• Five Questions Teams Should Ask About Social Media
• Transparency and Blogging in the Business of Sports
• Social Networks Need to Provide Value Beyond Connecting
• Why Teams Should Get Involved With Social Media

On to the good stuff. Here are a few predictions I have about what’s going to happen in this space in 2009. Keep in mind these are just my own predictions. I’m sure I’ve left out a few things and haven’t covered everything in depth, so feel free to agree, disagree and/or discuss as you’d like, either on your own blog or by leaving a comment here. I’d love to hear what you think.

More Athletes Will Get Involved

As we’ve seen with Gilbert Arenas, who was pretty much the first sports superstar to have a very popular blog, and now with Shaquille O’Neal, who is on Twitter and has over 21,000 followers, social media tools can be effective at connecting athletes with fans, generating buzz and helping fans really get to know athletes.  The funny thing is, I bet a lot of Shaq’s followers on Twitter aren’t even die-hard Shaq or NBA fans. But it’s just really cool to be able to see quotes and updates from a celebrity, and some people who probably didn’t care much about him before, now have a reason to keep up with him because they see he’s a genuine, caring person (and he’s got some hilarious quotes, too). YardBarker also does a good job with its pro athlete blogs. I enjoy reading what Donovan McNabb and Rajon Rondo have to say there. Overall, I think more athletes will start blogging (note: it has to be the actual athlete for it to be authentic) and using social media tools like Twitter in 2009.

Pro Teams Will Get More Involved

Many pro teams have already gotten involved with social media and blogging, as there are many benefits to be had (increase fan engagement, drive ticket sales, learn about your fans, increase reach of sponsor promotions, etc). If you don’t believe that social media tools such as Twitter can help you, think about this: Dell has said that Twitter has helped them generate over $1 million in revenue over the past year and a half. In 2009, even more teams will start Twitter accounts and become active on Facebook and fan communities. More teams may hire bloggers and people who will reach out to fans online for them. The key here is to actually interact with fans–don’t just promote your own content. You wouldn’t go to a party where you don’t know anyone and start shouting, would you? I’m a little worried that social media will become such a buzz word that people will think it is a quick fix for everything. That’s not true, and it definitely takes time and resources to utilize these tools the right way.

Sports Agencies Will Start Being More Transparent and Blogging

This may be more of a wish than a prediction. Sports agencies haven’t caught up to agencies in the advertising and media world in sharing their ideas and being open/honest on their websites. Many agency websites are currently static and boring–not something that people want to come back to. Sports agencies seem to be more protective of their ideas than ad agenices. To those who are worried about giving away ideas, I offer this quote from Neil Patel: “Sooner or later others are going to know what you know, so you might as well be the one to tell them.” I think that with the rise of information-sharing communities such as Sports Marketing 2.0 and LinkedIn Groups for people in the sports industry, agencies will realize that blogging and being open can be extremely valuable in helping position themselves as experts.

A great case study here is Darren Heitner’s Sports Agent Blog, which does a great job at highlighting issues in the athlete representation business and  discussing news relating to his agency, Dynasty Reps. Earlier this year, Darren left a comment here, saying, “If it were not for the creation of SportsAgentBlog.com, Dynasty Athlete Representation would probably not yet exist today.” That shows just how effective blogging can be in helping a business build a reputation, gain influence and get new clients.

Sports Communities Online – Many Will Fail, A Few Will Be Very Successful

I don’t like ending on a negative note but I think this should be said. Some people think that starting a sports community or social network is easy because there are X millions of sports fans out there who are passionate about their favorite sports, teams and players. The market is huge, right? This is much easier said than done. The bottom line is that there are already tons and tons of places for fans to interact online–message boards, team sites, fan blogs, and existing communties…plus sites like Facebook and MySpace, where there are tons of sports groups for fans to debate and interact. To be successful, a community must offer something besides the benefit of connecting–that can be exclusive content, videos, access to star players, etc. And then you still need to have partners who can drive traffic to your site. If you want a great example of how to build a community the right way, look no further than BallisLife.com, which is developing into a great community for basketball fans and players. I’ll write something up about them soon, but the bottom line is that when I want to talk about basketball, that’s where I go now. I don’t go to ESPN, or Sports Illustrated or Yahoo.

Those are a few of my predictions for this space in 2009. I’d love to hear what you think. If there are enough people interested, I’ll write a separate article with some of YOUR predictions. If you’d like to be included, leave a comment here or write a response on your own blog and I’ll try to include it in the article.

We’re still very early in the game with live streaming so I just wanted to provide a few highlights from Adweek’s article and see what you think about this topic. This is all very interesting to me.

What Leagues Are Doing.

• NFL – Live streaming Sunday Night Football Extra on NBC.com and NFL.com
• MLS – live streams games on MLSlive.tv – subscription model and no games from tv partners are shown. MLS hopes to make this service free/ad-supported next season
• NHL – streams out-of-market games (honors local broadcast agreements) via subscription service
• NBA – plans to stream live-games in local markets on team sites in 2008-09 season, but this will infringe on local TV partners’ broadcast rights. Pricing model is TBD
• MLB – became first league to stream a whole season of games in 2003 via MLB.tv (subscription required).

Other Live Streaming Examples

• CBSSports.com and NCAA Basketball Tournament. Entire tournament streamed free this year, and ad revenue was $23 million this year, up from $4 million in 2006. Advertising is sold separately from the TV broadcast.
• ESPN 360 – streamed 3,000 events in the past year (for a variety of sports), with 60% of that content exclusively shown on the site.

Major Questions

• Does live streaming increase or decrease number of TV viewers?
• Should leagues hold onto these rights or include them in packages to networks?

What do you think about live streaming games and these questions?

According to Mashable, Yahoo is testing a lifecasting service called Yahoo Live with its employees. According to Wikipedia, lifecasting is “is a continual broadcast of events in a person’s life through digital media.” As we’ve seen with blogs, social networking and YouTube, people love sharing their lives. Whether it’s for fame, fortune or just to be noticed, people are more and more willing to let others into their lives. With the rise of online video (and the number of laptops that are shipping with webcams), lifecasting should continue to become more popular with the younger crowd.

Lifecasting seems to have a few potential applications in the sports world. It’s really just an unfiltered blog (with video). What if teams provided an outlet for passionate fans to post videos of how dedicated they are. Offer an inside look at the life of a superfan, from what they do each day to keep up with their team, to how crazy they are on game days. This could be turned into a video series or show and teams could tie-in sponsors to generate more revenue.

A brand could sponsor a season-long lifecasting contest to identify the best superfan.

Teams could get players involved in lifecasting to offer an exclusive behind-the-scenes look at what it’s like to be a professional athlete. This could be tested around a player’s All-Star game appearance and could be continued depending on the interest it generates.

These are just a few ideas. What do you think about lifecasting opportunities in sports?

Our attention spans are getting shorter. We’re multitasking more. And we’re trying to keep up with a bazillion things at once.

Enter Twitter–Twitter is a bit-sized (think Mighty Mouse) version of Instant Messaging + Facebook. It lets you instantly see/give updates (messages, links, etc) friends in your network. You can post from AIM, the web, desktop (via widget), or cell phone.

People may update their Facebook status once a day or week or month, but with Twitter I can get instant updates delivered to my desktop, personal Twitter page, phone or IM program. Back in May of this year I wrote a very rambling post calling Twitter a new tool for stalkers. I tried it out for awhile but ultimately quit because none of my friends were using it.

And they still aren’t. But tons of people are. David Armano at Logic + Emotion has a great post about Twitter exploding in popularity because it is a conversation ecosystem. I recommend reading his whole post, but see below for one of his diagrams that aims to explain Twitter’s multiple touchpoints.

I still don’t know what to think about Twitter, but it sure does seem like a growing connection platform. Stay tuned for a post that will attempt to explain how sports teams and sponsors can get involved with Twitter to connect with fans and customers and keep them updated on what’s going on.

So, yeah I’m a Media Snacker. Online, I consume enough media to feed a small country, and I always have about 10 tabs open at once because I’m a super multi-tasker/have a super-short attention span. I keep up with all the sports marketing/business blogs I know of as well as a bunch of advertising and social networking blogs. But I actually am not as media savvy when it comes to cell phones. I don’t use my phone for blogging or video or music, though I do use it for pictures sometimes. If I lived in a big city, this would be different, as I’d probably be taking the train to work and have lots of time to kill. But as it is now, I drive everywhere so that doesn’t leave much time for sitting around and doing things with the phone.

On to the main question–Do you respect Media Snackers? I’d have to say yes, because I think we have an insatiable thirst for knowledge and always want to do more in less time. You’ve got to admire people who are curious and always creating and consuming and not just sitting around and doing nothing.

But being a Media Snacker is often tough. Most of my friends don’t see the point of reading 50 blogs a day or keeping up with every piece of news I find interesting. And to some extent, they have a point. I’ve actually tried to cut down on my snacking, so I actually can focus on getting things done, instead of just consuming new information. Sometimes you have to limit the amount of information you take in, since more information does not always lead to better work and better decisions. You have to focus your snacking, so you’re getting the right stuff and not a bunch of junk.

Now I have to tag 5 people to keep the meme going (not like it depends on just me though) I’ll go with:

• Pat Coyle
• Darren Heitner
• David Armano
• Darren Herman
• Leland Maschmeyer

Don’t forget that the 4th edition of the Sports Business Carnival will be up here on Monday. You can submit an article here. Come back and check it out!

Widgets are poised to revolutionize the web experience (and eventually they will be popular on cell phones, too. Alltel’s LG AX8600 comes with Celltop, an application that utilizes widgets and won CTIA’s Best in Show Award.) Essentially, widgets are any third party application that can be embedded in a webpage, or downloaded and kept on someone’s desktop. There are so many possibilities here it’s hard to just describe a few. But I’ll try anyways.

A bar or restaurant could offer people widgets that let them keep up with the nightly drink and food specials. Instead of having to call or visit the restaurant’s website, people would get automatic updates through widgets. You might say people who won’t even visit a website to get a special are extremely lazy, but why shouldn’t a business make it easier for people to find out about them?

Grocery stores can advertise their specials and discounts by taking advantage widgets (They could even save money on printing costs and reduce the amount of hard copies of coupons). Media companies can offer video snippets as samples to get people interested in their shows. Individuals can use widgets to expand their spheres of influence and reach more people. To echo, my last post about Twitter opportunities, the possibilities are endless.

This blog was widgetized using Widgetbox.

I could imagine big companies using something like this (that would update automatically) to see what’s going on at each of their offices all over the world at any given time. Or a company like Starbucks could set something like this up and customize it based on what kind of drink someone buys. So they could have it show them who all is buying an orange mocha frappachino at any given time all over the world–not sure why people waste money on those expensive drinks but you get my point.

Personally, I’d like to see a mashup of this with sports scores all over the world. Or wave reports for surfing. The possibilities are endless….

If you stalkers out there can’t get enough of Facebook to keep up with what your friends are doing, check out Twitter. Twitter is defined by Wikipedia as “a social networking and micro-blogging service,” but it’s basically like having a cross-platform away message that can be updated almost anywhere. You can send in updates to your Twitter profile page via the Twitter website, your cell phone or instant messenger.

To better explain what Twitter is, you have 140 characters to answer the question, “What are you doing?” For example you might say, “Trying to hit the fairway at Chapel Ridge and avoid being struck by lightning” if you were golfing yesterday like I was. When you update your Twitter, your friends can opt to receive notifications and you can be notified when they update theirs. You can see what they’re doing and they can check to see what you’re up to. Twitter has definitely tapped into the viral power of blogs, too, enabling people to add Twitter widgets to their blogs and websites so others (and non-Twitterers) can see what they and their friends are doing.

I decided to try Twitter and see what all the buzz is about, so I’ll be updating my Twitter regularly over the next week. For all you stalkers out there, this is your free pass into my world. Seriously though, I think it definitely will prompt some interesting questions, beyond what I’ve already begun to wonder.

As we are more and more connected to the world we live in via email, cell phones, Blackberries, instant messaging, social networks, etc, etc. this begs the question–How much is too much? Personally, I don’t really care what most people are doing every minute and hour or their lives, even if they are my friends. Then again, if a bunch of my friends started twittering, I could see myself getting caught up in it.

As these new social networking sites and connection tools have arisen, they bring into existence new forms of social currency, or cool points. For example, you can already make some basic assumptions about someone (18-24) that’s on Facebook and has less than 50 or 100 friends–they probably don’t have many REAL friends either, and aren’t fun to hang out with (nevermind the fact that maybe they were a late adopter and never bothered to add many of their friends, or they are trying to be a “rebel” and not have a lot of Facebook friends). There’s cool and uncool Facebook profiles too, and people (myself included) make judgments about others based only on one page that may or may not reflect how they really are.

Another question is how will Twitter affect politics? Politicians are already getting involved and I stumbled upon Barack Obama’s Twitter page almost immediately after signing up. Will a politician be seen as more “in touch” with the younger people if he has a Twitter? Will many people read it? As of this writing, Obama has about 2,500 “followers.” Will this influence voting? Will people read the Twitters of all candidates, not just the candidate they support? Does Obama actually update his Twitter or does someone do it for him? All burning questions, which I could comment on but will save for another time. I’ve written too much already and would love to hear any thoughts you had about Twitter and this stuff.

I’m not sure to what extent the days of the “huge hit” are numbered, but there’s no denying the power of The Niche these days. We’re probably still in the beginning stages of seeing a bunch of niche-oriented social sites pop up everywhere. Even the Arena Football League has its own social network–more importantly, does anyone care?

I wonder if the rise in The Niche is due to demand or just because we can find it, since we have so much information at our fingertips. Probably some of both.

What’s really interesting to me is that despite the abundance of niche-oriented media, there are a few Huge Hits, which are the opposite of niche–for example, American Idol, which is still popular as ever. I wonder if there’s still a place for the Huge Hit or if they’ll become less and less frequent and eventually die out, because the amount of options we’ll have will continue to increase, leaving us with more niche choices and less time for the Huge Hits.

From the makers of Habbo Hotel (www.habbo.com) comes Mini Friday (http://minifriday.com/about/) a virtual world designed to work on Nokia phones. As of now, it’s just a simple bar setting, but as phones become more loaded with features and storage, why not give people to opportunity to check out virtual worlds through their phones…

The power of user-created content speaks for itself and according to Tapscott, major brands are taking advantage of this concept in creating new, innovative products and services. P & G will soon have 50% of all its new ideas coming from outside the company, Tapscott says.

It will be interesting to see how brands will attempt to control the marketplace of ideas. One area that many brands have yet to realize that they can’t/shouldn’t control is the world of blogs.
Blogs are by nature irreverent, spontaneous, and fun, though some companies have insisted on trying to censor comments, create fake blogs and misuse them to their advantage. Ultimately, however, the truth will come out and the remarkable brands will be the ones that listen to customers, acknowledge their mistakes and improve. They will create products and services that will enrich their customers’ lives, not just market things that help their margins. As the spread of ideas increases and more companies become transparent and ask for customer input, the brands that aren’t remarkable will slowly die and be forgotten.

There’s got to be a way to create more demand and exclusivity surrounding a movie release. What if a brand “owned” or sponsored a huge film- a Lord of the Rings or something like that with a huge demand–and created a movie “tour” similar to a music tour. The movie would only be shown in 1 city at a time and the “band” (a few of the actors/actresses) would travel to each city with the film. The movie could be shown in venues like the RBC Center (set up for a capacity of around 10,000) and ticket prices would be similar to concert ticket prices ($100+ each).

There would be a huge demand for these tickets, as it would be the only way to see the movie in a particular city (maybe until it is released to the public a few months later, or maybe the ONLY way to see it). The show would start with some dialogue between the actors/actresses. Then, the movie would be shown, along with some of the special features you might find on a DVD (but with the real life actors talking about it onstage).

There is definitely potential for $$ here. Say the movie tour hits 100 cities (1 show per city) and 10,000 people attend each show at $100 per ticket. That’s reaching a million people total and selling $100 million in tickets. You could play with the numbers to raise ticket prices or increase # of shows to bring in even more money. Plus you could create exclusive merchandise (posters, autographed items, DVDs of the show with special features, etc) and maybe get a cut of concession sales. Also, there could be other sponsors for the Movie Tour and the main sponsor could receive money from them.

I know this is a pretty rough idea, and I have no idea what the cost of building a tour like this would be, but I wonder if this could be a way for a brand to create something special for its customers and make some money.

By now you’ve probably heard about the online virtual world called Second Life, which boasts around 900,000 “residents” and uses virtual money that is based on real money. It’s been featured in BusinessWeek and some big brands and ad agencies have jumped into SL recently. A few examples are Leo Burnett, IBM, Starwood Hotels and Sony/BMG.

On October 19, Starwood’s Virtual Aloft Hotel will open with a performance by Ben Folds. That same day, Sony/BMG will open it’s public space in SL.

IBM is throwing a virtual block party that you can read about here.

It’s still pretty hard for me to wrap my head around the idea that people spend so much time “living” in these virtual worlds. But I guess if there’s a market, there’s a business, and the brands that can figure out how to integrate into Second Life and other virtual worlds will be a step a head of the others–or at least they hope so.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

After final numbers for 2005 showed the largest box-office dip in two decades, movie theaters are looking for other ways to attract an audience. Theater operators are already exploring the idea of screening live 3D sports in their theaters by 2007, and new technology is being developed so you wouldn’t have to wear the 3D glasses to see in 3D (it involves filming the game with two digital cameras spaced the same width as human eyes, or something, but I won’t get into that). Just as sports arenas host concerts and other events on non-game days, theaters are investigating ways to generate more revenue during the middle of the week, when there is a decline in ticket sales.

Sports have been shown in theaters before, but not on the scale that we could see in a few years. Here are two examples of screening live sports in a theater:

In 2004, during Boston Red Sox’s playoff run—the year they won the World Series for the first time since 1918—National Amusements, the controlling shareholder in Viacom, began screening high-definition broadcasts of Red Sox games in its Showcase Cinemas in several New England cities on weekday nights. The cinemas brought in vendors to stroll the aisles with hot dogs, peanuts and beer, sold team gear in the lobbies and encouraged fans to loosen up as they would in the ball park. A spokesperson for the theater said, “the experience is more important than what you’re showing.” National Amusements had no problem securing rights to screen games because the Red Sox organization controls the New England Sports Network that broadcasts the team’s games in the region.

In 2006, Raleighwood, a small theater in Raleigh, screened a few of the Carolina Hurricanes’ playoff games on one of their screens. Admission was free, as long as you bought food/drinks. Fans really got into the experience, and many dressed up in jersey’s and generally acted like they would if they were at the game—screaming, cheering and cussing. The theater offered fans free cookies from a local bakery and gave all fans that were there for the final game two free movie tickets. I watched a couple games there, and and the viewing atmosphere was much better than your average sports bar.

Sports in theaters sounds like a great idea, but there are a couple challenges, the main one being that it is unclear who exactly owns the rights to broadcast sports in theaters. In the Boston Red Sox example, National Amusements had no problem securing rights to screen games because the Red Sox organization controls the New England Sports Network that broadcasts the team’s games in the region.

Another challenge is that people who don’t go to games live often go to sports bars. Bars have a lot more going for them–food, beer, rowdiness—than most theaters do. Personallly, I had an awesome time watching the Canes’ games on the movie screen, and I think this will be an interesting development over the next few years.