I started writing this blog to express my thoughts, get a few people thinking, maybe have a little fun, if a certain news article or hot topic caught my eye. But nowadays, more and more people are using blogs to voice strong opinions, stage protests and even incite boycotts against many companies. They’ve begun to influence laws and policy about everything from beer to city government. Blogging may just be the new lobbying.

Remember Jeff Jarvis’ series of “Dell Hell” blogs last summer in which he voiced his frustrations with the company’s customer support service for the whole world to see? Or maybe you recall a series of complaint blogs aimed at MySpace.com, the online social network whose lenient security practices has sparked the attention of the media? Now, it seems that almost anyone is capable of gaining international attention for issues that they personally value, simply by logging onto their personal computer.

Chenggang says he didn’t intend to start such a flurry, but after media picked up on it, his well-known blog post was viewed more than half a million times in one week. Now there’s real speculation Starbucks could close its Forbidden City shop, fueled primarily by the attention of one man’s blog.

With power like this, who knows – the next controversy may be triggered by the online musings of a disgruntled teenager.

Super Bowl XLI is here, which means a majority of us will be glued to the tube (or at least socializing around it) this coming weekend. With nearly 90 million Americans tuning into the big game, it’s no wonder that advertisers view it as the pinnacle opportunity to strut their stuff.

Often humorous, sometimes touching, I always look forward to discovering what the ad community has conjured up. These are some of the companies you’re sure to see this year:

The success of Super Bowl commercials lies not in the actual advertisements themselves but in the publicity surrounding them. Remember the famous Budweiser “wassuup” guys during 2000’s Super Bowl? The media frenzy that followed these offbeat and goofy commercials earned Budweiser more press and air time than any advertising campaign could buy. Beer drinker or not, 5 year old or 55 year old – everyone was shouting the Budweiser phrase of the year. Talk about getting more bang for your buck.

Research says 10 minutes of the average U.S. employee’s day is spent chit-chatting about Super Bowl commercials and making bets. That amounts to about $800 million dollars in lost productivity. The good news for General Motors, Diamond Foods, Coca-Cola and Budweiser is that all the talking results in a hell of a lot of word-of-mouth marketing (WOM).

So what does it take to create a Super Bowl ad that shows up on the Today show or is discussed in the office place Monday morning? Here are some things you can look for between plays:

• Humor – Belly laugh humor. Budweiser used animals to spoof sports “streakers” and was a hit with audience members.
• Emotion – Anheuser Busch’s 2005’s Troops Tribute remembered troops in Iraq, touching viewers in a sensitive and impacting way.
• Intelligence – Think FedEx’s “Castaway” spoof. Fun, smart and easy to understand.
• Sex Appeal: GoDaddy.com. Enough said.
• Catch Phrases: The Budweiser “wassup” commercials were not only easy humorous and easy to re-call but they were catchy, fun and realistic.
• Pop Culture References – Pepsi used Ozzy Osbourne’s nightmare as a spoof to reach young viewers who tune into MTV’s “The Osbourne’s” during its Pepsi Twist 2003 Super Bowl campaign.

As we prepare for this Sunday’s battle between the Colts and Bears, it’s interesting to see how viewers are already reacting to commercials. There’s been buzz all over the Net, keeping ad junkies like me counting down the days ‘til kickoff. Companies are looking to hit consumers from every angle, and pre-game PR, WOM and the like are pure proof that even Super Bowl advertisers know the value of multi-disciplined campaigns.

Go Team?

Whatever you do, don’t get caught with your hand in the Wikipedia cookie jar. That’s exactly what happened to Microsoft when the user-generated website discovered that the tech giant had agreed to pay a freelancer to change its entry.

Wikipedia has long had restrictions to prevent campaign workers, employees, PR firms (gulp) and anyone with a conflict of interest from posting on its site. Transparency and authenticity are key here – and companies will rue the day they cross that line. Companies like Microsoft, it appears. Lots of prominent bad publicity awaits those who dare try to manipulate the public in the user-generated domain.

Microsoft claims that it engaged the freelancer to correct technical inaccuracies following heavy editing from IBM employees. The freelancer works for a tech company in Australia and has described himself as a technical standards aficionado and not a Microsoft partisan.

For those of us in the PR world, it is one of our biggest fears – not being able to control our clients’ messaging. I can understand that Microsoft may have thought for just one second about hiring someone to fix it, but to actually go through with it. . . I thought they would’ve learned from Edelman’s Wal-Mart blogging fiasco.

So what can we as PR people do to ensure that our clients’ messages are accurate and consistent? That’s a big question for 2007.

Jimmy Wales (founder of Wikipedia) has one suggestion: write or commission a “white paper” on the subject with its interpretation of the facts, post it to an outside Web site and then link to it in the Wikipedia articles’ discussion forums.

Interesting, but as user-generated content becomes more and more prominent – will it be enough?

As you know, a major part of my job deals with the media and how messages are communicated within the media. Now I may not be a pop culture expert, but some of the commercials I’ve seen on TV lately have definitely got me thinking. Sometimes after seeing an ad I’m more confused about the offering than before.

Recently, Stuart Elliott wrote a column for the New York Times called “Cars on the Edge, and Other Doubts,” giving twenty different examples of just how some advertising can lead to doubts and questioning on behalf of the potential consumer.

One point that hit home the most was Elliott’s mention of how Hearst Magazine’s is trying to stay in the game with their new “special test rate” with issues costing about 50 cents each. It’s no secret that print increasingly struggles to gain a foothold in the media race. However, as one of the biggest publishers in the world enters a price war (a big no-no in Marketing 101) – will this create an uproar or a domino effect in rest of the print industry?

Whether it’s video, internet, radio, print, and everything hybrid medium in between – none of these tools will (or at least shouldn’t) disappear. Sure, industry leaders are raving about the power of “alternative” media like WOM and personal blogs to create buzz and viral campaigns. But I ask you this…where do people get their information to react to in the first place?

I sure as heck wouldn’t be writing this blog if I didn’t pick up that issue of the New York Times.

So what’s in store for 2007? We’ll all have to wait and see, but like Stuart Elliott, I have a few predictions of my own:

1. More emphasis on cross-discipline media campaigns. You might not realize it at first glance, but I’m sure you’ve already seen it. Companies are using multiple channels –TV, radio, billboards, internet, blog, podcast – even that thing called PR — to get to YOU. Plowing ahead in 2007, I predict we’ll see even more crossover between promotions. Mitsubishi did this with their www.seewhathappens.com campaign. Another good one is Kleenex’s www.letitout.com.

2. Advertisers will get smarter and more frugal with massive advertising budgets. Online advertising might allow us to measure the success/failure of each campaign, but it’s measuring beyond-the-click, campaigns that’ll really influence advertisers’ decisions. Like I said, it’s a multi-disciplined marketing world, and targeting from all directions is crucial.

3. Marketers will spend more time and resources improving the customer’s experience – from start to finish. Business will continue to push the envelope to convert mundane utilitarian products into objects of desire. The best example I’ve seen of this is Michael Graves’s designer toilet brush for $5.99. Only against a backdrop of plenty, choice and abundance could people seek beautiful toilet brushes.

Targeting, people. That’s the word here. Whether it’s online, over the airwaves or in your ear, people will get their information and make their choices based on a variety of sources. And while there’s no magic-bullet media plan to follow, looking from your target outward will get you started on the right track.