Is it Internet buzz if you read about it in the straight media, hear about it on television?  Isn’t that why it’s important to BEGIN WITH, that it’s happening OUTSIDE the system, and if you co-opt it and try to amplify it do you add to the buzz or are you just reporting a narrow phenomenon?  In other words, can the straight media INCREASE Internet buzz and does it create worthwhile buzz unto itself?

Newspapers need stories.  As do television programs.  People selling stuff know this, so they constantly feed these traditional news outlets.  You’d be surprised how many seemingly-newsworthy articles have been placed by publicity agents.  So, a film studio looking to promote its new flick notices a bit of buzz on the Net, and then tells everybody in the straight media and it’s a STORY!  Or is it?

Now if you just want people to check a site out, straight media can do a job.  But how effectively?  When the "New York Times" covers Web stories in the Business section on Saturday do readers fire up their browsers or just digest the information?  In other words, do people learn about what’s going online OFFLINE?

A bit.  But not really.  Online you hear about sites from your friends, via e-mail, via IM.  Or you’re referred by sites you trust.  INHERENTLY, old media is out of the loop, so it has VERY LITTLE EFFECT ON WHAT GOES ON ON THE WEB!

It appears that the Net hoopla over "Snakes On A Plane" didn’t really exist.  For if it did, grosses for the flick would have been MUCH HIGHER!  There WAS awareness, but not INTEREST!

Compare "Snakes On A Plane" to "Da Vinci Code".  Both got shitty reviews, but people went to see "Da Vinci Code", because they were INTERESTED.  The hype for "Snakes On A Plane" was akin to driving by a car wreck.  You took a look, but you didn’t want to stop.

How many times will this scenario play out before straight media hype is revealed to be what it truly is, hype.

But it’s not only a question of straight media trumpeting a Web phenomenon, the question arises whether you can BUILD a Web phenomenon.  Whether you can truly drive traffic, or does it happen SPONTANEOUSLY?

Look at the O.K. Go YouTube videos.  They weren’t driven by any hype/effort by Capitol Records, the PUBLIC latched on and spread the word.

The age of manipulation is dying.  Oh, it will never disappear, but when you read the stories about deals with MySpace and other Websites know that it’s old farts feeling powerless in the new age and looking for SOME way to break bands.

But in a world where you can hear EVERYTHING, and you can on the Web, why settle for the CRAP?

Labels can hype their priorities all day long, but no kid’s gonna forward a link if he doesn’t like the music.  It’s not like the days of yore, with the narrow gatekeepers of MTV and radio resulting in a closed world from within which the public had to choose.

If "Snakes On A Plane" had been good, it would have done well in theatres.  But there was nothing to make people believe the flick was any good, so they stayed home.

Now you know why major media is scared.  The RULES are different.  It’s less about the sell and more about the product.  And the sell can be perfected, but the product can’t.  And this is very worrisome for those who employ the old rule book.