Disregarding the obvious political slant (although Beck himself is not teaching the courses), there are some big questions here. What constitutes a university, or even an academic program at that? Where should we draw the line at marketing online “programs” as a university? Who is really qualified to teach? If anyone can start their own online academic program, who should we trust?

The fact that just about anyone can attach words like “academic,” “courses,” “university,” or “program” to their online content is interesting. I don’t think anyone would confuse Beck’s courses for a real accredited academic program, but I still have no doubt that some users will readily sign up for it. The fact of the matter is that Beck isn’t the first to name his own unaccredited university; he’s just brought it to a new level.

Apple did it. Take iTunes University for example; it’s an online public access point where just about anyone can create a page under which to distribute their content. It’s an amazing resource, where we can often find genuine college course lectures and materials, but Apple sure isn’t passing out degrees. There’s still plenty of subjective and non-academic content under the iTunes U umbrella and I find myself having to weed through to get to the good stuff.

Some companies even have their own corporate universities, often comprised of training programs for a specific internal positions and/or continuing education for staff’s professional development, where the company almost always picks up the tab. Although some corporate universities offer courses for Continuing Education Credits (CEU’s), most often the programs are offered with a company slant rather than general education, making the content difficult to transfer elsewhere.

Then there’s everyone else. The unaccredited Christian bible universities of the world that seek “only God’s approval.” The Average Joes disguising their mediocre knowledge of a field as a course at their self-created “university” (as an example, check out CoreTech University online). And of course, the Glenn Becks of the world basically re-branding the same old opinionated content on their site in the form of an academic program to make an extra buck.

But what does this all really mean? If anyone can start a university these days, whom should we trust with our time and our money? In an age where Gen Y is graduating with mounds upon mounds of college loan debt and not reaping the career benefits they thought they would having a college education, maybe all these privately-run, relatively inexpensive universities aren’t a bad idea. Maybe there’s more value in these various, industry-targeted, biased programs than we give them credit for. After all, if someone is willing to pay money for Beck’s program or anyone else’s, there has to be at least some value in it for that person.

So let’s keep this conversation going, because I don’t have all the answers. Did you find more value in the online program you paid $99.99 for than the college degree you paid at least $30,000 for? What about all the online resources that you don’t pay for? Is it even necessary to pay for an education anymore—if we weren’t worried about having that little piece of paper that declares us competent in reading, writing, and arithmetic? Do you think all the unaccredited programs sprouting up need more regulation or common terminology? How is all of this changing the educational landscape for the future?

Photo by Gage Skidmore

Although Twitter didn’t have an advertising platform per say, we were already used to advertisements on Twitter. The mere fact that Starbucks and other brands use it to announce special promotions and events is enough. Should I also mention the hundreds of PR and advertising agencies and professionals that use Twitter to promote their clients, most of them without a disclosure until a while ago?

Not only are we used to see advertisements on Twitter, but we are used to see them everywhere. I can’t think of a medium that doesn’t have ads. Actually, I can’t even think of an aspect of our daily lives that isn’t exploited for ads: from bus stops to sidewalks to cell phones we are bombarded with ads every day and we’ve learned to ignore most of them most of the time (read 99.99999999 % of the ads we see 99.999999% of the time).

Will we do the same with promoted tweets? Will we just ignore them as we do with the majority of Facebook ads?

Although I can’t speak of all Millennials, I know that I would notice the promoted tweets. They will be on the top of my search and unless I pay attention and read the text below the actual tweet, I won’t know whether it is a promoted tweet or not. However, the fact that I would notice a promoted tweet doesn’t necessary mean I would follow a brand, become a part of its community, buy its product or do whatever else the tweet is trying to persuade me to do.  Nor would I put up with annoying or worthless promoted tweets. Chances are that if I see two of these from the same brand, I would never pay attention to the brand’s promoted tweets, let alone follow it. It is a different question how often I would see promoted tweets in their current format since I, like most people my age, use a Twitter client and rarely go to twitter.com.

What can brands (or anyone else interested) do to take the best advantage of promoted tweets?

• Don’t be annoying!!!
• Don’t ask me to become a fan of your brand on Facebook, or like it when Facebook changes.
• Don’t ask me to provide support or to vote for you in any competition.
• Do provide value to me.
• Do provide value on regular basis, not only once a year.
• Do use promoted tweets to engage with me.
• Do use promoted tweets to be helpful.
• Do use common sense!!!

Millennials, what do you think about promoted tweets? Would you like to add anything else to my list?

Photo Credit: loiclemeur

Part 2 of: TV’s Missed Opportunity

We’ve come a long way from recording songs off the radio for romantic mix tapes. These days I share the songs that best express my feelings, hopes and dreams digitally. But, a lot more has changed from cassette to playlist than it might seem.

When downloading music and ripping it from CDs began, conceptually the nature of the product changed from a thing you hold in your hand into something that you have the rights to use. John Mayer recently asked people who illegally downloaded, and liked, a copy of his new album to go out and “register” their copy. That is, he asked them to go buy it. But, the language he used is a pretty clear sign of the times.

For many consumers, content doesn’t exist as a physical thing anymore. Instead, content is something you buy the rights to own and enjoy. Once I buy a movie, I own a physical copy as well as the right to rip and burn as many copies as I want for myself. But, this leads some to ask, how many times do I have to pay for it?

A while back I was jonesing to watch Star Wars, Episode 4: A New Hope, and took a trip down to Borders to buy it. It cost $60! I couldn’t help but think, I’ve owned this trilogy my entire life! My whole family went to see all the movies in theaters, both times, purchased the movies on VHS and DVD, bought action figures, posters etc.  Why do I need to buy this again?

In this light, illegal downloading doesn’t feel so illegal. And, that is a problem for anyone with a stake in TV or DVDs.

On the flip side, virtual content is thought of as inherently less valuable than hard copies. I recently purchased Something Something Something Dark Side from iTunes while visiting my parents over Christmas. Yet, iTunes counts that copy, as my only copy. I can take it from that computer and put it on another, but I can’t download it again without paying… Say what?

iTunes and Amazon ask full price for entirely digital copies and offer no guarantee I won’t have to buy my whole media library again if my computer explodes. Sure it’s my responsibility to back them up, but really I’m not very motivated to do that extra work. I just want an easy experience with my media and not worry about the hours spent double-checking my library. Digital copies feel less valuable and less secure long term, so why am I being asked to pay a premium price?

Something to hold onto will always be superior to a backup file in my mind, no matter how digital I get. I don’t like buying from iTunes because it doesn’t send out DVD or save me the extra work of backing up my files. Plus, most people can’t even hook their computers up to a TV to really enjoy it anyway–so it seems even less valuable to them (just a guess). In the end, the shows that I like the most are the ones I’ll never, ever buy online.

In this light, the lower value associated with virtual copies makes stealing (again) not seem like that big a deal. It’s just a copy on my hard drive, frail and weak.

So what does all this mean? The way we think about content seems to be changing, and thus how people value it may be changing as well.

Premium content producers should pay more attention to how consumers value their products. I would argue that illegal downloading, one of the main thorns in the TV and Movie industry’s side, is driven from beliefs that virtual content is low value to begin with (among other things). As a result, to most people “free” downloads don’t seem like a very big deal.

However, companies could address these feelings head on by redefining the value of the content people buy. (I’m not gonna say “added value,” but) providing free, easy backup and greater access to purchased programs, sending out physical copies (that cost what, ten cents to make!?) or simply charging less for virtual content could significantly influence consumer behavior.

The more confidence we have in the longevity of our content–be it hard copies or back up–and the more access points we have to it, the greater the value of that content. Bit torrent can get someone a movie in 20 minutes and Walmart can sell me a DVD. But, a company that sells me content, guarantees its safety and lets me watch it anywhere, that’s really what I want. Because if I buy into something like that, it’s more than a movie I just downloaded, that’s a product I can get behind.

Image: source

Author: Jason Potteiger – Associate Editor at TNGG

People are crazy for premium content

Back in history times, our ancestors were restricted to watching only what was on TV. And, even as cable television and satellite TV expanded to give us hundreds of channels, somehow there was still “nothing good on.”

In the days of angelfire websites streaming video was a mere myth. These days a faster, more developed Internet has grown up to provide an unprecedented level of access to programming. Along with it new viewing habits have evolved to fit.

However, uncertainty, lack of creativity, and reluctance to abandon a proven business model have kept most media companies from adapting to the new ways we’re watching TV. The result amounts to a significant missed opportunity.

Because of the Internet, people are watching more TV, not less. So why are premium content producers losing money? The ability to pick  “what” and “when” in consuming TV content has led to a sharp increase in the hours spent in front of our screens watching TV. Though, it might not seem obvious because companies like Nielsen still aren’t measuring this accurately (not to mention all the illegal consumption going on as well).

By a sharp increase, I mean a-wicked-lot-more people are watching tons more TV. Old media can no longer satisfy this new thirst for content. We’re talking TV seasons in a day. An entire series over the weekend. You just can’t get that on TV or even most websites that provide content along with ads. TV is simply unable and the latter (e.g. Hulu) has its hands tied because of low ad rates.

DVDs and iTunes can’t exactly come to the rescue here, either. The problem is that content on these platforms is priced far too high to support new consumer habits. People are looking for affordable content, and $44 per season and $15 an album is a lot to pay (especially for a virtual copy) when your consumption is twice what it used to be, or if you just want to watch it or listen once.

As a result, many people turn to the convenience and affordability of illegal downloading—a force that helped form these new habits in the first place and the biggest thorn in premium content’s side. In some cases, illegal downloading is the only option for getting content, as sometimes straight up access just isn’t available to buy online or off. In these situations can we really fault bit torrenting?

Let me put it this way: if a publisher discontinued printing a book because it was no longer profitable or a record company refused to re-release a rare album because of low overall sales—and neither offered any way to access the material—then what’s a rational actor to do Mr. Economist?

Now I’ll admit, the content typically being stolen is available, but not on TV and not online with ads (something consumers are willing to do). Premium content is often overpriced, both virtually and physically, to the point that most wallets just can’t support consumption. I’m not trying to make excuses, per say—just pointing out that crack is wack, I mean addictive.

Denying content to consumers hungry for it is simply bad business. People that download to get content are no more guilty of stealing than media companies are guilty of missing a smart opportunity. And so I ask, why should we not download it? Premium content producers are either unable to find a creative ways to meet our demand or ignorant to it.

It’s too bad that Hulu isn’t getting the ad dollars it’s backers hoped for. But, as any good capitalist would argue, that isn’t the consumer’s problem. They are not into sitting down at 7:00pm, and only 7:00pm, to watch their shows anymore. And, what if they want to catch the whole season? People pay over $100 a month for cable TV and Internet already! They want some slack. Eyes are valuable and they are on the screen(s), so as Timm Gunn would say, “Make it work.”

People like TV and they’re watching more of it than ever before. Further, most audiences accept ads as a “necessary evil,” and enjoy Hulu immensely. In fact, most Gen Y-ers probably pay more attention to the ads on Hulu than the ones they’re skipping over with the DVR on their TVs.

People want their stories and most would rather not steal; but if we treat them like thieves they will act as such. Treat them like consumers addicted to your product, and get a little creative about how you give it to them = profit, plain and simple.

Image

Author: Jason Potteiger – Associate Editor at TNGG

It goes way beyond simply watching TV; the reality culture is ingrained in our daily lives.

Lingo from Jersey Shore becomes a part of everyday conversation (admit it, how many times have you referenced “the situation”?), buzz about the latest Survivor episode pervades our Facebook and Twitter feeds, and our attire is often influenced by designs seen on Project Runway.

Possibly even more telling is how famous and truly relevant reality stars are today.  How many magazines have a stylish photo of Lauren Conrad splayed on the cover?  Even reality stars of a smaller scale are accredited with glamour and fame.  Take my editor’s friend, Emilee, who was a cast member of ‘Real World Cancun’ gets paid simply for showing up at clubs.

“Nowadays, our televisions are saturated with numerous reality shows, but I am honored to be on the one show that basically started the landmark for all of reality, Real World. I made genuine friendships and learned more about myself than I knew was possible. Real World was a great experience, but if you don’t do it for the experience, you will find yourself dwindling into every other ‘reality misconception.” ~ Emilee Fitzpatrick, Real World Cancun.

At this point it’s safe to say we’ve established the integral role reality television plays within our culture.  Why then do we refer to reality shows as “guilty pleasures”? What about them makes us feel guilty? If watching an episode of the Real World really lends us this unbearably guilty conscience, why do we continue to watch? I posed the latter question to a few friends, and received somewhat expected answers:

1. It is mindless. After a long day of work, it is such a relief to just relax and watch something lighthearted and stress-free.  There is nothing worse after a hard day than turning to the local news channel and listening to a serious and depressing report.
2. It makes us feel better about ourselves. Though its fun to live vicariously through characters that have exciting and glamorous lives, at the end of the day we are glad it’s just a temporary escape from reality.  When comparing ourselves to the cast members, we feel much happier, drama-free, honest, intelligent, and more “normal” than them.
3. There is nothing else on. TV is literally saturated with reality shows and it is nearly impossible to flip through channels without glancing over a few of them.

But do any of these reasons result in guilt?  They do seem to be excuses for watching, rather than endorsements of the genre.  Sure, everybody polled watches reality TV, but they are hesitant to actually admit they enjoy the shows.  My simple and unscientific poll seems to support this notion of the overall shame and guilt viewers experience when discussing reality TV with others.

Perhaps this guilt is a result of how reality TV is viewed in our society.  Reality TV is very often equated with trashy smut by those people in society that want to believe it is too lowbrow for their superior artistic palates.  This sentiment has trickled through our culture and literally forces the suppression of one’s true feelings towards Real Housewives or Celebrity Rehab.  Thus, the shame and guilt a viewer feels, and why my friends give me excuses for watching.

I guess using television as an escape from our own reality has always been, to some extent, a reason to watch every night.  Perhaps, more so than watching traditional forms of television like sit-coms and dramas, reality TV truly connects us with the people on the screen.  We rejoice at the abundant weight loss of those on the Biggest Loser, and we feel betrayed when a possible Bachelorette suitor turns out to be a jerk. Everybody likes to say they watch reality TV because it makes them feel superior to the hapless idiots willing to parade onscreen and air their dirty laundry to the nation.

In actuality, I think people genuinely relate to them because these people are their actual peers.  They are not untouchable Hollywood stars or starlets, but authentic people with very real personal issues.  Whether those issues are obesity, loneliness, or addiction, we can sympathize with these very human struggles and cheer as voyeurs from a safe distance.

Photo Credit: watchwithkristin

Author: Julie Jaenike – I am a Southernish (Kentucky) transplant who has been surviving New England for 7 years. Playing the piano, making jewelry, and hiking are a few of my favorite distractions. And, as an avid animal lover, tofu and spending time at local shelters are of similar importance. I am a TV buyer at Mullen, and am currently learning how to buy video across all media platforms. This is my first attempt at entering the blogosphere.

Collaboration in Art

No area of society is exempt from the power of the internet. Art defines our culture and our culture is defined by its art. If our twenty-first century society is based on connectedness, our culture is being brought closer together even if we aren’t in the same country.

Art, as much as every other part of society, is being dramatically effected by networked technology. We now have websites where musicians, writers and other artists can collaborate and critique each other online. Art is no longer a product but a service. The digital age has allowed art to be done to you and with you.

It is not that art has necessarily changed, the main forms of art such as sculpture, dance, writing, music etc. are still the same. What has changed because of networked technology is art creation. From artist in the creation of their art to artists learning from each other, getting criticisms on their work all add to the art creation. Being able to learn art theory and technique from home makes art creation available to the masses. This networked revolution of creation was predicted by Walter Benjamin 74 years ago.

For centuries a small  of writers were confronted by many thousands of readers. … an increasing number of readers became writers … And today there is hardly a gainfully employed European who could not, in principle, find an opportunity to publish somewhere … Thus, the distinction between author and public is about to lose its basic character. The difference becomes merely functional … At any moment the reader is ready to turn into a writer.

As expert, which he had to become willy-nilly in an extremely specialized work process, even if only in some minor respect, the reader gains access to authorship. … Literary license is now founded on polytechnic rather than specialized training and thus becomes common property.

Walter Benjamin, 1936.

This quote shows how the number of art creators increased as these new tools are being made available to them and we see the same thing happening in the 21st century, in the age of social media and collaboration. It is not that more artists are being made, it is that more are being found. In a clever quote by Andy Warhol in 1968 he says:

In the future, everyone will be world famous for 15 minutes.

With mashups and parodies all over Youtube, the collaborative possibility in a globally connected world is beginning to be realized and soon everyone will become famous.

Could we be looking at one of the many ways collaboration might be used in the progression of music? They already have websites where musicians can meet online and share parts to each others songs, and this only takes that concept one step further.

Hibi no Neiro by Sour

Author: David Paul Williams – Hi, I am a second-year Marketing student at York University who is passionate about marketing, social media and changing the world. I believe the future of the world is a more connected and transparent one.

This is a major breakthrough in the struggling world of newspapers. Newspapers are on edge as they adapt to create revenue from the Internet and maintain readers. Editors have been searching for a new model to bring in revenue but have been shy about changing the model because no one has taken the first step and lead the way, so far.

The New York Times has been a world-wide leader in news and reporting and now it is trying to set the industry standards on the Internet.

The Times Corporation is trying to recoup the company’s losses in ad revenue by charging for content online because the company just isn’t making enough money to keep all their news sources up and running.

Janet L. Robinson, president and CEO of the New York Times Company, commented on the restructuring of their online content by saying in the company’s press release that the “process of rethinking our business model has also been driven by our desire to achieve additional revenue diversity that will make us less susceptible to the inevitable economic cycles.”

The New York Times was the most read newspaper online in 2008 and probably was the most read in 2009. Now the newspaper is trying to become a trendsetter in the world of Internet newspapers. They are trying to be the first to start charging their readership for online content that was once free. The Wall Street Journal has been charging for a long time now and it works for them. But The Wall Street Journal has a very specific readership, a niche market (a very large niche) that is willing to pay for their news—after all it is news that regards their money most of the time.

The New York Times has taken the first step in this trial and error process of charging readers for something that was once free, but will it work?  And what are some things they should take into consideration?

How Will The Millennial Generation Take to This New Model?

As a personal “news junkie” I see this new model being a struggle. But our generation and the next one to come will have to learn that everything isn’t free. We are the generation that has created ways around paying for things and I am sure people will find ways around The New York Times payment method. But with all of the Internet watchdogs out there, will we want to spend the time to create a loophole around this system? Will it be in our best interest to defeat the New York Times?

I don’t think so. We need news and information in our lives. Newspapers are struggling right now and need to find a new model and we need them too figure this out quickly.. We need The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post and other newspapers alive and well—breaking open stories and scandals. And the best way for them to survive is by us paying for their news.   Newspapers can’t afford to pay top-level journalists and editors if they keep giving away their news for free. And we can only accept the best when it comes to our news.

If no one else adopts The New York Times model of paying for news, then Generation Y will find other places to get news from, just as it finds ways to get free music and movies, no matter how many roadblocks exist. But if the model sticks and other important news operations go the same route, then we will have to adapt, to finally start paying for what we want. We won’t like this. We will find ways around the roadblocks, but in the end we will have to pay for our news and information.

Maybe this will change the types of news we seek out. Instead of following sensational stories like the “Tiger Zoo” (term coined by Bill Simmons) we will have to follow politics, the economy and wars overseas.

In the end, we will have to start paying for our news and with that comes more responsibility and better judgment on what we are willing to pay for.

Kevin Koczwara can be reached at kkoczwar@gmail.com.

18 Minutes to bring data to life

I came upon TED.com accidentally. Searching for something entertaining in the cornfield maze that’s YouTube, I found a video about an MIT professor ‘s research and development of a technological sixth sense, a way to access information online using our environment.

The nine minute video captivated me and led me to the website, where I found hundreds of videos of people from around the globe speaking about issues our world faces today and in the future. Since then, TED.com and it’s simple approach of making its content the central focus of their website has kept me going back almost daily, and provides a model of what a good website should be.

TED, which stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design, is an annual conference held in Long Beach, California that invites 50 of the world’s most influential and ground-breaking people and gives them 18 minutes to discuss the convergence of information, technology, culture, science and media as agents of social and global change. Limited to 1,000 audience members at a hefty price of $6,000 a ticket, TED.com was created in 2007 to showcase its discussions to the world, free of charge.

The first effective element of the website is its outstanding content. Imagine yourself at a lecture featuring a world-renowned ethnographer, who exposes the trends of modern day communications and social media that are causing a decline in human intimacy. Or  a form-and-function scientist displaying a softball-sized device that which sits at your computer, measures the amount of natural light you’ve received during the day, and then emits the remaining amount of light your body needs. Or you can view dozens of charts and graphs from years of a doctor’s  statistical research to prove the higher rate of disease in developing countries wrong. The talks are gripping, stimulating, and all at your fingertips.

What’s more effective about TED.com is their simple approach to publicizing their content. The site has a no-nonsense approach, void of any advertisement and a search engine that narrows its talks down into 6 simple categories based on what the subject is: technology, entertainment, design, business, science and global issues. They choose function over creative design, leaving its content and the viewer’s interests to decide what they want to watch. As a millennial consumer, function and accessibility is far more important to me than creative design. Being internet-savvy and aware of what content on websites interest me, I don’t need to be distracted by multiple search engines, links to other areas of the site and other websites, or have the website make suggestions for me.

Brands and marketers can learn something from TED.com; leave behind the bells and whistles of design and layout and let the content do its own talking. We get frustrated by the confusing search results and recommendations that a lot of websites offer, or we get sidetracked from what we’re looking for because its search engine leads you in different directions. How often have you used YouTube for a specific topic and its abundance of “related videos” lead you away from what you were actually looking for?

Bottom line: show us, don’t tell us. If brands have a good product, then let the product do the talking. A great product does not need overdressing. As a generation who expect to get their news, information and entertainment in the shortest and simplest means necessary, millennials will rejoice in the approach TED.com takes to pull viewers in and navigate as they wish. Website users who are in control of what they view without being bombarded by suggestions and broad search engines are happy users.

Image: Erik Charlton

It’s prime time on a Tuesday night. I’m sitting with a few friends as we settle in for another episode of the hit reality series, NBC’s The Biggest Loser.

With soft drinks and comfort snacks in hand, fittingly ironic while tuning into a show that revolves around overweight contestants trying to lose weight, we share laughs and watch intently as another week of reality television unfolds. Later, my friend’s mother makes her way into the living room and sits down with us. She’s never seen it before.

“This is awful! How can you watch overweight people be exploited like this?” She cries.

By show’s end, she’s still sitting in the room watching with us.

TV networks have finally found a way to provoke every generation’s attention. Previously, reality TV was a centerpiece of entertainment for younger generations and a bane to older generations. However, by taking scenarios we can compare to our own lives and putting them on screen, they have turned a much-maligned genre of TV into something that can connect generations.

A staple for most people who tune in to prime time television, reality TV involves us living vicariously through (relatively) ordinary people as they compete for cash prizes, vacations and love, no matter the consequences. In the past, reality TV meant Real World or Road Rules on MTV. Those shows were cast with beautiful and busty twenty-something’s carefully selected to live in an upscale penthouse apartment or compete in American Gladiator-like elimination challenges. Mix in some naive social behavior for inevitable culture clashes and the result is 30 minutes of what most people would call reality TV. While amusing to us millennials, it did nothing for older generations except this.

The ‘reality’ of it all is that reality TV is a lot like the clearance rack at a department store: most of the things that are available don’t fit us or aren’t the style we’re looking for. But if we look hard enough, chances are we’re going to find something thing that really appeals to us.  Shows like The Biggest Loser give proof of the hardships people face with being overweight and contestants are men and women aged 18 to as old as 70. The show provides an in-depth look at how humility, hard work, and self-determination change people’s lives no matter how old or young they may be. That’s something a person of any generation can relate to.

Bravo’s Top Chef is another award winning show that’s catapulted people’s interest not only for the show, but for cooking, baking, and wine. After watching an episode of Top Chef, it’s impossible to not take a risk in trying a new food or branching out in our culinary abilities. The show, like cooking, can be enjoyed by anyone of any age. I’ve even convinced my mother and some of her friends to watch it on weekly basis!

Has a middle ground for reality TV that both younger and older generations can agree upon been reached? I believe so. Networks have finally broken through the barrier of one-dimensional genres and are putting real, everyday people in the spotlight. Popular reality TV shows have found a nice balance where both older and younger generations can be entertained by believable scenarios, cast with people who are no different than us, without omitting the entertainment value of competition that millennials are accustomed to.

For once, generations can agree on something on TV because of a shared interest in something other than what’s filling the screen for 30 minutes. This certainly helps eliminate arguments over who gets the remote!

If you admit to watching reality TV (raise your hand!), are there any shows you like to watch with others much older or younger than yourself? I’d like to know!

Photo Credit: leunix

Think of us like you would a C-suite. Not because we’re rich (yet). Not because we run the world (or do we?). Not because we’re entitled (we’re just smarter).

Because we’re busy as hell.

So, how do we keep ourselves so informed and so immersed in brands and culture and current events? Between classes or our entry-level 9-to-5, extra- and intra-curriculars and all that other stuff we’re knee-deep in, we don’t have time to sit down with a nice cup of coffee and the day’s Times – well, not all of us. Just refer to our recent question – would we ever pay for a paper? Mmm nope.

Now let’s touch upon how you can leverage digital social media to get your content to us. Shitting your pants? Don’t. This can be another conversation for another time.

In the mean-time, here are some simpler, easier, older digital mediums where you can reach us:

Email:

A relatively old medium, but we all have it. Check out the AAAA Smartbrief and MediaPost (yeah, I’m in advertising). The Google Alerts model is great too. Quick headlines, brief descriptions, and tons of great content.

RSS:

We all know what it is, and, as we quickly adopt dashboards and plug into more and more feeds, it’s a good way to throw out some interesting toplines and get it front-and-center on our homepages. Check out PwC’s 10Minutes. I’ve got 10 minutes.

Mobile:

Texting might be overkill, but consider moving toward mobile pages and apps. Smartphone penetration is still low amongst the college crowd (18-24) at 5%, according to eMarketer, but smartphones are expected to become mainstream mobile by 2013 – shouldn’t you be forward thinking? Forbes? WSJ? CNN? There’s an app for that.

Your site:

The 18-24 year demo is near the top (just 10 minutes shy of our parents) when it comes to minutes spent per day on the web. Push out your content, and do it hard. But make sure that it’s user-friendly, bite-size and buzz-worthy. “Exclusive” is no longer the word. We want to get it everywhere. A good site is the Daily Beast – check out their Cheat Sheet and Buzz Board.

It’s all about finding Gen Y, because, let’s face it; we don’t have time to come to you. Like the C-suite, we’re not going to actively engage ourselves. We’re too busy. But we want to be engaged on our time and in our medium.

Photo Credit: 34592360@N02