Mass High Tech Blog

By Rodney Brown

In my usual early morning perusal of the wire services, I came across this headline: “Authorities Credit Digital Billboards with Capture of East Coast Rapist.” Of course I had to click on it -– the idea that somebody in PR and marketing thought linking the East Coast Rapist to their product was a good idea could be as bad as the Kenneth Cole Egyptian protest tweet.

As it turns out, there really was a compelling story contained in the release. Within five days of the federal authorities putting what little information they had about the suspect in the East Coast Rapist case on digital billboards along highways like Route 95, they had a tip that led them to collect a publicly discarded cigarette butt that matched DNA from multiple rape cases. If you have been following the news on this, the suspect, a long-haul trucker named Aaron H. Thomas, was arrested last Friday in New Haven, Conn.

The problem is that the release came from the Outdoor Advertising Association of America and contains self-serving quotes from the association. Now that, of course, happens all the time. And nobody would look with disfavor on any release in which some organization tied its members’ products or services to any normal event — a presidential visit or an entertainment event like the circus. But when such an association is made with a horrific or tragic event, that release becomes not just run-of-the-mill self serving, but truly distasteful.

But it doesn’t have to be. If that message had been first told to me by, say, 60 Minutes, or even Wired, as a fully reported piece, I would have been fascinated. It could have been exactly the kind of behind-the-scenes “bet you didn’t know” type of story we all love. But having it crowed by the mouthpiece organization for the industry taints it with the biofilm of distasteful self-promotion.

This comes surprisingly close on the heels of a panel I was on for the Publicity Club of New England last week. Along with other media types and a couple of marketing execs, we talked specifically about the use of social media in product launches. But of course the topic veered into the more generic area of “what is PR doing wrong” from the media standpoint. Kudos to the PR industry attendees who put up with our –- OK, mostly my -– rants about the problems with the PR industry. And here is one big one. You are not the right messenger in situations connected to unpleasant events. We are. And your story can be told — often told well — by the media, which would get the story out while washing away that unpleasant stain of callous self-promotion.

The next time you have a wonderfully compelling story that is connected to an truly unpleasant topic like the one the OAAA has, call your favorite media contact and tell her about it –- get her excited about it. If you don’t do that, your message will not get anywhere near the level of exposure it could have otherwise, entirely because of the sense of callous self-promotion it will engender in the journalists that are the target. And that does a disservice to your client, or to your boss if you are an in-house marketer.

To be clear, this isn’t an appeal to the OAAA to give me their next such release in advance –- they are outside MHT’s New England coverage area and it isn’t really the kind of tech story we would do because it isn’t a business story. But it is the kind of fascinating glimpse at the use of tech that we all can’t get enough of –- if it comes from the right source.

By James Connolly

Yes, I’ve watched man versus machine on Jeopardy! the past two nights. Yes, Watson is very impressive. However, I’ll argue that the brain of the average human — not to mention that of any genius — is still superior to what Watson has to offer.

First, credit to IBM. Watson, like other computer advances before it, represents a huge step beyond what was thought possible even a few years ago because of the level of reasoning. If you haven’t seen the gameshow, Watson is taking on two of Jeopardy’s past champions and is taking text input of a phrase, parsing the words and coming up with probabilities for three possible answers. A voice simulator then reads the top answer aloud. Looking beyond a TV show, think of the possibilities down the road for applying this technology to things like online technical support for consumers or, as IBM suggests, analyzing a patient’s symptoms in a medical scenario.

What Watson is doing on the show, however, is incredibly fast analysis of a single phrase or sentence. In most cases he was right, crushing his human competitors. Of course when he was wrong, he was really wrong. All of us mere humans could snicker when Watson shifted O’Hare and Midway airports from Chicago to Toronto. Stupid computer, the question was about a U.S. city.

So, what makes us so smart? Watson’s brilliance is in how he (it?) cranks through a single problem using essentially one input (text) and one output (voice simulation). Humans are the ultimate multitaskers.

Think about how much processing your brain does the next time you are driving through your neighborhood. Thinking about work. Listening to the radio. (Not texting, thank you.) Tree over there, I think it’s a maple, can’t wait for spring. Right foot on the gas with just the right amount of pressure. Speed limit is 35, going 30-something. Glance at mirrors, nothing out of the ordinary. Seeing a car coming down a side street to your left (Stopping? Not stopping? Driver paying attention?) Touch the brake or not? Other car is stopping, no need to hit the brake. Shaw’s or Hannaford’s to get stuff for dinner? Chicken or beef?

Sound familiar? It’s all in a matter of seconds. You are doing all of that, processing input from senses, drawing on memory, reacting if necessary, in the time it takes Watson to answer just one question about which painter did which work of art. And, Watson isn’t even looking at Alex Trebek to see if he has that smug everyone-knows-this-one look.

This is your brain. It’s pretty cool.