Great AdAge article of On-line video and advertising. Coming soon, Nielson data of online viewing!?

Currently reading this article… and can’t help but once again question what will CONTENT DELIVERY look like in 5 or 10 years from now? With DVR, TIVO now shifting to HULU, Slingbox and FloTV

Online Video One Step Closer to TV-Sized Ad Loads

Nielsen Commercial-Ratings Study Will Include Corresponding Views of Commercials on Web

by Brian Steinberg 
Published: February 08, 2010

NEW YORK (AdAge.com) — In the short history of online TV-watching, one standard has largely held fast: Shows that run online have significantly fewer ads than shows that run on the boob tube.

But that could soon change.

Starting this fall, Nielsen intends to start making available data that take into account viewing of commercials that run in a particular show, no matter whether they are seen online or on TV. The data will be made available for evaluation starting this September and are intended to become the basis for ad negotiations in February 2011.

But here’s the catch: For Nielsen to be able to provide the commercial rating, shows seen online will have to have the same group of commercials that run on TV. If this system were adopted en masse — and it’s not clear that it would be — online viewing might be crammed just as full of commercials as the more traditional TV-watching experience.

RELATED STORIES

New Nielsen Ratings Combine Shows’ TV and Online Views

But Media Buyers Aren’t Sure How Useful the Measure Will Be

Under Threat, Nielsen Accelerates Plan to Measure Online Video

Tells Networks, Agencies It Will Link TV and Web Watching to Offer ‘Single Source’ Viewer Data by Late 2010

Nielsen on Notice: Industry Demands a Meatier Metric

P&G, Unilever, Disney Form Coalition to Drive a Cross-Media Measure

“That in itself is a challenge,” said Rino Scanzoni, chief investment officer at WPP’s Group M. “The consumer has been used to getting [online video] with either limited commercial interruption or no commercial interruption.”

Indeed, viewing programs on Hulu, the online video site owned by NBC Universal, News Corp. and Walt Disney, means encountering significantly fewer ads than one would see watching TV. And Disney’s ABC.com has met with some success by running ABC shows with just a few ads, often from a single advertiser.

But many TV executives say these methods don’t bring much, if any, profit — and therefore cannot continue.

Solutions
“The financial models used for the current large video hubs in the online space are not sustainable,” said Jack Wakshlag, chief research officer for Time Warner’s Turner Broadcasting. One way to make online viewing more financially lucrative, several TV executives suggested, is to use it to aggregate viewing of popular shows across TV, online and other emerging media — and then use that rating as a means of negotiating for the cost of an ad against the program.

What’s lending traction to the idea of increasing the number of commercials in online TV runs is the “TV Everywhere” concept currently embraced by industry players Time Warner and Comcast, among others. Under the plan, cable subscribers would be able to watch their favorite shows via broadband for no extra fees, while non-subscribers would be blocked. If the media companies can use this idea to control how consumers watch TV programming, they may also be able to force a more traditional amount of advertising on them, too.

Nielsen says it is simply trying to come up with methods it believes its clients truly want — and that this idea is only one solution among many it intends to offer.

“Ultimately, the programmers — the guys who own the TV content — they’re all struggling to find out what the best business model is that works for them. There is a divide,” said Sara Erichson, president–media client services, North America, at Nielsen.

She’s not kidding. Some TV executives envision a day when ad-free online viewing might have to include a subscription of some sort to make it work financially. When faced with that prospect, said one TV-network executive, research suggests that 80% to 90% of people would rather watch TV online with the same load of ads as a traditional TV show. “People don’t want to pay more subscription fees on top of their cable subscription fee,” this executive said.

Consumer response?
Yet others are more wary. Media companies “can monetize their internet video, but it’s all going to come down to how the consumer actually responds,” said Colleen Fahey Rush, executive VP-strategic insights and research, Viacom’s MTV Networks. If “the ad load is higher than it currently is,” she asked, could it “tamp down” consumption of video online?

One academic thinks consumers will, over time, accept more advertising in the digital realm. “It’s not so much the ad load. It’s much more about the convenience,” said Tom Ksiazek, an assistant professor of communication at Villanova University. Research suggests that “viewers will watch those ads as long as the program is on the best available screen” for them at the time they want to view a program that is important to them.

Already, Mr. Ksiazek’s theory has borne out under other circumstances. In 2008, ABC said it would increase the availability of popular shows such as “Grey’s Anatomy” for video-on-demand viewing on cable systems — as long as consumers had no ability to fast-forward past the commercials. Citing a trial of the concept it ran on a cable system owned by Cox Communications, ABC said 93% of people who had their fast-forwarding capabilities removed when watching ABC programs on-demand found having to watch ads an acceptable exchange for getting to see the programs free. About 20% of users said they used on-demand to watch an ABC program rather than using a digital video recorder.

At the very least, media companies appear ready to test out Nielsen’s idea, though many of them say they will also embrace other experiments that bubble up in a time of great change for the industry. “We are exploring revenue models with various ad loads and promo loads,” said Turner’s Mr. Wakshlag, “but we won’t really know what will shake out until the marketplace develops.”

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Content Deliver – TV vs Internet – What does the future hold?

It seems that in the time where the economic downturn has forced many to seek areas of their spending habits that they can save some money… home entertainment may be one area.

The monthly phone, cable, internet, mobile, etc bills add up quick. A recent study/article shows some numbers that to me seem quite alarming. Although they don’t seem to sound worried… I suggest that the number of people ‘cutting the chord’ from their cable bill will rise as internet content delivery grows.

Report: Online Services Not Posing Huge Threat to Pay TV

By Mansha Daswani

Published: February 4, 2010

DALLAS: Less than 8 percent of U.S. broadband homes—about 5.5 million homes—are considering canceling their pay-TV subscriptions in favor of online video, a Parks Associates report indicates.

The report, All Eyes on Video, notes that the unlikelihood of subscriber churn this year is in line with previous studies, despite the proliferation of available content online. A 2008 study reported 11 percent of U.S. broadband households were considering canceling pay-TV services, and in a 2009 survey the number was 10 percent.

While 5.5 million homes would be open to canceling pay TV due in part to the availability of online video, about 50 percent of these households are also considering a switch to a new pay-TV provider. The households likely to switch or cancel their services are high consumers of online video, watching ten hours per week. They are also interested in TV Everywhere services that can provide online access to pay-TV channels.

“The threat of cannibalization is real but misunderstood,” said John Barrett, the director of research at Parks Associates. “Nobody is going to rely on online video alone—households likely to cancel their TV services are going to use a mixture of online video, free-to-air broadcasts, and DVDs, including rental services such as Netflix and redbox.”

Know the Difference between a Cold and H1N1 Flu Symptoms:

Know the Difference between a Cold and H1N1 Flu Symptoms: 

Symptom	Cold	H1N1 Flu
Fever	Fever is rare	Temperatures of  100°F or higher for 3 to 4 days
Coughing	A hacking (mucus-producing) cough is often present	A dry cough is usually present
Aches	Slight body aches and pains	Severe aches and pains
Stuffy Nose	Stuffy nose is commonly present and typically resolves spontaneously within a week	Stuffy nose is not commonly present
Chills	Chills are uncommon	Chills occur in 60% of cases
Tiredness	Tiredness is fairly mild	Tiredness is moderate to severe
Sneezing	Sneezing is common	Sneezing is not common
Sudden Symptoms	Symptoms tend to develop over a few days	Rapid onset within 3-6 hours with sudden symptoms of high fever - muscle aches – shortness of breath – tight chest
Headache	Headaches are fairly mild	Headache occur in 80% of cases
Sore Throat	Sore throat is commonly present	Sore throat is not commonly present
Chest Discomfort	Chest discomfort is mild to moderate	Chest discomfort is often severe

According to the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, those who died of swine flu often had co-infections with bacteria such as Streptococcus pneumoniae or pneumococcus. researchers analyzed specimens taken from 77 fatal cases of H1N1. Bacterial infections such as Streptococcus pneumonia were found in about one-third of the cases analyzed. 

How do I protect myself and my family from Novel Influenza A (H1N1)?

 

• Wash your hands. After you sneeze, handle raw food or use the toilet, be sure to wash your hands. Before you eat you should wash your hands as well. Proper hand washing takes about 20 seconds (about as long as the Happy Birthday song) using a bar or liquid soap. Alternatively, alcohol-based hand sanitizers are also effective.
  (Source: mayoclinic.com)
• Disinfect the surfaces in your home. By cleaning and disinfecting surfaces in your home such as countertops, telephones and doorknobs you can help prevent viruses from spreading from person to person.
• Avoid close contact with sick people. If you do come into contact with someone who is sick, avoid touching your nose and mouth. This will help prevent germs from spreading.
• If you are sick, stay home for 7 days after your symptoms begin or until you have been symptom-free for 24 hours, whichever is longer. This is to keep from infecting others and spreading the virus further.

Is Facebook Getting Uncool for 18-24s?

If MySpace was generally for teens, then Facebook was for 20 somethings… right?

Linked-In has become known as the business networking tool.

And Twitter grew into… well… that demo/user is still being defined.

MySpace, although still a huge force, has taken a few bumps this past year (but who hasn’t)

It seemed this was the year that Facebook REALLY exploded and Twitter became more of a brand than ever.

That’s the problem, as soon as something gets too big (popular), it may not be cool anymore. It’s like a song you hear, that you like. So you buy the album (or download the tune) and then the song starts getting a lot of radio time, and everyone is singing it and then… UGGH… you actually hear it as an instrumental in an elevator.

So when I started seeing reports that the fastest growing segment of Facebook users were 50+ baby boomer’s… I thought – OH! OH! …

Facebook just won’t be cool anymore for the college crowd that it began with.

Read on…

Read full article details here: 

http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_display/news/media/e3i15e6314384dccfe3fbf6715a445e0e2b?pn=1

News  >  Media Save E-mail Print Most Popular RSS Reprints Page 1 of 2  Media agencies debate the consequences as usage among younger consumers appears to slip Nov 16, 2009 - Steve McClellan In its early days, social-networking site Facebook was propelled to popularity by a college-age crowd that sought it out as an exclusive sanctuary in which to connect with their peers. For that market, it was an attractive alternative to sites deemed to have lost their cool — like MySpace, which had become a haven for pre-teens and high schoolers. Now, it seems, Facebook might be suffering a similar migration. According to comScore, as it has gained a broader audience, the older teens and twentysomethings that drove Facebook’s initial popularity are using it less. And research by WPP Group’s Mindshare suggests that group is reevaluating the site’s worth as a tool for developing friendships. Others believe Facebook’s cool factor among younger users is waning. “When you start getting friended by your grandmother, I think that’s when it starts to lose its cool,” said Huw Griffiths, evp and global director of marketing accountability and research at Interpublic Group’s Universal McCann. The numbers have fueled a debate among agencies about the implications for marketers. For some, it has raised a warning flag that if the trend continues, clients may have to revise their social-network marketing strategies. Others believe Facebook’s broader growth outweighs any declining usage by the college-age crowd. And still others aren’t convinced that younger users on the whole are less enthralled with Facebook, and believe some may be accessing the site via mobile devices that don’t show up in the comScore numbers. According to comScore, the average number of minutes spent online with the site among 18- to 24-year-olds fell in September for the third consecutive month compared to the same period a year ago. And the drop-off rate is accelerating. In July, usage fell 3 percent, in August 13 percent and in September 16 percent. “There’s a ‘parents turn up at the party, the party’s over’ kind of thing going on,” said Mark Potts, North American managing director for consumer insights at Mindshare. Potts said signs of change began appearing a year ago, when members of Mindshare’s so-called “Scout Network,” a group of trend-spotting consumers scattered around the country, began reporting shifts in the way they and their friends were using the site. “We began getting comments like they didn’t know how they acquired 300 friends when they didn’t know half the people on the list,” Potts said. Others remarked on the shallow nature of Facebook friendships. “They talked about using it more to coordinate events and gatherings but less so overall,” he said, because of something lacking in the quality of the friendships. Separately, Mindshare in August surveyed 1,200 consumers about their social-networking habits. More than half of the 18- to 24-year-old respondents (51 percent) agreed that “social-networking sites like Facebook are diluting the quality of relationships.” And 40 percent of that group said they now visit social networks that are based on particular interests, such as TV, music or movies. The research and trend-spotter feedback led Potts to conclude that younger Facebook users are “adjusting their relationship to it in some fundamental way,” which might call for marketers to adjust their strategies if the trend proves long term. 1 |2NEXT PAGE »

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Twitter based film critics are here and movie studios should take note.

MOVIE CRITIC via TWITTER.

You knew it was bound to happen… a movie’s opening weekend can now be witnessed in 140 characters or less while first few minutes of the Friday showing is playing.

I have to admit, I was in a few films with my kids over the past year or so and found myself tweeting about the movie. No big deal right?… Well, a film’s weekend box office often determines the movie’s financial life.

Extension and growth into more theaters in more markets – there is the international release which looks at the domestic success and of course there is VOD, TV, home entertainment, and the list goes on. All of the subsequent revenues a film “banks” on is based in part on that first weekend. Now with TWEETS happening as the film is playing… the open weekend box office is now reduced.

This can be both positive and negative. As we know social media tends to fuel a fire. If the movie is bad, we know it quick and tell our friends. If a movie is great, that will be shared as well.

Mashable’s recent post. http://mashable.com/2009/10/21/twitcritics/   shares some further details.

Bottom line; twitter based critics are here and they are a force to consider.

John

follow us!

• now

• rating

• tweets

• name

• The Stepfather
  
  69%
• Law Abiding Citizen
  
  90%
• Where The Wild Things Are
  
  79%
• Couples Retreat
  
  72%
• A Beautiful Life
  
  56%
• Toy Story 3-D Double Feature
  
  65%
• Serious Man
  
  79%
• Zombieland
  
  82%
• Invention of Lying
  
  63%
• More Than A Game
  
  79%
• Whip It
  
  86%
• Pandorum
  
  68%
• Fame
  
  61%
• Surrogates
  
  66%
• Love Happens
  
  68%
• Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
  
  82%

next >

What is TwitCritics?

TwitCritics brings you real-time movie reviews and ratings directly from the Twiterverse.

TwitCritics

twit_critics

@nickondras thanks for the shout out! 12 hours ago 

@curtisgray That is a really interesting concept. Maybe the corrections framework can be extended to a more robust crowdsourcing system13 hours ago 

Thanks @Shibbie@Myxllamatosis @geekCouch@ZackH87 @martinwalsh for sharing! It has been a really hectic day we hope we didn’t miss anyone!13 hours ago 

@ColinMcConville You’re right. Paranormal Activity has been added. It should show up shortly.13 hours ago 

Join the conversation

TwitCritics on Facebook

• Home
• About
• Blog
• Contact

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Twitter based film critics are here and movie studios should take note.

MOVIE CRITIC via TWITTER.

You knew it was bound to happen… a movie’s opening weekend can now be witnessed in 140 characters or less while first few minutes of the Friday showing is playing.

I have to admit, I was in a few films with my kids over the past year or so and found myself tweeting about the movie. No big deal right?… Well, a film’s weekend box office often determines the movie’s financial life.

Extension and growth into more theaters in more markets – there is the international release which looks at the domestic success and of course there is VOD, TV, home entertainment, and the list goes on. All of the subsequent revenues a film “banks” on is based in part on that first weekend. Now with TWEETS happening as the film is playing… the open weekend box office is now reduced.

This can be both positive and negative. As we know social media tends to fuel a fire. If the movie is bad, we know it quick and tell our friends. If a movie is great, that will be shared as well.

Mashable’s recent post. http://mashable.com/2009/10/21/twitcritics/   shares some further details.

Bottom line; twitter based critics are here and they are a force to consider.

John

follow us!

• now

• rating

• tweets

• name

• The Stepfather
  
  69%
• Law Abiding Citizen
  
  90%
• Where The Wild Things Are
  
  79%
• Couples Retreat
  
  72%
• A Beautiful Life
  
  56%
• Toy Story 3-D Double Feature
  
  65%
• Serious Man
  
  79%
• Zombieland
  
  82%
• Invention of Lying
  
  63%
• More Than A Game
  
  79%
• Whip It
  
  86%
• Pandorum
  
  68%
• Fame
  
  61%
• Surrogates
  
  66%
• Love Happens
  
  68%
• Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs
  
  82%

next >

What is TwitCritics?

TwitCritics brings you real-time movie reviews and ratings directly from the Twiterverse.

TwitCritics

twit_critics

@nickondras thanks for the shout out! 12 hours ago 

@curtisgray That is a really interesting concept. Maybe the corrections framework can be extended to a more robust crowdsourcing system13 hours ago 

Thanks @Shibbie@Myxllamatosis @geekCouch@ZackH87 @martinwalsh for sharing! It has been a really hectic day we hope we didn’t miss anyone!13 hours ago 

@ColinMcConville You’re right. Paranormal Activity has been added. It should show up shortly.13 hours ago 

Join the conversation

TwitCritics on Facebook

• Home
• About
• Blog
• Contact

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Twitter Celebrity Hotlist

Brian Solis is a thought leader in the social media marketing/pr space, so it doesn’t surprise me that this Entertainment/Celebrity tweeting study is so well done. It is way more information that some want to know or care to know. But for those who want to delve into the details, there is plenty for you.

With the top Tweeter’s having tens of millions followers combined, these are interesting times; where a personal brand can be more influential than the corporate (or entertainment) brand it is part of.

Twitter Celebrity Hotlist: August 2009

• October 20, 2009
• 15 Comments and 178 Reactions

 
Source

The power to analyze behavior and sentiment on Twitter and translate it into trends and direction is limited only by our powers of observation and imagination. As you may or may not know, I have assumed the role of data analyst at PeopleBrowsr, in addition to the other ventures I’m running or advising. Recently, I published The State of the Airline Industry on Twitter, the first in an ongoing series of Twitter-centric reports. Soon, I will roll out additional reports covering various industries on a monthly basis. If you would like a custom report and analysis generated, please let me know.

The latest in the series captures the essence and vibrancy of celebrity engagement and conversations surrounding celebrities in the month of August 2009. Let’s start by defining “celebrity” as I believe it takes on a new persona and definition on Twitter and Social Media universally. While the majority of the individuals on the list of 60 personalities are representative of real world stars, we are also at the early stages of capturing and recognizing the genre of Internet Famous and micro celebrity. These ambitious personalities have created an online prominence that transcends into the real world fame. Expect the included percentage of the digerati to significantly increase over time, eventually rivaling some of the most visible and renowned household names. If you can think of individuals (either traditional or new celebrity) that we should keep on our radar, please let me know in the comments section.

Overall, we are in the early stages of witnessing what’s possible in Twitter as stars succumb to the seduction of direct fan engagement and the intoxicating allure of real-time response and interaction. Concurrently, fans are enticed and captivated by the prospect of earning the attention of and recognition from the very individuals who inspire them. For them, Twitter represents a direct connection to their idols.

The potential of course is significant as it empowers and strengthens relationships between celebs and followers and ultimately forges bonds in ways not possible prior to the proliferation of socialized media. This rich level of interaction is rekindling and reviving interest in traditional media (movies, music, art, television programming, sports, etc.) as consumers feel a more personal connection with the artist and their work. Perhaps most importantly, we can now connect with the real person behind the celebrity brand.

Social Media is also inspiring innovation in content creation and distribution as it serves as a catalyst for the creation and widespread adoption of new forms of content, consumption, and artistry. In many cases, new media represents a renaissance for stardom, linking individuals who might not have otherwise connected through outside mediums, while also creating new opportunities for everyday people to earn eminence in these new and equally valuable channels.

Influence is equalizing and some artists are able to self-create publicity and promotion simply by publishing Tweets. Direct engagement is also engendering a profound transformation in the professional relationship and arrangement between celebrities and publicists, as many are compelled to engage directly with fans and followers without the help of third-parties. In new media, the days of assistants and publicity agents responding to fan letters and emails are numbered. However, the role of publicity is still required, if not more prominent, as the opportunities for visibility have now multiplied because of new media. Most importantly, what we are witnessing in Twitter is the transformation of fandom into community and perhaps that is, in of itself, a profound phenomenon.

SHARE OF VOICE

Share of voice represents the level of individual presence in the conversations that transpire on Twitter. Much like measuring traditional market share in business landscapes, we are analyzing the volume of mentions, not sales or fan bases, for each celebrity compared to one another. On Twitter popularity and share of voice are directly linked to news and events as well as participatory episodes where conversations are sparked directly by personalities. For example, hip hop artist Soulja Boy often tops the trending topics list each time he hosts a live chat on uStream.tv and invites fans to connect via Twitter.

In the month of August, Miley Cyrus topped the charts with 256,000 mentions with Donnie Wahlberg of New Kids on the Block following with an impressive 189,000 references. Rapper Soulja Boy checked in at third with roughly 86,000 tweets, 100,000 behind the number two spot. Controversial gossip blogger Perez Hilton also earned a top spot on the list with 72,000 tweets. Kim Kardashian took the fifth spot with just over 68,000 tweets. What’s surprising however is that Ashton Kutcher, The King of Twitter as the media affectionately proclaimed, captured less Twitter attention in August than one might expect. He does, as you’ll see, lead the list for overall followers. But, as discussed earlier, Twitter attention and conversations are usually driven by a series of sparks. In August, Ashton only published 309 tweets compared to others who sent as many as 1,500 tweets that month. Expect interaction and events become a more significant factor as we continue tracking the industry.

Click here for ultra large version

1. @mileycyrus – 255,938
2. @donniewahlberg – 188,778
3. @souljaboytellem – 86,140
4. @perezhilton – 72,562
5. @kimkardashian – 68,547
6. @aplusk – 66,722
7. @theellenshow – 39,128
8. @stephenfry – 38,325
9. @petewentz – 35,478
10. @ashleytisdale – 34,967
11. @therealjordin – 33,799
12. @mitchelmusso – 32,923
13. @paulaabdul – 26,791
14. @lancearmstrong – 25,477
15. @rainnwilson – 23,433
16. @britneyspears – 22,703
17. @mrskutcher – 21,900
18. @ryanseacrest – 21,681
19. @kirstiealley – 21,316
20. @rustyrockets – 19,053
21. @the_real_shaq – 17,885
22. @wilw – 15,257
23. @thatkevinsmith – 15,111
24. @moonfrye – 13,286
25. @heidimontag – 13,213
26. @mariahcarey – 12,118
27. @jimmyfallon – 11,972
28. @oprah – 11,096
29. @sevinnyne6126 – 10,950
30. @questlove – 10,877
31. @michaelianblack – 10,585
32. @alyankovic – 10,001
33. @wossy – 9,417
34. @greggrunberg – 8,906
35. @denise_richards – 8,468
36. @johnlegend – 8,103
37. @tonyrobbins – 7,884
38. @jimjonescapo – 6,789
39. @chelsealately – 6,789
40. @spencerpratt – 6,424
41. @mchammer – 6,132
42. @eonline – 4,891
43. @cassieventura – 4,380
44. @gossipgirl – 4,161
45. @levarburton – 3,942
46. @pennjillette – 3,577
47. @nickswisher – 2,993
48. @ryansheckler – 2,847
49. @thisislilwayne – 2,774
50. @50cent – 2,774
51. @chriscornell – 2,628
52. @johncleese – 2,555
53. @snoopdogg – 2,409
54. @adventuregirl – 2,336
55. @hodgman – 2,117
56. @lennykravitz – 2,044
57. @robcorddry – 1,533
58. @paulfeig – 1,387
59. @justjared – 876
60. @nottinafey – 292

TOTAL FOLLOWERS

In examining the status of celebrities by followers, it comes with no surprise that Mr. Ashton Kutcher ranks at the very top. In many ways, Ashton is responsible for raising the global awareness and adoption of Twitter, as well as  inspiring other celebrities to embrace the vibrant network. Ashton, along with the now legendary race to 1 million followers, has finally tipped the attraction of Twitter beyond the older demographics that originally defined its importance. Teenagers are now flocking to Twitter in the hopes of not only connecting with their heroes, but also experimenting with prospects of flirting with and possibly earning a taste of micro celebrity themselves. I will publish a separate post on this subject shortly…

The top three spots cumulatively represent over 10 million followers, with each earning over 3 million followers each. Ashton, as mentioned above  is number one with almost 3.8 million followers in August. Ellen DeGeneres is in hot pursuit with 3.5 million. And Britney Spears, who was among the original contestants in the race to 1 million, followed closely behind Ellen with 3.48 million followers.

The separation between the top three and those residing in the next several spots was at least one million followers. In fact, in August, the “2 million follower club” only housed nine members (in order of followers), Kim Kardashian, Ryan Seacrest, Shaq, Oprah Winfrey, Demi Moore, Miley Cryus (who’s currently MIA from Twitter), Jimmy Fallon, Lance Armstrong, and Ashley Tisdale. An interesting observation is that the average number of followers for this current grouping of celebrities totals over 1 million at 1,304,518 exactly.

1. @aplusk – 3,778,464
2. @theellenshow – 3,496,041
3. @britneyspears – 3,480,582
4. @kimkardashian – 2,514,112
5. @ryanseacrest – 2,433,803
6. @the_real_shaq – 2,376,782
7. @oprah – 2,333,711
8. @mrskutcher – 2,146,519
9. @mileycyrus – 2,115,282
10. @jimmyfallon – 2,099,368
11. @lancearmstrong – 2,077,717
12. @ashleytisdale – 2,031,465
13. @mariahcarey – 1,783,439
14. @50cent – 1,762,874
15. @souljaboytellem – 1,668,493
16. @eonline – 1,625,453
17. @chelsealately – 1,620,765
18. @petewentz – 1,591,856
19. @mchammer – 1,540,286
20. @perezhilton – 1,524,611
21. @rainnwilson – 1,504,961
22. @tonyrobbins – 1,428,620
23. @thatkevinsmith – 1,390,081
24. @wilw – 1,367,757
25. @pennjillette – 1,355,782
26. @johnlegend – 1,333,071
27. @levarburton – 1,322,238
28. @alyankovic – 1,320,214
29. @michaelianblack – 1,286,746
30. @paulaabdul – 1,267,045
31. @lennykravitz – 1,262,223
32. @adventuregirl – 1,232,757
33. @jimjonescapo – 1,215,956
34. @denise_richards – 1,209,800
35. @moonfrye – 1,183,672
36. @greggrunberg – 1,157,317
37. @chriscornell – 1,149,016
38. @gossipgirl – 1,106,032
39. @ryansheckler – 1,095,415
40. @robcorddry – 1,094,003
41. @questlove – 979,500
42. @nickswisher – 929,752
43. @paulfeig – 903,726
44. @stephenfry – 795,684
45. @heidimontag – 632,138
46. @rustyrockets – 584,832
47. @snoopdogg – 479,882
48. @spencerpratt – 469,747
49. @wossy – 422,144
50. @justjared – 410,589
51. @nottinafey – 390,926
52. @sevinnyne6126 – 359,428
53. @therealjordin – 356,638
54. @mitchelmusso – 324,008
55. @kirstiealley – 287,064
56. @johncleese – 252,519
57. @cassieventura – 214,717
58. @donniewahlberg – 96,616
59. @hodgman – 94,233
60. @thisislilwayne – 2,610

TOTAL TWEETS

When compared to followers, total tweets painted a very different picture. Of course celebrities are “in-demand,” often too busy to tweet regularly. In August, the top two spots for total tweets are actually not actually published by celebrities per se, but by the personalities and vehicles that document the industry and the activities of the celebrities on and off this list. The “queen” of media, Perez Hilton took the top spot with almost 1,500 tweets followed by E! Online with 946. Averaging the number of tweets across the board, we see that our celebrities aren’t too quiet, but not overly communicative either, coming in at just under 9 tweets per day or 255 for the month.

1. @perezhilton – 1,488
2. @eonline – 946
3. @questlove – 865
4. @souljaboytellem – 850
5. @kirstiealley – 819
6. @justjared – 735
7. @donniewahlberg – 608
8. @adventuregirl – 597
9. @petewentz – 506
10. @wossy – 474
11. @mchammer – 443
12. @kimkardashian – 432
13. @therealjordin – 396
14. @mrskutcher – 366
15. @aplusk – 309
16. @mitchelmusso – 308
17. @lancearmstrong – 289
18. @mileycyrus – 287
19. @rainnwilson – 264
20. @stephenfry – 263
21. @denise_richards – 259
22. @spencerpratt – 248
23. @heidimontag – 230
24. @jimjonescapo – 229
25. @moonfrye – 213
26. @greggrunberg – 211
27. @michaelianblack – 202
28. @wilw – 194
29. @johnlegend – 193
30. @cassieventura – 190
31. @ryanseacrest – 180
32. @thatkevinsmith – 167
33. @sevinnyne6126 – 162
34. @paulaabdul – 161
35. @tonyrobbins – 112
36. @hodgman – 95
37. @chelsealately – 83
38. @jimmyfallon – 83
39. @theellenshow – 80
40. @ashleytisdale – 79
41. @chriscornell – 77
42. @alyankovic – 71
43. @robcorddry – 71
44. @paulfeig – 56
45. @gossipgirl – 50
46. @the_real_shaq – 48
47. @rustyrockets – 45
48. @britneyspears – 38
49. @snoopdogg – 38
50. @pennjillette – 37
51. @johncleese – 34
52. @levarburton – 20
53. @50cent – 17
54. @mariahcarey – 16
55. @lennykravitz – 14
56. @nickswisher – 14
57. @ryansheckler – 12
58. @thisislilwayne – 10
59. @oprah – 3
60. @nottinafey – 1

TOTAL FOLLOWING

In Social Media, the act of the “follow back” is a form of reciprocity and recognition. While it is not a required act, it is dearly appreciated. In August 2009, Britney Spears stood above the rest following over 430,000 people, which is 378,000 more than the second spot, held by Stephen Fry who followed almost 55,000 people and 401,000 more than the number three spot held by MC Hammer with 31,317. The delta between the top three and the rest of the group is significant. The majority follow 500 or less with almost half following fewer than 100. This number surprised me however. Averaging the number of people that each celebrity followed, we uncovered an impressive aggregate of 8,903.

1. @britneyspears – 432,814
2. @stephenfry – 54,492
3. @mchammer – 31,317
4. @wossy – 3,966
5. @lennykravitz – 1,863
6. @adventuregirl – 1,246
7. @questlove – 1,135
8. @greggrunbeg – 605
9. @the_real_shaq – 567
10. @spencerpratt – 522
11. @perezhilton – 369
12. @chriscornell – 309
13. @donniewahlberg – 289
14. @tonyrobbins – 279
15. @hodgman – 276
16. @aplusk – 231
17. @souljaboytellem – 229
18. @robcorddry – 218
19. @heidimontag – 191
20. @snoopdogg – 180
21. @therealjordin – 158
22. @jimjonescapo – 153
23. @cassieventura – 145
24. @jimmyfallon – 142
25. @rainnwilson – 138
26. @johncleese – 136
27. @wilw – 125
28. @ryanseacrest – 124
29. @alyankovic – 115
30. @lancearmstrong – 115
31. @moonfrye – 112
32. @mrskutcher – 109
33. @sevinnyne6126 – 105
34. @levarburton – 97
35. @petewentz – 91
36. @johnlegend – 87
37. @thisislilwayne – 87
38. @kirstiealley – 82
39. @michaelianblack – 81
40. @ashleytisdale – 76
41. @justjared – 71
42. @thatkevinsmith – 69
43. @mileycyrus – 68
44. @paulfeig – 67
45. @kimkardashian – 64
46. @ryansheckler – 64
47. @nottinafey – 54
48. @mitchelmusso – 49
49. @eonline – 48
50. @denise_richards – 38
51. @rustyrockets – 32
52. @paulaabdul – 29
53. @theellenshow – 26
54. @mariahcarey – 23
55. @50cent – 17
56. @oprah – 17
57. @chelsealately – 16
58. @gossipgirl – 11
59. @nickswisher – 6
60. @pennjillette – 5

SENTIMENT BEFORE AND AFTER HUMAN SORTING

Similar to the Airline Industry report we published recently, it’s important to note that sentiment, as documented and categorized solely by software algorithms, often misleads the reader. When we apply a human filter to each instance, the results can be profoundly different and is often the case between a truly positive and negative state. In conversations regarding personalities, we observed a profound concentration of positive tweets after human sorting, which is truly distinctive to the celebrity segment and significantly higher than any other industry we’re tracking.

A personal brand, over a product for example, is naturally tied to the psychology of human interaction. When you tweet @ someone, you are, of course, recognizing or hoping to earn the attention of the person directly. In most cases, we’re observing that the positive recognition is linked to the prospect of reciprocity or support.

The sentiment captured and organized using a machine dictionary proves highly inaccurate. The unique machine and human-powered system we’ve built at PeopleBrowsr proves that in the business of perception management and influence, analyzing inaccurate data can prove ineffective, insular, and often futile. Manually analyzing activity provides us with a human perspective as well as empathy.

@50cent
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 82% Negative: 5%

@adventuregirl
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 73% Negative: 0

@alyankovic
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 78% Negative: 4%

@aplusk
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 78% Negative: 2%

@ashleytisdale
Before Human Sorting Positive: 36% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 91% Negative: 1%

@britneyspears
Before Human Sorting Positive: 26% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 1%

@cassieventura
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 2%

@chelsealately
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 4%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 1%

@chriscornell
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 3%

@denise_richards
Before Human Sorting Positive: 25% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 79% Negative: 1%

@donniewahlberg
Before Human Sorting Positive: 28% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 92% Negative: 1%

@eonline
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 3%

@gossipgirl
Before Human Sorting Positive: 11% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 93% Negative: 0%

@greggrunberg
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 80% Negative: 1%

@heidimontag
Before Human Sorting Positive: 27% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 7%

@hodgman
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 83% Negative: 3%

@jimjonescapo
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 4%
After Human Sorting Positive: 81% Negative: 4%

@jimmyfallon
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 1%

@johncleese
Before Human Sorting Positive: 13% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 0%

@johnlegend
Before Human Sorting Positive: 23% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 92% Negative: 0%

@justjared
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 67% Negative: 0%

@kimkardashian
Before Human Sorting Positive: 27% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 2%

@kirstiealley
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 2%

@lancearmstrong
Before Human Sorting Positive: 22% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 91% Negative: 1%

@lennykravitz
Before Human Sorting Positive: 34% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 93% Negative: 0%

@levarburton
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 91% Negative: 0%

@mariahcarey
Before Human Sorting Positive: 32% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 4%

@mchammer
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 86% Negative: 1%

@michaelianblack
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 3%

@mileycyrus
Before Human Sorting Positive: 31% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 2%

@mitchelmusso
Before Human Sorting Positive: 27% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 1%

@moonfrye
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18%
Negative: 2% After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 2%

@mrskutcher
Before Human Sorting Positive: 26% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 2%

@nickswisher
Before Human Sorting Positive: 32% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 95% Negative: 0%

@nottinafey
Before Human Sorting Positive: 0% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 50% Negative: 25%

@oprah
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 4%

@paulaabdul
Before Human Sorting Positive: 39% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 93% Negative: 2%

@paulfeig
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 95% Negative: 0%

@pennjillette
Before Human Sorting Positive: 14% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 94% Negative: 0%

@perezhilton
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 6%

@petewentz
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 2%

@questlove
Before Human Sorting Positive: 16% Negative: 3%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 1%

@rainnwilson
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 2%

@robcorddry
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 95% Negative: 0%

@rustyrockets
Before Human Sorting Positive: 19% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 1%

@ryanseacrest
Before Human Sorting Positive: 24% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 2%

@ryansheckler
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 3%

@sevinnyne6126
Before Human Sorting Positive: 28% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 1%

@snoopdogg
Before Human Sorting Positive: 28% Negative: 0 %
After Human Sorting Positive: 85% Negative: 0%

@souljaboytellem
Before Human Sorting Positive: 13% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 87% Negative: 2%

@spencerpratt
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 5%

@stephenfry
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 2%

@thatkevinsmith
Before Human Sorting Positive: 18% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 2%

@the_real_shaq
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 86% Negative: 2%

@theellenshow
Before Human Sorting Positive: 31% Negative: 0%
After Human Sorting Positive: 90% Negative: 1%

@therealjordin
Before Human Sorting Positive: 30% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 92% Negative: 1%

@thisislilwayne
Before Human Sorting Positive: 20% Negative: 5%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 5%

@tonyrobbins
Before Human Sorting Positive: 23% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 88% Negative: 1%

@wilw
Before Human Sorting Positive: 17% Negative: 2%
After Human Sorting Positive: 84% Negative: 3%

@wossy
Before Human Sorting Positive: 21% Negative: 1%
After Human Sorting Positive: 89% Negative: 3%

—
Connect with Brian Solis on:

 Twitter, FriendFeed, LinkedIn, Tumblr, Plaxo, Plurk, Identi.ca, Posterous, orFacebook
—

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Cool Halloween? Share your ideas.

In case you want to share or are in need of some NEW Halloween Ideas…

The Cool Hunter wants to hear from you.

http://www.thecoolhunter.net/article/detail/1630/creative-halloween-masks

We’re on the hunt for interesting Halloween masks for a post on the most creative DIY projects – send us your tips.

Do you have 60 seconds?

Do you have 60 seconds?

A Billion for a Billion

<embed name="movie_player" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://s.ytimg.com/yt/swf/watch-vfl126580.swf" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" flashvars="rv.7.length_seconds=46&rv.6.author=WORLDFOODPROGRAM&rv.0.length_seconds=203&rv.4.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F45-lRU0sb2s%2Fdefault.jpg&fmt_url_map=35%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fv21.lscache3.c.youtube.com%2Fvideoplayback%3Fip%3D0.0.0.0%26sparams%3Did%252Cexpire%252Cip%252Cipbits%252Citag%252Calgorithm%252Cburst%252Cfactor%26fexp%3D900032%26algorithm%3Dthrottle-factor%26itag%3D35%26ipbits%3D0%26signature%3D2F5252855B5095B7BB26BD8FEE419E5581DF9C98.5C5C9BDB12D4ACAB81B5AB4AE0FF37F81B1F022B%26sver%3D3%26expire%3D1256018400%26key%3Dyt1%26factor%3D1.25%26burst%3D40%26id%3Dea34815b404e3ea3%2C34%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fv14.lscache1.c.youtube.com%2Fvideoplayback%3Fip%3D0.0.0.0%26sparams%3Did%252Cexpire%252Cip%252Cipbits%252Citag%252Calgorithm%252Cburst%252Cfactor%26fexp%3D900032%26algorithm%3Dthrottle-factor%26itag%3D34%26ipbits%3D0%26signature%3DD65B6D64A77DED76D8DA42A7B3E43A579E606483.1BAB67CBD9713910505AC4932DE054FA74ADFAA0%26sver%3D3%26expire%3D1256018400%26key%3Dyt1%26factor%3D1.25%26burst%3D40%26id%3Dea34815b404e3ea3%2C5%7Chttp%3A%2F%2Fv3.lscache1.c.youtube.com%2Fvideoplayback%3Fip%3D0.0.0.0%26sparams%3Did%252Cexpire%252Cip%252Cipbits%252Citag%252Calgorithm%252Cburst%252Cfactor%26fexp%3D900032%26algorithm%3Dthrottle-factor%26itag%3D5%26ipbits%3D0%26signature%3DA714E48D5BF01F0124633285CDACDA985AE1A36A.03A3FC4B8F83B1109D3EA741BCDA58B10AB125DD%26sver%3D3%26expire%3D1256018400%26key%3Dyt1%26factor%3D1.25%26burst%3D40%26id%3Dea34815b404e3ea3&keywords=billion%2Cviews%2Cper%2Cday%2Cworld+food+day&rv.1.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DZN0JA5bUdJ0&rv.3.rating=4.5&iv_storage_server=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Freviews%2Fy%2F&rv.0.featured=1&rv.5.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DRJlPEHL85Ig&rv.6.length_seconds=163&ctb_xml=%3C%3Fxml+version%3D%221.0%22+encoding%3D%22UTF-8%22+standalone%3D%22no%22%3F%3E%3C%21DOCTYPE+GSP+SYSTEM+%22contentxml.dtd%22%3E%3CGSP+VER%3D%223.2%22%3E%3CUI%3E%3Cconfig%3E%3Ccontext+data%3D%22default%22+%2F%3E%3Cparams%3E%3Cattribution_text+data%3D%22Advertisement%22+%2F%3E%3Ctemplates_attribution_font_height_delta+data%3D%227%22+%2F%3E%3Cuse_meta_ad_player+bool%3D%22true%22+%2F%3E%3Cuse_square_close_button+bool%3D%22true%22+%2F%3E%3Cuse_dark_close_button+bool%3D%22true%22+%2F%3E%3C%2Fparams%3E%3C%2Fconfig%3E%3C%2FUI%3E%3CADS+feedback_url%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fservices.google.com%2Ffeedback%2Fabg%3Furl%3Dhttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.corp.google.com%2Feng%2Ftesting%2FTS%2Fdocs%2Ftestplans%2Fcafe_testing%2FTestGadget_Template_slideshow_pagead.html%26amp%3Bamp%3Bhl%3Den%26amp%3Bamp%3Bclient%3Dca-mongoogle%26amp%3Bamp%3BadU%3DGoogle.com%26amp%3Bamp%3BadT%3DImageAd%26amp%3Bamp%3Bdone%3D1%22%3E%3CAD+n%3D%221%22+type%3D%22flash%22%3E%3CTEMPLATE_PARAMETERS%3E%3CTEMPLATE_WIDTH%3E450%3C%2FTEMPLATE_WIDTH%3E%3CTEMPLATE_HEIGHT%3E50%3C%2FTEMPLATE_HEIGHT%3E%3CTEMPLATE_URL%3Ehttp%3A%2F%2Fpagead2.googlesyndication.com%2Fpagead%2Fgadgets%2Fclick_to_buy%2Fclick_to_buy_flash_overlay_spec.swf%3C%2FTEMPLATE_URL%3E%3CTEMPLATE_ELEMENT+element_name%3D%22adData%22+index%3D%220%22%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22templateType%22%3ET%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22text1%22%3EJust+25+cents…%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22text2%22%3Ecan+feed+a+child%21+It+starts+with+one+person.+Make+a+difference.%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22text3%22%3Ewww.wfp.org%2Fdonate%2F1billion%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22destinationUrl%22%3Ehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fredirect%3Fq%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wfp.org%252Fdonate%252F1billion%26amp%3Bctatype%3Doverlay%26amp%3Bevent%3Dcta%26amp%3Bv%3D6jSBW0BOPqM%26amp%3Busg%3DHUSbvpR3uSVAKOUmccZltj2rWFA%3D%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3CTEMPLATE_FIELD+field_name%3D%22trackingUrl1%22%3Ehttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fplayer_204%3Fevent%3Dcta%26amp%3Bctatype%3Doverlay%26amp%3Bdurl%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.wfp.org%252Fdonate%252F1billion%26amp%3Bplid%3DAAR2UlGccO0DyO83%26amp%3Bv%3D6jSBW0BOPqM%3C%2FTEMPLATE_FIELD%3E%3C%2FTEMPLATE_ELEMENT%3E%3C%2FTEMPLATE_PARAMETERS%3E%3C%2FAD%3E%3C%2FADS%3E%3C%2FGSP%3E&rv.0.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FE37-D7B0Wa8%2Fdefault.jpg&rv.7.author=Agassiztrio&rv.5.view_count=8038563&rv.1.length_seconds=39&rv.3.id=lD87MfjyJVA&rv.2.id=XrnoSc5NyyQ&rv.2.length_seconds=271&t=vjVQa1PpcFN-xU5t571K8Huy_mRQeh_WIys9njohhv0%3D&fexp=900032&creator=WORLDFOODPROGRAM&allow_embed=1&rv.2.rating=4.79310344828&rv.6.title=Facing+the+Floods&ad_logging_flag=1&rv.1.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FZN0JA5bUdJ0%2Fdefault.jpg&length_seconds=69&iv_module=http%3A%2F%2Fs.ytimg.com%2Fyt%2Fswf%2Fiv_module-vfl119825.swf&rv.4.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D45-lRU0sb2s&rv.4.title=Fatuma+Goes+Back+to+School&rv.5.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi3.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FRJlPEHL85Ig%2Fdefault.jpg&watermark=http%3A%2F%2Fs.ytimg.com%2Fyt%2Fswf%2Flogo-vfl106645.swf%2Chttp%3A%2F%2Fs.ytimg.com%2Fyt%2Fswf%2Fhdlogo-vfl100714.swf&rv.0.title=Bond+-+Explosive&rv.3.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DlD87MfjyJVA&rv.7.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DuG7JQHGhcg8&rv.2.view_count=13265&rv.4.view_count=3044&ad_module=http%3A%2F%2Fs.ytimg.com%2Fyt%2Fswf%2Fad-vfl126137.swf&rv.1.view_count=5042&rv.5.title=Beyonce+Single+Ladies+Dance&rv.1.title=Hungerbytes+v.2&ctb=True&rv.3.length_seconds=83&rv.5.author=YTwatchdog&rv.2.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FXrnoSc5NyyQ%2Fdefault.jpg&rv.0.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DE37-D7B0Wa8&rv.0.view_count=466503&rv.2.title=World+Food+Programme+Logistics%3B+We+Deliver&rv.4.rating=4.92857142857&rv.3.view_count=2820&cr=US&rv.6.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F53l6_00AL30%2Fdefault.jpg&rv.7.id=uG7JQHGhcg8&rv.0.rating=4.89355895197&rv.5.id=RJlPEHL85Ig&rv.0.id=E37-D7B0Wa8&sdetail=n%3A1%2C&rv.3.title=World+Food+Day+2008&rv.0.author=universalmusicgroup&rv.3.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FlD87MfjyJVA%2Fdefault.jpg&rv.2.author=tbj1870&rv.6.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D53l6_00AL30&fmt_map=35%2F640000%2F9%2F0%2F115%2C34%2F0%2F9%2F0%2F115%2C5%2F0%2F7%2F0%2F0&hl=en&rv.5.length_seconds=104&rv.6.id=53l6_00AL30&rv.6.view_count=184514&rv.3.author=IMCworldwideDotOrg&rv.4.id=45-lRU0sb2s&video_id=6jSBW0BOPqM&rv.4.author=WORLDFOODPROGRAM&rv.7.thumbnailUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fi2.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FuG7JQHGhcg8%2Fdefault.jpg&vq=medium&rv.7.title=A+message+from+the+World+Food+Programme&rv.1.id=ZN0JA5bUdJ0&rv.4.length_seconds=140&rv.7.view_count=1395&plid=AAR2UlGccO0DyO83&rv.5.rating=4.54176059187&rv.1.author=WORLDFOODPROGRAM&rv.1.rating=3.08333333333&iv_allow_external_links=1&rv.7.rating=5.0&rv.2.url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DXrnoSc5NyyQ&rv.6.rating=4.45517241379&sk=ZNyCOUWr01PA7Clgk30yTKBy3zORqltUC&playnext=0&enablejsapi=1″ height=”400″ quality=”high” width=”500″ style=”" />

10 Ways to Get Fired For Building Your Personal Brand

For all of you employed readers, this post is directed at you because I wouldn’t want you to become unemployed, as you build your own personal brand. Branding has become very personal these days and the relationship we have with our companies is changing very fast, so I think it’s important to focus on what you shouldn’t do at work, not just branding and career strategies.  I view web 2.0 technologies at the driving force that converges our professional and social lives.  Who you are and how you behave outside of work can impact how you’re perceived inside of work and visa versa.  The way the world works now is that you have to spend more time thinking about your actions than you did ten years ago because words spread faster and they are accessible by everyone.