.

Here is one headline from the December 3rd issue of the New York Times that escaped my attention: Some Dallas Editors will Report to Ad Sales.

Whoa…I suspect a fair number of journalists view the idea of taking direction from and being accountable to sales reps as a harbinger of the apocalypse.

It’s understandable. Many newsrooms have historically been shielded from the economic realities of publishing, with the editor and writer occupants rallied around a shared commitment to a higher calling.

The downsizing of journalism during the past two years has landed like a sledgehammer -- producing anger, denials and despair. It’s something I wrote about in November in my well read and critically received “Open Letter to the Unemployed Journalist."

So, I have to ask: Is a closer integration between the newsroom and the advertising sales department a good thing?

At the Dallas Morning News, it is only the sports and entertainment writers who will be affected by this new structure. Plus, editor Bob Mong told the New York Times that they have been instructed to “fight back” if they are told to do anything unethical.

My take is that this is the reality of future news gathering and reporting. Let’s get over the anger and accept that the publishing business model will continue to evolve for newspapers, magazines, broadcasters and online news operations to survive.

The question I pose above is irrelevant. There is simply no room left for a pristine and uncomplicated separation of editorial and advertising operations.

Are Hotties Destined to be High Performers?

From time-to-time I am asked what brought me to public relations as a profession.

It would be great if I could muster up a tale of interest in communications strategy, creative writing, critical thinking or even the dynamic of decision-making. Truth is, my career path began based on a simple focus: girls.

Let me explain. As an 18-year-old freshman at the University of Maryland one of my priorities was to establish connections with my fellow undergraduates, preferably the female ones.

When it came time to select a major I dutifully researched the programs with the highest percentage of female enrollment. I wasn’t particularly fond of math which ruled out psychology. At the time, I did not care much for children so education was a no go. That left…you got it…journalism with a focus on PR.

I’d like to think I have matured some in the two decades plus since my collegiate days. Fifteen years as an entrepreneur…two kids…a mortgage…and a romantic interest now in only one girl, my wife.

Yet, I have been thinking a bit about my inauspicious professional beginnings after reading Claire Cain Miller’s accounting in the New York Times of the changing nature of PR representation of emerging growth technology companies.

I will leave the debate of the appropriate role of public relations professionals to other bloggers and pundits. My preference is to focus on a subtle undertone in the article: are people more successful in the field of public relations because of their physical appearance?

Gotta say “yes” on this one because of the basic human nature to gravitate towards and more openly engage with people we find attractive. This begins at an early age as the more beautiful children are granted a higher level of attention by their parents, teachers and peers.

This adoration manifests itself throughout life, ultimately producing a professional who is confident in their presence, capabilities and intellect. Consider Brooke Hammerling of Brew PR and the star of Miller’s New York Times article. She certainly strikes me as someone who hasn’t had to deal with too many rejections in life.

Now, I do recognize I am making a broad generalization. There are attractive people in public relations who fail to rise above mediocrity. And, of course, there are those who are more modest in appearances who achieve tremendous success.

At Strategic Communications Group (Strategic), I am fortunate to work with a highly skilled, talented, creative and confident senior team. They also happen to be quite an attractive lot. I wonder if that’s merely a coincidence.

The Changing Journalistic Guard

Things often get chippy when there is a changing of the guard. It happens in sports. In happens in politics. And it happens in business.

The graying generation and the wunderkinds point fingers and cry foul about how the other side simply doesn’t get it.

There is a whole lot of finger pointing right now in the world of technology reporting. The New York Times’ Damon Darlin fired off this weekend in an article entitled Get the Tech Scuttlebutt! (It Might Even Be True.) Darlin contends that well read blogs like TechCrunch, Gawker and Gizmodo dance around the tenets of good journalism for the sake of speed in reporting and attraction of audience.

In the article Darlin quotes TechCrunch’s Michael Arrington as explaining, “Getting it right is expensive…Getting it first is cheap.”

Darlin’s lesson to readers: don’t trust the content of even the most respected and well-read blogs. Of course, the implication is that the market should embrace newspapers like the New York Times, regardless of the viability of their business model.

Arrington was quick to shout back with a rebuttal entitled The Morality and Effectiveness of Process Journalism. In addition to dissecting the flaws in Darlin’s reporting, Arrington presents his case for TechCrunch’s approach to content development. (Michael Arrington photo courtesy of LA Times.)



















“We don’t believe that readers need to be presented with the sausage all the time,” he writes. “Sometimes it’s both entertaining and informative to see that Sausage being made, too. The key is to be transparent at all times.”

My take is that in the near-term there will continue to be a distinct and equally important place in the information chain for mainstream media and industry blogs. However, the shift in influence to blogs, social networks and online communities will continue to accelerate.

This changing of the journalistic guard will set in motion an important chain of events:

1. Market demands will drive traditional media outlets and industry blogs closer together in their content development and reporting methodologies. Journalists will increasingly become more lenient in their adherence to the peer-reviewed editorial process, while tier-one bloggers will add a level of diligence to retain credibility.

2. There will be consolidation as publishers acquire blogs that have attracted a strong and loyal following. Ultimately, a content hierarchy will be established in which news reporting and analysis is presented by a publisher in different formats across multiple media. This is somewhat comparable to how Disney produces and broadcasts sports entertainment on its ABC and ESPN properties.

3. As acquired industry blogs further evolve their content methodology under corporate ownership, the gossip and rumor reporting void will be filled by upstart bloggers who see an opportunity to attract attention and readership.

Media's New Reality

The promise of online advertising revenue must have stirred up feelings of comfort and convenience among the publishing elite. Yet, a reliance on the familiar has led to a near complete break-down in the viability of newspapers, magazines and trade journals in every niche and sector of the market.

As dollars once destined for print ads, inserts, circulars and classifieds shifted to the Web, publishers responded with a desperate grab for eyeballs. Give away the content for free via the Web site and the run up in page views will help capture enough of the online spend to make up the difference, or so they rationalized.

It was an understandable decision. For more than a century, publishing had been predominantly dependent upon the cost per thousand mind-set of advertisers. Although the return is tough to measure, the visibility and brand recognition delivered by print advertising made it a necessary part of most corporate marketing campaigns.

Search changed this. Google, Yahoo and a host of other engines are the door-way for information seeking Web users. Their business model is advertising driven as well, however search engines deliver eyeballs with interest in a more measurable way. Plus, search engines are merely aggregators, bypassing the significant costs associated with developing content.

Print publishers face a new reality that demands a rapid evolution of their business model. A single revenue stream of advertising will no longer sustain the business. It’s time to change or die.

Here’s my take on the three steps publishers must take to get back on a solid financial footing:

1. Get skinny…get focused. Although the media industry has swooned due to multiple rounds of layoffs, publishers should go through the difficult evaluation of content development and reporting. The evaluation criteria: if we can’t be a market leader or have a compelling differentiation in a particular area of coverage, then it needs to be cut.

The Washington Post has been roundly criticized for its decision to drop sections like the Sunday Source and fold business/finance reporting into the main section. It’s a savvy move though, designed to allow the newspaper’s leadership to focus on more critical areas of coverage.

2. Demand that readers cut a check for print and online access. Yes…publications will realize a shrinking subscriber base and dwindling Web traffic from this decision, and that will negatively impact top line revenue. But, the readers who remain will be a more engaged and loyal lot.

Additionally, the notion of actually making customers pay will reinforce the value and quality of the content. Publishers such as Hearst Newspapers, The New York Times and Time, Inc. are already said to be considering fees for Web access.

3. Block Google, Yahoo and every other search spider scouring the Web. This too will reduce readership, yet will further enhance the value of the content which is, of course, a publications’ most important asset.

As I see it, the newspaper and magazine of the future will be smaller in page count with fewer readers and advertising. However, the accuracy and integrity of the content should stand tall among a seedy pool of non-peer reviewed blogs and trade rags.

And make no mistake, it’s the high quality content that a certain set of readers will gladly pay for.

Own the Point of Interview

Every step in the media relations process is critical to achieve the desired result – high impact editorial coverage that is accurate, timely and in-strategy.

There are no short cuts. You have to read the publication and its Web site, know the journalists and their coverage area, understand the market trends, and craft a compelling, timely pitch.

However, it’s at the point of interview that a media campaign either comes together, or falls flat. This is the time when the executive being interviewed must convince the journalist that their readers will find value in an article which follows a specific editorial path or includes a specific quote. Quality journalists need lots of convincing.

Developing power statements about a company and its products is a proven tactic to ensure time spent with a journalist leads to a measurable result. A few years back I met with a company that designs and manufactures state-of-the-art proprietary hardware solutions (DC to 40 GHz) to facilitate broadband RF signal management for complex cable networks.

What was their power statement? As it turns out, if you’re watching cable television in North America the signal is directed by this company’s product.

A second approach to own the point of interview is to deliver an assessment of a market situation in a creative and unexpected way.

Rick Wesson of computer security consulting shop Support Intelligence recently scored an interview with the New York Times about a new worm called Conficker. His characterization of the worm’s potential impact was masterful:

“If you’re looking for a digital Pearl Harbor, we now have the Japanese ships steaming toward us on the horizon.”

Garnering meaningful coverage from journalists, analysts, bloggers and other influencers comes down to how a company delivers at the point of interview.

Journalists Speak

With the buzz about social media and its applications for brand building, thought leadership, employee relations and (yes!) lead generation, the tried-and-true practice of media relations often gets overlooked. At Strategic Communications Group (Strategic), cultivating relationships with influential journalists continues to be a staple of our integrated communications work on behalf of clients.

This past week my colleague Karen Miller participated in a teleseminar titled “How to Pitch Reporters.” It featured writers from the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and the Associated Press who shared best practices, as well as cautionary tales.

Beyond the typical gripes about PR practitioners (i.e. please read the publication before pitching us), the journalists shared some good insights about how they are also tapping into social media to identify stories and manage the reporting process.

With Karen’s permission, I have included below her notes from the teleseminar.


Reporters:

-Lisa Belkin, Contributing Writer for the New York Times Magazine, and author of "Life's Work, Confessions of an Unbalanced Mom"

-Shelly Banjo, personal finance reporter for The Wall Street Journal Sunday. She also writes two columns related to Gen-Y, called "Starting Out" and the Journal Women's "Fast Track."

-Abby Ellin, Former NYT columnist, frequent NYT contributor, author of "Teenage Waistland: A Former Fat Kid Weighs in on Living Large, Losing Weight and How Parents Can (and Can't) Help."

-Megan Scott, Reporter for the Associated Press


-Good to send email with no pitch and just list clients you have that may be on interest to them at some point as a way to establish a relationship

-Don’t want to be contacted via Facebook or Twitter

-Facebook is creepy, don’t want to be your friend on Facebook, it’s a business relationship, difficult to respond to Facebook messages from a Blackberry

-Right to the point in pitches in the first sentence is best

-From a pitch want to know something they don’t already know

-Point out if others are doing what you’re pitching, need multiple sources

-Recent profiles in competitors make most reporters not want to talk to you for awhile (“I want virgins”)

-Contacting multiple reporters at one time: prefer to get exclusive offers, if ccing the world make sure not to include everyone’s name in the TO: field

-Subject line best practices: idea – put reporter’s name in subject line or at least topic of email

-Best pitches: specificity of how it could be a story

-They do check Junk Folder, if don’t respond means it is not a good pitch, bugging a reporter with follow-up is not good

-If don’t hear back in a week, move on

-AP & NYT: only go to event if covering them, wining and dining doesn’t work, not allowed to let publicists by a cup of coffee or dinner

-Physical press kits: electronic is preferred

-Pdf or in body of email: either is fine, some wanted both, a lot is being read on Blackberrys or iPhones

-Don’t send pictures unless requested

-Press releases don’t work well for these reporters, can’t remember last time they did a story based on a press release

-Don’t like cheesy mailers, waste of money is painful

-Get a lot of ideas from blogs

-SEO is money well spent, first thing reporters do is a Google search, important to come up high on the page

-Blogs are very important right now, the reporters are big fish eating the small fish, but over time reporters will become the bloggers

-Reporters do pass pitches to other reporters when they think it’s relevant, but get irritated when you just pitch everyone within one paper

Wal-Mart Blogging Wrought with Risk

Guess who first disclosed in February that Wal-Mart planned to stock only high-definition DVDs and players using the Blu-ray format, rather than the rival HD DVD system (a decision that effectively killed HD DVD). Was it a journalist? Analyst? Industry blogger?

Nope…it was Wal-Mart’s own blog, written by mid-level staffers without management or legal oversight.

Wal-Mart Tastemakers Write an Unfiltered Blog
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/03/business/03walmart.html?th&emc=th


While social media advocates will cheer the company for its candor and customers may benefit from the honest assessment of product quality, I find this decision by Wal-Mart to be reckless and wrought with risk.

Wal-Mart is damaging its distributors and suppliers by allowing often uninformed staffers to pass judgment on products. How did these offerings get selected for shelf space to begin with?

If a product doesn't sell than by all means remove it from the store. However, you have to give it a chance. It just makes no sense for Wal-Mart to select a product for its stores and then stand by passively while an employee rips it on a blog.

I applaud Wal-Mart for embracing social media as a channel to engage the market. Just set some baseline rules for employees to follow. And make one of those rules not to stick it to the manufacturers, distributors and suppliers you maintain a business relationship with.

The Point of Interview

In public relations there are a myriad of channels we tap into to help our clients communicate with their most important audiences. However, the business/financial and trade media continue to rise to the top when it comes to impact and influence. This is especially true in the business-to-business, enterprise technology and government sectors.

We've done exceptional work at Strategic Communications Group (Strategic) designing and executing media campaigns. Strategic provides counsel to its clients prior to each media briefing, yet we can only take it so far. That's because ultimately it comes down to our client's ability to articulate a message in a clear and compelling way. I refer to this as the "Point of Interview." That is when the story is sold.

In its daily e-newsletter the New York Times includes a quote of the day. Here's the one from this morning:

"You're asking me to tell you how we're going to get to a place we've never been, with a map I don't have."

- COL. Steven David, a military defense lawyer, when asked for details on the capital case against six Guantánamo detainees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/12/washington/12gitmo.html?th&emc=th


Wow...kudos to Steven David. He's not a Strategic client, but he sure was spot on at the point of interview.

PR is Professional When the Focus is "Why"

There are two reasons why this article from the NY Times about Microsoft's proposed acquisition of Yahoo is an exceptional piece of writing:

1) It provides perspectives on “why” Microsoft’s play for Yahoo is relevant to the broader technology markets; and

2) It puts this deal into context with the overall instability in the economy.

At Strategic Communications Group (Strategic), we adhere to a context-based approach to public relations in which our understanding of the client's business goals and the trends shaping relevant markets impacts our counsel and tactical execution. In our opinion, it's the difference between being a true public relations counselor and a "smile and dial" PR hack.


Yahoo Sale Could Be Bad for Minnows
By BRAD STONE and MIGUEL HELFT
Microsoft's proposed mega-bid for Yahoo is based on its own particular corporate needs and may not be a harbinger of rampant deal-making in Silicon Valley.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/technology/03yahoo.html?th&emc=th

MySpace's Competitive Strike

Brian Stelter's article in today's NY Times about MySpace is an excellent read. It overviews the company's product development initiatives, including:

• a mobile version of the site
• the ability to customize a profile based on audience (i.e. your co-workers will see a different version than your college buddies)
• industry promotion of MySpace TV
• creation of a separate incubator called Slingshot Labs

In addition to creating the perception of innovation, this article also serves as a competitive strike against Facebook and other social networks. They have to move from proactive to reactive, investing time and resources to counter MySpace's development and promotion.

Public relations is an effective way to go on the offensive, leveraging channels like the media, analysts and bloggers to deliver a strong message to competitors.

From MySpace to YourSpace
By BRIAN STELTER
A Web blockbuster is evolving to try to stay ahead of rivals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/technology/21myspace.html?th&emc=th