Isabel Walcott Draves

Barefoot Contessa Cupcakes

I made the Barefoot Contessa coconut cupcakes this weekend with the Stone-Buhr flour Josh sent.  They flew off the plate at my birthday party.  I noticed something interesting while looking for the recipe online, that reminded me of the Creative Commons license.

Someone posted the recipe on their blog, changed the amount of one ingredient, and didn't credit the Barefoot Contessa, Ina Garten.  Someone anonymous consequently wrote in the comments section, "This looks just like the recipe from the Barefoot Contessa, except she uses 3/4 cup buttermilk and cooks them differently" -- the commenter then proceeds to explain the cooking method given in the cookbook.

I also noticed some places where individuals had posted the recipe, and it had been taken down.  I wondered whether they had been asked to remove it by the Barefoot Contessa's company.  Probably not, but it wouldn't be outside the realm of possibility for a company to ask customers to stop spreading the word about how much they love their product (free advertising!).  The Barefoot Contessa's website wisely does not feature all their recipes, just a selection.  The idea is you will discover one you like, and buy the book to get the rest.

The thing that really interested me is that people don't see posting Garten's recipe as dishonest.  Making the recipe "open source" is more of a compliment, and bakers  are likely to perceive accessing the recipe for free as a right (even though the proprietor may prefer to "own" the "intellectual property").

What's publicly recognized as dishonest, though, is listing the recipe as if it was your own, and not giving credit where credit is due.  If you try it, eventually, a fellow netizen is going to call you on it.  "That's not yours, it's the Barefoot Contessa's."  That's why all the Creative Commons licenses start with "Attribution" as the essential copyright.

To learn more about Creative Commons licensing for your intellectual property, check out their site.  (The frosting recipe is included here).

Open-Source Content, Open-Source Marketing

Lately, publishers have been struggling with fledgling efforts at open-source content. For instance, while the Washington Post had to turn off the comments feature on the ombudsman's blog in January, other editorial blogs there remain open for comments. 

(A digression: From what I have seen, many of these comments tend to pick on the writer's poor typing, spelling, and grammar skills. Hmm, maybe writers need editors after all?  That's a new thought for the blogosphere.  Someone could start a company to help edit bloggers, for a per-post fee of course.  Combine that with a reputation system so readers can comment on what blog posts are best, and before you know it, you have a newspaper!)

First-time glitches aside, it is an appropriate, credible, even expert marketing (or editorial) technique to give stakeholders a say in the product (or help make the content).  As we know, there are several ways to interpret the words "Open-Source", with one being that the code or "recipe" is able to be seen (or "open"), and another being that the provenance or origin of the work is communal or collaborative (or "open").

Here's a nice example of both open-source marketing and open-source content: Sony's website http://thedavincichallenge.com , which quite brilliantly creates a forum for those who disagree with the message of the book The Da Vinci Code.  Conveniently, all the experts asked seem to have a similar message: hate the book and the movie, but read it and see it so you can discuss them with those who love them.  A boycott, one of the anti-experts states, tends to draw more attention to the movie, and draw negative publicity to your cause.  The site is clearly "managed", but it's a decent way to open up the floor for comment that may not be favorable.  Anyway, it's fair to manage collaboration, which can get really messy.

I continue to believe that it is worthwhile to engage your detractors in public discussion as a marketing technique!  I heard the other day that yet another company stopped advertising in a newspaper that published a negative story about them.  This happens all the time in the magazine world.  When you stop participating in the conversation, you have lost the battle.

CartoonBank at the New Yorker

I just had a thought about a previous post wherein I said that companies are excited about viral marketing so they hope that someone will "pass a cartoon around".  Then I noted that the real key to open-source marketing was to get customers involved in marketing and product development.

So, this reminded me of the New Yorker's great idea to hold weekly "caption contests" where their customers get to write captions for their cartoons.  The New Yorker is getting free content development, and tons of regular website visitors (did I win?).  They're also getting new readers, and I bet folks are virally spreading the meme to their friends since they can only submit one caption (Dad, will you submit this caption for me?).

Open-source content makes for great Word of Mouth marketing.  Now, I'm defining open source here as a process in which everyone can see the inner workings of the creation process.  That doesn't mean there's not somebody in control (judges, for example, who choose the winning caption).  I'm not talking about a free-for-all, or even "democracy".  Just an open, participatory process that allows non-employees to have some great ideas that see the light of day.

Disclosure: Edelman does PR for the Cartoon Bank, but I'm not involved with that at all and that's not why I'm writing about this.