Friday, October 3, 2008
Gimme That Wink Sarah Palin
Is this viral vid sexist if it is pointing out someone using her sex appeal to curry favor? And, since we're looking at this, how does someone debate for 90 minutes with a piece of hair in their eye? Aquanetteed hair at that?
Famous Person: Palin Nailed the Debate. Ooooops!
No comment from me, just check out the person cited for the laudatory quote for Sarah P's debate performance. Yes, it says "Famous Person".
Harvard Study: Wealth and SF Don't Mix...
Adam Bergman aka Ryan Digicrest has a great post on some Harvard research that proves what we Bay Area denizens know on the last day before a pay period -- SF is a lousy place to build personal wealth.
While wealth and money are not the same thing, they are related, and paying $1500 a month for rent makes it significantly harder to do the whole wealth thang. You'll have to click over to his site to see the top and bottom five results.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
While wealth and money are not the same thing, they are related, and paying $1500 a month for rent makes it significantly harder to do the whole wealth thang. You'll have to click over to his site to see the top and bottom five results.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Ved.io Goes Beta: Breaking the Video Screen Barrier
I want ot take a few minutes to tell you about Ved.io, a new video sharing service that lets users pair a variety of content forms with video, launched I could take four paragraphs trying to explain this in digispeak, but let's try a picture and a single sentence:
Ved.io pairs a video with your choice of content in a real time tandem ad that runs next to the video. Click to enlarge:
Now, perhaps if you know a little about the video ad biz, you'll be surprised that a start-up is using the concept of a tandem ad as its core differentiator. After all, in the ad biz, tandem ads are pretty much on the way out.
But let's dig a little deeper. The whole reason why tandem ads were created in the first place was to provide a both a place for more advertiser info to live, more persistently, and to give users a place to click. That was before the vid screens themselves were clickable.
In the context of UGC, or in a larger sense, annotation, the tandem content area lets people add additional info or react to what's being said in the video in real time. That's an awesome concept. It lets the viewer see the vid while also consuming additional information simultaneously. It's the ultimate in multitasking media.
So what can go in that square? Well, quotes, text, pictures, or even a link. That's the rudiments of it. But what it MEANS is that you get to add documentation, editorial, supporting imagery, or any other form of content that can aid in the experience.
Here's an example from the footage of the debate last Friday, when McCain and Obama were asked what are the lessons of Iraq (click to enlarge):
On this case, the content on the right can help voters or even journalists better interpret the answers to this important event.
Now, on the other hand, one could also put a picture of Homer Simpson "D'oh" photo the next time that...to take a purely hypothetical example, a VP candidate makes a gaffe.
I really do like the idea of this. Head on over and check it out for yourself!
The beta offering is free - premium services are on the way.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Ved.io pairs a video with your choice of content in a real time tandem ad that runs next to the video. Click to enlarge:
Now, perhaps if you know a little about the video ad biz, you'll be surprised that a start-up is using the concept of a tandem ad as its core differentiator. After all, in the ad biz, tandem ads are pretty much on the way out.
But let's dig a little deeper. The whole reason why tandem ads were created in the first place was to provide a both a place for more advertiser info to live, more persistently, and to give users a place to click. That was before the vid screens themselves were clickable.
In the context of UGC, or in a larger sense, annotation, the tandem content area lets people add additional info or react to what's being said in the video in real time. That's an awesome concept. It lets the viewer see the vid while also consuming additional information simultaneously. It's the ultimate in multitasking media.
So what can go in that square? Well, quotes, text, pictures, or even a link. That's the rudiments of it. But what it MEANS is that you get to add documentation, editorial, supporting imagery, or any other form of content that can aid in the experience.
Here's an example from the footage of the debate last Friday, when McCain and Obama were asked what are the lessons of Iraq (click to enlarge):
On this case, the content on the right can help voters or even journalists better interpret the answers to this important event.
Now, on the other hand, one could also put a picture of Homer Simpson "D'oh" photo the next time that...to take a purely hypothetical example, a VP candidate makes a gaffe.
I really do like the idea of this. Head on over and check it out for yourself!
The beta offering is free - premium services are on the way.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Digital Two-Footed Blended Scotch
Make sure you check out Chris Schwarze's post about the new Johnny Walker mobile app for Singapore. A great analysis of a very intriguing consumer app. It's a tool to help Formula One fans find going out places in Singapore -- places which, I am guessing, often sell Johnny Walker.
As Chris points out, this app has an appealing array of features, while connecting the brand to "the rich man's auto racing" is surely brand enhancing.
Me Likey.
As Chris points out, this app has an appealing array of features, while connecting the brand to "the rich man's auto racing" is surely brand enhancing.
Me Likey.
Thursday, October 2, 2008
POV Thursdays: Q&A With Robb Topolski
It’s difficult to know where to begin in providing a short intro to this Q&A exchange with Robb Topolski. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, I am sure you know the name. Robb was the citizen who exposed Comcast’s secret blocking of BitTorrent traffic to its customers. He is also the man who produced the study that questioned both the processes and policies of NebuAd and the ISPs that worked with it (or planned to work with them.
Robb is an unlikely celebrity. His background is highly technical, and he doesn’t live in a key news media market. The research he does doesn’t sound bite well. Yet somehow he causes tremendous change in the digital arena.
What I think makes him so compelling is his passion and his sincerity. Robb does what he does because he believes it is the right thing to do. Whether or not you agree with his POV, it’s important that we in the digital marketing industry really listen to the issues he raises. I say that because digital marketing techniques are a new world in terms of the technological sophistication required to entirely understand them.
So with that intro, here are Robb’s answers to the questions I thought might interest you. I am grateful to him for his willingness to participate. He often talks to national media, but I am pleased that he was willing to share his views on this, the digital marketing industry’s version of The Golden Girls’ Shady Pines Retirement Home.
Can you tell us a bit about your background – what makes you adept at sleuthing business practices like those of Comcast and NebuAd?
I don’t know if this would be cause or effect, but I learned to read music before I learned to read anything else. I was picking out tunes on a Hammond organ when my Mom and a music teacher bartered lessons for – I think – dog grooming! I’ve always had an eye and ear for algorithms, protocols, and other transactional sequences and an insatiable curiosity and enthusiasm for technology. In the early 70s, I was programming screen-less computers using paper tape for input and teletype for output.
Even with that geeky foundation, I’ve always had an inclination to service. My Dad was a veteran, a volunteer firefighter and a Little-League umpire. I would have defiantly denied it at the time, but he taught me the rewards of service. I was a Boy Scout, and later an Explorer Scout Leader, community sports coach, I did my own stint in the military, and I’ve been a music leader both in church and the Barbershop Harmony society.
I’ve followed your advocacy efforts for years, from the beginnings of the Comcast/BitTorrent issue on through your more recent activities re NebuAd. And the first thing that strikes me is that you spend A LOT of time and energy pursuing these issues. What drives you to do so?
The Internet allows everyday individuals to issue their unique perspectives, showcase their art, offer their products, or follow their interests. In a sense, that’s what I’m doing. But I’m especially motivated because, in the history of mankind, there are only a few moments in human expression that rival this one – perhaps the invention of the printing press, the radio, or the postal system comes closest.
The Internet itself is the ultimate people-helping-people Open Source project. The protocols and standards that allow it to work are given and maintained for free by people who have poured their best into it. That’s worth enabling others to participate in it. If threatened by a bad actor, it’s worth defending.
How do you choose what you research and expose?
I don’t choose. If it’s important and relevant and I’ve spent some time on it, I just put it out there. Who knows, it might save someone time and aggravation months or years later.
I put out my findings about Comcast in May 2007 and they sat, mostly dormant, until August when a major blogger picked up on them. My approach to the Comcast case was, “Hey, here’s something that’s not supposed to be happening!” It essentially was a simple complaint that I made publicly because it was being denied by Comcast and it was reproducible.
At first, I figured that someone at Comcast made a boneheaded decision and, once I explained why an ISP ought not to do that, they’d just say, “Hey, you’re right, we’ll fix that.” I just thought someone at Comcast made a well-intended, poorly-executed goof. But things started to pile up. Sandvine’s use was unknown among Comcast’s own tech-support people – so if any customers had any complaints about it, they were ignored. Comcast then issued flat denials about it, even to go as far to suggest that my testing didn’t amount to anything (not that they ever asked me to demonstrate it to them). I then knew this was going to be one for the long haul.
As it turns out, I wasn’t the first person to notice the strange things that happened when users tried to upload using Comcast – I was the first person (outside of their inner circle) to figure out what was causing the disconnections.
Similarly, my being very familiar with how the Internet and its technologies work was what led me to look at NebuAd. Customers were reporting that cookies were mysteriously appearing on their platforms. I knew that something very unusual had to be causing that, since browsers will only accept cookies under limited circumstances. I found the injected JavaScript nearly immediately, but I spent many hours over many days trying to make it happen in a scenario where I controlled both the browser and the server (so that I could isolate it). Apparently NebuAd had this thing wired down to the IP addresses of Google and Yahoo because I couldn’t fake it out. So I had to raise the issue with Google, and they were very helpful and appreciative and confirmed that they weren’t responsible for the injected script. Case proven.
One of the questions I hear a lot from marketers relates to how ISP-based BT differs from what I am going to call “regular BT”, meaning the approach used by most ad networks in which they track activities on the pages where they serve ads. Can you tell me about why the ISP based approach is more troubling to you? Or isn’t it?
Let me start by saying that my objection is not about the advertising. My objection is having an ISP be complicit in “tapping” the line. We don’t let people listen in on non-broadcast radio signals and disclose the contents of those communications, we don’t accept that behavior on our telephone lines, why would we accept that on our Internet connections? And it’s not like the ISPs and NebuAd didn’t know that users would object -- that’s why they disclosed “under the radar” by quietly changing the legalese that nobody regularly scans for changes.
Secondly, an Internet Service Provider is selling access to a brand – Internet. It is a set of standards that are open and agreed-on and interoperable protocols. Just like a fast-food joint can’t sell Kool-Aid as Cola, an ISP can’t sell something as “the Internet” when it has changed the formula. On the heels of Comcast screwing with the TCP protocol to tear down connections, we had NebuAd doing the same thing to inject a script. NebuAd did this to fake-out the browser into doing things that its security precautions would normally prevent.
In both cases, the issue was that the ISP did something it ought not to be doing. It’s not an objection about how a website or an ad network does Behavioral Targeting across a variety of sites.
How is what NebuAd did different from how the portals collect our online travels using a toolbar like Google Toolbar?
Users who are extremely sensitive about their privacy would never install those toolbars. But some people do, and I have. The Google toolbar, the Alexa toolbar, or Compete’s toolbar – all these things are applications that “spy” in plain sight. You invite them onto your computer, and you can remove them. They exist in a frictionless environment – if the user doesn’t like the intrusion, they’re gone in one moment. Users can disable or uninstall the unwanted application and their surfing information is no longer being shared. The user remains in control and loses essentially nothing for revoking his permission to be tracked.
Embedding the spying device into the ISP changes everything. Most homes in the United States are served by one or two broadband providers. If your only broadband provider is letting a third-party tap your line, the only choice is to do without. (Under the NebuAd model, opting-out only stops the targeted ads – NebuAd is still presented with all of your data – opting completely out was impossible.)
Many people have focused on the idea of robust notice as the key issue with NebuAd and the ISPs, but it doesn’t seem to me that they did anything different in that regard than millions of web sites are already doing when they work with an ad network. Is there a difference in your view, or is it all problematic?
Up to this point, I think that most ad networks worked in a way where a user retained control in a normal way. Users could turn off scripting, block hosts, erase cookies – and for the most part, privacy-conscious users acting like normal privacy-conscious users can successfully avoid tracking (or avoid building a significant profile).
The NebuAd model was not avoidable by privacy-conscious users. It tracked users regardless of their desire. The opt-out didn’t protect them and the opt-out cookie went away when users cleared their cookies (which privacy-conscious users do).
Just a word about “Robust” notice -- Remember that NebuAd claimed that it required robust notice, but the only ISP that I know of which actually provided prior and assertive notice was that big NebuAd ISP that never got started – Charter! The rest of them slipped NebuAd in under the radar or notified their users after the investigation began.
Boiling it all down, how much do the privacy issues you see online relate to our use of opt-out versus opt-in models?
I think that “Opt-In” is the argument winner for your industry. How can anyone object on grounds of “illegal,” or “unethical,” or “non-standard” when the user has specifically and truly optionally requested to do whatever it is you’re doing? Embrace truly informed “opt-in” and all these regulatory or lawsuit risks go away. Now, it’s not a true “opt-in” if you’re not clear. Don’t tell me boldly that you’re a “security” application when you’re also quietly selling the click stream out the back door. Opt-in means I’m fully informed and completely free to decline without losing something that I already have.
Opt-Out as implemented today just won’t work. It’s a “sounds-good, does-nothing” solution. It’s the kind of non-solution that causes users just to reject all advertising.
What are your views on the proposed NAI guidelines for BT?
I think that industry best-practices are very useful and that membership and participation in such groups is part of being an active part of your community. I think that calling for “Opt-In” use of DPI is the right call. The application of DPI on the Internet is still very immature and the rush to beat the competition might trample discretion.
Do you think a federal privacy law would be beneficial to consumers? To business? Is it practical to create a valuable privacy law in a rapidly changing technological environment?
Right now the privacy laws are here-and-there. Consumers wouldn’t know where to start or finish looking for the laws that apply to their situation. Business is afraid that changing these patches of laws into some kind of unified “quilt” would change things. They’re right – it will change things. But who is more used to change than your industry? You’re always either leading it or following it. So, what else do they have to be afraid of?
One of the biggest challenges I feel as a marketer is how to make decisions on marketing tools that are increasingly technical –difficult for lay people like me to understand. It’s tough to know what questions we should be asking. Can you provide thoughts on what questions marketers need to ask in order to stay on the right side of preserving user privacy?
What would my mother think of this?” is the question people should ask. If she would object, it’s probably wrong on some level. Are you having to “color” or oversell the description of what you’re doing? Are you having to bury the disclosure? Those are all signs you’re on the wrong side of the fence.
Why is it important to focus on digital business practices versus offline practices? Since reputable digital marketing technologies don’t collect PII, aren’t they LESS DANGEROUS to privacy than, say, the catalog industry or credit bureaus that routinely collect, use, and share PII?
You’re making the case for unifying these conflicting privacy laws, or at least trying to rediscover the principles or expectations that created the privacy laws we have. NebuAd missed the point, claiming that it was fine because it didn’t save any PII even though it saw everything you said and did (even PII if it happened to be in the data) when you thought you were interacting in privacy.
You’ve been very successful at documenting the questionable behaviors of very large and well funded companies. I am really amazed at your successes. What makes you so successful? How have you leveraged digital media to gain awareness for the issues you care about?
I’ve been privileged to work with others, including my clients Free Press and Public Knowledge, which are excellent in the fields that are their namesakes. They’re very interested in keeping the Internet a free and level marketplace, as are many of your readers (there would be a lot fewer online marketers if the Internet became a managed “walled garden” environment.)
My stock in trade about any subject is the set facts about it. I explain things in simple and historical terms and in ways so that others can repeat my steps and see the same results I saw. I use my real name. I avoid complication. I give both sides. I am passionate, but my value is my technical knowledge and ability, and I try and extend that to others.
It strikes me that whenever there is a controversy between privacy advocates and digital companies, the debate quickly devolves into personal attacks instead of directly addressing issues. Has this been your experience?
Yes, and it’s unfortunately contagious. We should all speak with facts and challenge our biases – or risk being challenged by both.
In closing, do you have any thoughts or advice for marketers concerned about both the ethical and legal aspects of online targeting technologies?
It’s not a war against advertising, please understand that. Don’t resist change, participate in it. You’re Internet users, too.
OK, one very personal and totally unrelated question: Is there any video online of one of your Funchords barbershop performances? ;-)
Unfortunately, because of the convoluted way that mechanical licenses work for music, I haven’t tried to clear anything that I could publish online. None of the quartets I was in ever bore the name “Funchords,” although all of my quartets have been more the up-tune and comedy variety. “One Bit Parody” was the work quartet (Intel – a play on the error-checking routine called parity), and we did company and non-company gigs both in and out of Oregon. “Spare Time” was the non-work quartet and we did local gigs and contests. The last song “One Bit Parody” ever sang together was Smile. This isn’t us, but it’s that song and we’re about that caliber -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6o-RKMVEZY
Robb is an unlikely celebrity. His background is highly technical, and he doesn’t live in a key news media market. The research he does doesn’t sound bite well. Yet somehow he causes tremendous change in the digital arena.
What I think makes him so compelling is his passion and his sincerity. Robb does what he does because he believes it is the right thing to do. Whether or not you agree with his POV, it’s important that we in the digital marketing industry really listen to the issues he raises. I say that because digital marketing techniques are a new world in terms of the technological sophistication required to entirely understand them.
So with that intro, here are Robb’s answers to the questions I thought might interest you. I am grateful to him for his willingness to participate. He often talks to national media, but I am pleased that he was willing to share his views on this, the digital marketing industry’s version of The Golden Girls’ Shady Pines Retirement Home.
Can you tell us a bit about your background – what makes you adept at sleuthing business practices like those of Comcast and NebuAd?
I don’t know if this would be cause or effect, but I learned to read music before I learned to read anything else. I was picking out tunes on a Hammond organ when my Mom and a music teacher bartered lessons for – I think – dog grooming! I’ve always had an eye and ear for algorithms, protocols, and other transactional sequences and an insatiable curiosity and enthusiasm for technology. In the early 70s, I was programming screen-less computers using paper tape for input and teletype for output.
Even with that geeky foundation, I’ve always had an inclination to service. My Dad was a veteran, a volunteer firefighter and a Little-League umpire. I would have defiantly denied it at the time, but he taught me the rewards of service. I was a Boy Scout, and later an Explorer Scout Leader, community sports coach, I did my own stint in the military, and I’ve been a music leader both in church and the Barbershop Harmony society.
I’ve followed your advocacy efforts for years, from the beginnings of the Comcast/BitTorrent issue on through your more recent activities re NebuAd. And the first thing that strikes me is that you spend A LOT of time and energy pursuing these issues. What drives you to do so?
The Internet allows everyday individuals to issue their unique perspectives, showcase their art, offer their products, or follow their interests. In a sense, that’s what I’m doing. But I’m especially motivated because, in the history of mankind, there are only a few moments in human expression that rival this one – perhaps the invention of the printing press, the radio, or the postal system comes closest.
The Internet itself is the ultimate people-helping-people Open Source project. The protocols and standards that allow it to work are given and maintained for free by people who have poured their best into it. That’s worth enabling others to participate in it. If threatened by a bad actor, it’s worth defending.
How do you choose what you research and expose?
I don’t choose. If it’s important and relevant and I’ve spent some time on it, I just put it out there. Who knows, it might save someone time and aggravation months or years later.
I put out my findings about Comcast in May 2007 and they sat, mostly dormant, until August when a major blogger picked up on them. My approach to the Comcast case was, “Hey, here’s something that’s not supposed to be happening!” It essentially was a simple complaint that I made publicly because it was being denied by Comcast and it was reproducible.
At first, I figured that someone at Comcast made a boneheaded decision and, once I explained why an ISP ought not to do that, they’d just say, “Hey, you’re right, we’ll fix that.” I just thought someone at Comcast made a well-intended, poorly-executed goof. But things started to pile up. Sandvine’s use was unknown among Comcast’s own tech-support people – so if any customers had any complaints about it, they were ignored. Comcast then issued flat denials about it, even to go as far to suggest that my testing didn’t amount to anything (not that they ever asked me to demonstrate it to them). I then knew this was going to be one for the long haul.
As it turns out, I wasn’t the first person to notice the strange things that happened when users tried to upload using Comcast – I was the first person (outside of their inner circle) to figure out what was causing the disconnections.
Similarly, my being very familiar with how the Internet and its technologies work was what led me to look at NebuAd. Customers were reporting that cookies were mysteriously appearing on their platforms. I knew that something very unusual had to be causing that, since browsers will only accept cookies under limited circumstances. I found the injected JavaScript nearly immediately, but I spent many hours over many days trying to make it happen in a scenario where I controlled both the browser and the server (so that I could isolate it). Apparently NebuAd had this thing wired down to the IP addresses of Google and Yahoo because I couldn’t fake it out. So I had to raise the issue with Google, and they were very helpful and appreciative and confirmed that they weren’t responsible for the injected script. Case proven.
One of the questions I hear a lot from marketers relates to how ISP-based BT differs from what I am going to call “regular BT”, meaning the approach used by most ad networks in which they track activities on the pages where they serve ads. Can you tell me about why the ISP based approach is more troubling to you? Or isn’t it?
Let me start by saying that my objection is not about the advertising. My objection is having an ISP be complicit in “tapping” the line. We don’t let people listen in on non-broadcast radio signals and disclose the contents of those communications, we don’t accept that behavior on our telephone lines, why would we accept that on our Internet connections? And it’s not like the ISPs and NebuAd didn’t know that users would object -- that’s why they disclosed “under the radar” by quietly changing the legalese that nobody regularly scans for changes.
Secondly, an Internet Service Provider is selling access to a brand – Internet. It is a set of standards that are open and agreed-on and interoperable protocols. Just like a fast-food joint can’t sell Kool-Aid as Cola, an ISP can’t sell something as “the Internet” when it has changed the formula. On the heels of Comcast screwing with the TCP protocol to tear down connections, we had NebuAd doing the same thing to inject a script. NebuAd did this to fake-out the browser into doing things that its security precautions would normally prevent.
In both cases, the issue was that the ISP did something it ought not to be doing. It’s not an objection about how a website or an ad network does Behavioral Targeting across a variety of sites.
How is what NebuAd did different from how the portals collect our online travels using a toolbar like Google Toolbar?
Users who are extremely sensitive about their privacy would never install those toolbars. But some people do, and I have. The Google toolbar, the Alexa toolbar, or Compete’s toolbar – all these things are applications that “spy” in plain sight. You invite them onto your computer, and you can remove them. They exist in a frictionless environment – if the user doesn’t like the intrusion, they’re gone in one moment. Users can disable or uninstall the unwanted application and their surfing information is no longer being shared. The user remains in control and loses essentially nothing for revoking his permission to be tracked.
Embedding the spying device into the ISP changes everything. Most homes in the United States are served by one or two broadband providers. If your only broadband provider is letting a third-party tap your line, the only choice is to do without. (Under the NebuAd model, opting-out only stops the targeted ads – NebuAd is still presented with all of your data – opting completely out was impossible.)
Many people have focused on the idea of robust notice as the key issue with NebuAd and the ISPs, but it doesn’t seem to me that they did anything different in that regard than millions of web sites are already doing when they work with an ad network. Is there a difference in your view, or is it all problematic?
Up to this point, I think that most ad networks worked in a way where a user retained control in a normal way. Users could turn off scripting, block hosts, erase cookies – and for the most part, privacy-conscious users acting like normal privacy-conscious users can successfully avoid tracking (or avoid building a significant profile).
The NebuAd model was not avoidable by privacy-conscious users. It tracked users regardless of their desire. The opt-out didn’t protect them and the opt-out cookie went away when users cleared their cookies (which privacy-conscious users do).
Just a word about “Robust” notice -- Remember that NebuAd claimed that it required robust notice, but the only ISP that I know of which actually provided prior and assertive notice was that big NebuAd ISP that never got started – Charter! The rest of them slipped NebuAd in under the radar or notified their users after the investigation began.
Boiling it all down, how much do the privacy issues you see online relate to our use of opt-out versus opt-in models?
I think that “Opt-In” is the argument winner for your industry. How can anyone object on grounds of “illegal,” or “unethical,” or “non-standard” when the user has specifically and truly optionally requested to do whatever it is you’re doing? Embrace truly informed “opt-in” and all these regulatory or lawsuit risks go away. Now, it’s not a true “opt-in” if you’re not clear. Don’t tell me boldly that you’re a “security” application when you’re also quietly selling the click stream out the back door. Opt-in means I’m fully informed and completely free to decline without losing something that I already have.
Opt-Out as implemented today just won’t work. It’s a “sounds-good, does-nothing” solution. It’s the kind of non-solution that causes users just to reject all advertising.
What are your views on the proposed NAI guidelines for BT?
I think that industry best-practices are very useful and that membership and participation in such groups is part of being an active part of your community. I think that calling for “Opt-In” use of DPI is the right call. The application of DPI on the Internet is still very immature and the rush to beat the competition might trample discretion.
Do you think a federal privacy law would be beneficial to consumers? To business? Is it practical to create a valuable privacy law in a rapidly changing technological environment?
Right now the privacy laws are here-and-there. Consumers wouldn’t know where to start or finish looking for the laws that apply to their situation. Business is afraid that changing these patches of laws into some kind of unified “quilt” would change things. They’re right – it will change things. But who is more used to change than your industry? You’re always either leading it or following it. So, what else do they have to be afraid of?
One of the biggest challenges I feel as a marketer is how to make decisions on marketing tools that are increasingly technical –difficult for lay people like me to understand. It’s tough to know what questions we should be asking. Can you provide thoughts on what questions marketers need to ask in order to stay on the right side of preserving user privacy?
What would my mother think of this?” is the question people should ask. If she would object, it’s probably wrong on some level. Are you having to “color” or oversell the description of what you’re doing? Are you having to bury the disclosure? Those are all signs you’re on the wrong side of the fence.
Why is it important to focus on digital business practices versus offline practices? Since reputable digital marketing technologies don’t collect PII, aren’t they LESS DANGEROUS to privacy than, say, the catalog industry or credit bureaus that routinely collect, use, and share PII?
You’re making the case for unifying these conflicting privacy laws, or at least trying to rediscover the principles or expectations that created the privacy laws we have. NebuAd missed the point, claiming that it was fine because it didn’t save any PII even though it saw everything you said and did (even PII if it happened to be in the data) when you thought you were interacting in privacy.
You’ve been very successful at documenting the questionable behaviors of very large and well funded companies. I am really amazed at your successes. What makes you so successful? How have you leveraged digital media to gain awareness for the issues you care about?
I’ve been privileged to work with others, including my clients Free Press and Public Knowledge, which are excellent in the fields that are their namesakes. They’re very interested in keeping the Internet a free and level marketplace, as are many of your readers (there would be a lot fewer online marketers if the Internet became a managed “walled garden” environment.)
My stock in trade about any subject is the set facts about it. I explain things in simple and historical terms and in ways so that others can repeat my steps and see the same results I saw. I use my real name. I avoid complication. I give both sides. I am passionate, but my value is my technical knowledge and ability, and I try and extend that to others.
It strikes me that whenever there is a controversy between privacy advocates and digital companies, the debate quickly devolves into personal attacks instead of directly addressing issues. Has this been your experience?
Yes, and it’s unfortunately contagious. We should all speak with facts and challenge our biases – or risk being challenged by both.
In closing, do you have any thoughts or advice for marketers concerned about both the ethical and legal aspects of online targeting technologies?
It’s not a war against advertising, please understand that. Don’t resist change, participate in it. You’re Internet users, too.
OK, one very personal and totally unrelated question: Is there any video online of one of your Funchords barbershop performances? ;-)
Unfortunately, because of the convoluted way that mechanical licenses work for music, I haven’t tried to clear anything that I could publish online. None of the quartets I was in ever bore the name “Funchords,” although all of my quartets have been more the up-tune and comedy variety. “One Bit Parody” was the work quartet (Intel – a play on the error-checking routine called parity), and we did company and non-company gigs both in and out of Oregon. “Spare Time” was the non-work quartet and we did local gigs and contests. The last song “One Bit Parody” ever sang together was Smile. This isn’t us, but it’s that song and we’re about that caliber -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6o-RKMVEZY
Is 4 Quadrants Still Meaningful? - Guest Post From Carat's Steve Peace
Through the use of media panel data, customer databases, custom surveys, online ad serving, and a host of other tools/technologies it has never been easier for marketers to use a data-driven approach to identifying segments of the population that are most likely to buy any particular product. Unless you are a movie marketer. In which case, you might want to try licking your finger and holding it up in the air to feel which way the wind is blowing.
Necessarily, there is heavy subjectivity involved in the selection of target segments for a film. Planning of a campaign takes place long before the film is complete, so the marketer is not able to test the product to discover who responds most favorably. Instead, they must rely on techniques such as reading the script, relying on genre for general targeting, or developing a list of comparable titles. There are weaknesses inherent in each of these approaches. But, a comprehensive discussion of those weaknesses will have to wait for a future post. Instead, in this post I’d like to address the use of four quadrant targeting in movie marketing.
Traditionally, movie marketers have divided the movie-going population into four quadrants, of men and women and people older or younger than 25 years old. Based on the targeting techniques mentioned previously, they choose which of those quadrants they believe will respond favorably for any particular film. This is a relatively effective strategy for mass communication vehicles. Although television buying has become more targeted with the addressability of digital cable and burgeoning program options, it is still mostly bought using mass market targeting designations, such as four quadrants. For the Internet, though, the concept of four quadrants has little meaning. Given the sophistication of targeting technology on the Internet, limiting oneself to a four quadrant targeting scheme is like relying on a telegraph when a cell phone is available.
As Internet budgets increase above their current 8% of total ad dollars, there is a strong case for retiring the concept. Competition in the movie industry continues to heat up. There are over 600 major releases a year and box office has been flat or declining for years. In such an environment it makes more sense to develop a finely honed definition of one’s target and concentrate resources, rather than marketing broadly to the same segments as your competitors and hoping that the film finds its own audience. By figuring out how to more effectively use targeting technology that is currently available through the Internet, it will prepare theatrical entertainment marketers for a time when addressability is more broadly available across all forms of communication. This is the future. Let’s embrace it.
Necessarily, there is heavy subjectivity involved in the selection of target segments for a film. Planning of a campaign takes place long before the film is complete, so the marketer is not able to test the product to discover who responds most favorably. Instead, they must rely on techniques such as reading the script, relying on genre for general targeting, or developing a list of comparable titles. There are weaknesses inherent in each of these approaches. But, a comprehensive discussion of those weaknesses will have to wait for a future post. Instead, in this post I’d like to address the use of four quadrant targeting in movie marketing.
Traditionally, movie marketers have divided the movie-going population into four quadrants, of men and women and people older or younger than 25 years old. Based on the targeting techniques mentioned previously, they choose which of those quadrants they believe will respond favorably for any particular film. This is a relatively effective strategy for mass communication vehicles. Although television buying has become more targeted with the addressability of digital cable and burgeoning program options, it is still mostly bought using mass market targeting designations, such as four quadrants. For the Internet, though, the concept of four quadrants has little meaning. Given the sophistication of targeting technology on the Internet, limiting oneself to a four quadrant targeting scheme is like relying on a telegraph when a cell phone is available.
As Internet budgets increase above their current 8% of total ad dollars, there is a strong case for retiring the concept. Competition in the movie industry continues to heat up. There are over 600 major releases a year and box office has been flat or declining for years. In such an environment it makes more sense to develop a finely honed definition of one’s target and concentrate resources, rather than marketing broadly to the same segments as your competitors and hoping that the film finds its own audience. By figuring out how to more effectively use targeting technology that is currently available through the Internet, it will prepare theatrical entertainment marketers for a time when addressability is more broadly available across all forms of communication. This is the future. Let’s embrace it.
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
RealScoop and the Believability Meter Reveal Who's Telling the Truth!
Tech Crunch turned me on to RealScoop, a very shiny web object that I really am mesmerized by. Essentially it is a sort of audio lie detector called a Believability Meter, that lets you analyze a piece of audio or videotape to determine if the speaker is lying.
Yep, you heard that right. We don't need Maury or Montel to do the lie detecting anymore. Just a webcam with decent audio will do it.
The meter, which is said to be based upon technology used by the military and law enforcement, analyzes over 100 components of someone's sqwawkings, providing insight into the veracity of the statements.
Here are a couple of tasty ejemplos:
Apparently they are going to dissect the VP debate with this. How cool is that for a political junkie like me. Perhaps it will reveal once and for all if Palin CAN really see Russia from her house!
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Yep, you heard that right. We don't need Maury or Montel to do the lie detecting anymore. Just a webcam with decent audio will do it.
The meter, which is said to be based upon technology used by the military and law enforcement, analyzes over 100 components of someone's sqwawkings, providing insight into the veracity of the statements.
Here are a couple of tasty ejemplos:
Apparently they are going to dissect the VP debate with this. How cool is that for a political junkie like me. Perhaps it will reveal once and for all if Palin CAN really see Russia from her house!
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
WalMart DRM Debacle
Ah, Wal-Mart, the company everyone loves to hate (and then buy their Pantene from for $1.19. Well, there's a big of a web kerfuffle over the WalMart DRM music service. Now, if you bought MP3s, all is well, and you can go back to watching Two and a half men. But if you have purchased WMAs, you're in a mess a trouble.
So what does that mean? Well, if you bought WMA format music from WalMart, the DRM verification services will no longer work after October 9. Meaning that you will only be able to listen to them on the computer from which you purchased them. Otherwise, they no workie.
Here's the explanation from ReadWriteWeb:
DRM restrictions ties all of your songs to your computer. To sum things up, customers will now have to back-up all of their downloads or risk losing them all. Because of the DRM restrictions on these files, you won't be able to transfer their music anywhere else. If you were to reinstall your operating system or simply purchase a new computer, Wal-Mart's shutdown of their DRM server would prevent you from taking your music somewhere else.
Yahoo Music buyers went through all this a while back. Fortuinately they gave people a partial refund. Will Bentonville?
Are you loving DRM right now?
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Business on Second Life: We Lurve It. We Hate It. We Lurve It!
Our industry is so buzz driven. We see something shiny. We all immediately run toward it with twinkling eyes and breathless anticipation. Surely this shiny bauble will be THE THING that will transform our digital world and make it all hunky dory.
Six months later, the thing is revealed to be just another thing -- perhaps a cool thing, sometimes an effective thing, but a human-created thing, not a splendiferous genie's creation.
And then we run, we sprint, fleeing the not quite so new thing as if it were a form of airborne botulism. Ptewwy! How could have been so deceived by the evildoers that created it. Why, it's almost as bad as AOL dialup! Eek! Run for your lives!
And then sometimes, after a discreet interval, we see that some of the once wide-eyed former consorts, people who later ran away in disgust, quietly return with realistic expectations, and checkbooks.
Such is the story of Second Life. As I sit typing I am simultaneously reading a Fast Company article entitled The Second Life of Second Life. In it, writer Arianne Cohen reminds us of this quote from the creators of SL, Linden Labs. They made this back when the lemming were fleeing.
Our focus has been to build technology that enables users and then stand back and watch what people do, instead of supporting a particular use of Second Life.
-Glenn Fisher, Director of Business Programs, Linden Labs
The point of the article is that marketers used SL incorrectly -- that the correct use is to foster one on one communication. The article quotes Joni West, an SF based designer who was the brainchild behind some of the most effective efforts in the environment. And her philosophy is summed up in this awesome quotation:
I describe the mistake companies made like this: Imagine you've never been to Manhattan. You cross the George Washington Bridge, and someone hands you a guidebook. The first place you're going is not the Reebok store.
Go here immediately and read this excellent article.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Move Over Warcraft. Here Comes EA's Warhammer Online
OK, so that headline is a little deceiving. Warcraft continues to break all records with both the number of people playing, how much they play, and how long they keep active in the community.
But EA's WarHammer Online is also breaking records. It's only been out for a week and EA is reporting over 500,000 players active on the site. Certainly among the most anticipated games of the year, WarHammer Online's week one sales are, it is believed the highest ever for an MMORPG. And the reviews is good. Looks like we're in for a steel cage bout in the world of massive multiplayer.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
White Paper WEDNESDAYS: The Social Web Unboxed
Wayne MacPhail made this excellent survey of web 2.0 available at Slideshare. Through the miracle of embeds, you can enjoy this great deck right here!
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
White Paper WEDNESDAYS: Social Platform Wars!
Yep, I've moved the day to Wednesdays. And to get it started, I am flagging a preso especially for the ADD-afflicted. A ONE SLIDE explanation of the three major social platforms and their arsenal in the platform wars. Enjoy!
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
My Brand Day
I wish I could say I thought of this but a number of bloggers are doing it. A blogger named Jane Sample I believe was the first. But the illustration below graphically depicts all of the brands that I interacted with during the past 24 hours. I have omitted toilet paper brands because knowing my cycles on that score is just too much PII. And yes, my life is this boring, especially on a school night.
Click to enlarge.
Make yours and send it to me! Especially if your life is even more boring than mine. I'll publish it here, and invite you over to speak baby talk to my pup.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Click to enlarge.
Make yours and send it to me! Especially if your life is even more boring than mine. I'll publish it here, and invite you over to speak baby talk to my pup.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Wired Reports: Google's Dark Side
Ah yes, "Do no evil." Remember those words? The guiding principels fo Google? The statement that seemed to say that they were truly different from other companies? Well, the Goo is public now. Wired reports in its October issue that Goo CEO Eric Smith "recently 'clarified' that policy, saying it was simply meant as a conversation starter. 'We don't have an evil meter.' Peruse the readings from Wired's evil meter here.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
News Flash: Canadian Club IS Your Father's Oldsmobile. And Proud Of It!
There has been a giant change in how cool works in America during my lifetime. When I was little, among adults there was really only one flavor of cool, and frankly cool and personal success were inversely proportional after a certain age. Meaning that successful people pretty much tried to ape the preppy look and set of behaviors. Those that sought a flashier lifestyle may have had money but were denied social status in the class system.
All this, BTW, is only my view, and only relevant to Caucasians. I am not sure how it worked for other races and cultures.
Now there are a million flavors of cool. I am frankly too old to know all the names of these, but on a recent trip to the Mission I saw rockabillies, punks, blue collar chics, Abercrombies, a group of people that I am told are called Emos, even a couple of Irish expats affecting the chavvy look, which really hasn't made much of a dent this side of the pond.
In short, the formula for cool has changed markedly.
And since the alcoholic beverage business rides on cool, it's become standard practice that today's hot brands are tomorrow's untouchables. The traditional brown liquor brands have taken it on the chin of late. Partly, in my view, because of this generational effect and partly because the nature of cool, of social "arrival," no longer looks to Westport for inspiration. Preppy is now the refuge of an increasingly small group. Much to the chagrin of The Talbots. Heck, when Abercrombie and Fitch, a brand that I remember as an Orvis like fly fishing outfitter, markets itself with soft core porn pics of models just barely on the right side of legal -- when Brooks Brothers ads feature a dredlocked African American exec (what WOULD they say at the club?) it's clear that venerable ads have had to adapt.
But back to brown liquor. In my view the two stodgiest brands in the category are Seagram's VO, and Canadian Club. Both are rather popular in the retirement towns of Florida, but to my knowledge I have never seen a bottle of either at a party I've been to.
So what do you do if you are Canadian Club? Well, you celebrate yourself as Dad's favorite drink. Check it out:
All this, BTW, is only my view, and only relevant to Caucasians. I am not sure how it worked for other races and cultures.
Now there are a million flavors of cool. I am frankly too old to know all the names of these, but on a recent trip to the Mission I saw rockabillies, punks, blue collar chics, Abercrombies, a group of people that I am told are called Emos, even a couple of Irish expats affecting the chavvy look, which really hasn't made much of a dent this side of the pond.
In short, the formula for cool has changed markedly.
And since the alcoholic beverage business rides on cool, it's become standard practice that today's hot brands are tomorrow's untouchables. The traditional brown liquor brands have taken it on the chin of late. Partly, in my view, because of this generational effect and partly because the nature of cool, of social "arrival," no longer looks to Westport for inspiration. Preppy is now the refuge of an increasingly small group. Much to the chagrin of The Talbots. Heck, when Abercrombie and Fitch, a brand that I remember as an Orvis like fly fishing outfitter, markets itself with soft core porn pics of models just barely on the right side of legal -- when Brooks Brothers ads feature a dredlocked African American exec (what WOULD they say at the club?) it's clear that venerable ads have had to adapt.
But back to brown liquor. In my view the two stodgiest brands in the category are Seagram's VO, and Canadian Club. Both are rather popular in the retirement towns of Florida, but to my knowledge I have never seen a bottle of either at a party I've been to.
So what do you do if you are Canadian Club? Well, you celebrate yourself as Dad's favorite drink. Check it out:
SO there it is. Don't dispute that it was your Dad's drink. That won't work. You saw him drink the stuff three times a week in an after work cocktail. (BTW, that was YOUR Dad. Mine liked Beefeaters and drank sparingly. But that is neither here nor there.) What you do is you reposition your Dad.
OK, so I admit it is a little "your strategy is showing," but I think it has promise. First, it makes the brand base feel good, celebrating their coolness. And it offers that contrarian message that is the favorite of the crowds of "individuals" that make it a point to do the opposite. Let's call them the Costanzas for the rest of this post.
I particularly like the tag. Damn right your Dad drank it.
I went to their site -- and I must say that I never thought I would see the day that I would visit the Canadian Club website, and they have a nice make your own ad app. A way for you to celebrate your own Dad.
I hope it works. I like brand renewal, and anything that makes you younguns remember that we were all rebels once. Except for me, but I chose to rebel against rebellion. That, BTW, makes me the antiCostanza.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Klatcher: Turn Your Expertise Into Profit
We all have expertise, and it'd be great if we could turn it into profit. That we be rewarded for our knowledge. If we so choose.
That's the idea behind Klatcher, a NYC based new site started by Sophotec VC Inc., which is based in the UK Midlands.
It's a pretty simple model, actually. You publish virtually any form of content, and set a price for it. Which can be free or whatever you want. A previewing system allows you to give people a taste of the content -- to hook 'em as it were.
So you can think of it as a content store, but there is another way to view it: as a text and multimedia blogging platform that offers an alternative monetization strategy to Ad Sense, blogger banners, and PPP.
Here is their self description from their web site. It was free so I am not denying them revenue by publishing it here, outside their system.
Klatcher makes your content sell.
Klatcher is the easiest and most effective way to publish your stories, photos, ideas, knowledge, artwork or music. And to start selling it in one click to the world. If you want.Its more fun than blogging, because it’s freer, more colorful, and easier. It’s more rewarding than working on your social networking profile, because with Klatcher you can express yourself faster and broader than on facespace or Mybook.And it earns you more money than any other monetization system. Because your readers love it.We know it’s hard nowadays to choose a platform. And we will fight for you. If you don’t like anything, write us, and we will take of it - asap. So give it a try! It’s free, and so easy you will become more creative than ever.
So, how viable is a pay for content model. Well, we all know that more people have failed than succeeded at selling content. But some have succeeded. Like WSJ for example. Now WSJ is perceived to offer truly unique and valuable content, and a democratic model may indeed draw participants that can offer words pictures, videos, and sounds that people will pay for.
In my view, it's a craps shoot, but that's OK. As you will see below, they are looking for a fairly small sum of money - $150K, to operate for a year.
Here's the 60 second pitch from Tech Crunch:
In keeping with the spirit of Klatcher, they have created a variety of pieces of content on their service and how to use it. All are free. Go here to see them.
I really do wish them well. I love the idea of enabling people to monetize their knowledge, and surely there is an alternative to the Ad Sense avenue of making money by publishing content online. Will it work? I dunno. But this team clearly has passion for their concept. And passion is 51% of the battle, in my view.
And I like the name. I can only assume it is related to a Klatch, as in a Koffee Klatch. So imagine that you're watching KoffeeTawk on SNL...
Consumas will be willing to pay for awnline content. Discuss.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
ChosenList: For Craigslist Users Who Are Ready For Their Closeup
If there is one thing that Craigslist has proven, it's that utility outranks site attractiveness in the minds and hearts of millions. Craig Newmark's vision of a mostly free online classified site, supported by rather affordable job ads, has transformed the classified business and sent newspapers scrambling willy nilly online trying to figure out a way to pick up the ad slack.
As you know, the site is...no...defines Spartan. Blue links on white. Well organized, eminently useful, but not what you would call a visual feast.
Except that it is. It's just that your feasting on words and offers and products and jobs and all that. Not to mention some of the odd personals of people seeking horizontal dates. ;-)
So ChosenList enters the market with a proven revenue model but with a twist of being focused on video ads. It's that simple, Craigslist, but with the opportunity to make video ads to bring your item (or the item you covet) to life.
Now, those of you with dirty minds need to know -- there are no personals or missed encounters or erotic services available on this site. I know, I checked. ;-) But that probably makes sense if you are a start up trying to offer a set of services to the general pop. Porn and VC money don't mix too well. Though doubtless there are VC porn investments.
Here's how they explain themselves:
ChosenList.com’s mission is to provide a safe online destination for individuals and companies to promote their products and professional services, share videos, look for a new job and socialize with community members that have similar interests.
ChosenList.com capitalizes on the phenomena of YouTube, CraigsList and other popular web sites that allow users to use online technology to list and browse classified ads and upload videos with one very big distinction – ChosenList.com only permits safe, clean content.
Founded in October 2006, ChosenList.com, LLC is a media-rich company connecting buyers and sellers through video classified ads, discounted employment ads and a video-enabled social community. With the “right” mix of business, technology and community visionaries, the company leaders have created an online gathering place that respects the need for a community to access quality content and the ability to interact with quality people. The company headquarters are in Scottsdale, Arizona.
And here is their 1 minute elevator pitch from Tech Crunch.
I have to believe that the appeal of this will be directly tied to age. If you are under 30, I bet your intrigued. If not, I bet you wouldn't bother. At least not today. Three years from now we may all be a wandering around videoing everything. But right now, videoing is more the province of those born in the 80s and 90s. And perhaps the 2000s. ;-)
Oh anyway, it's certainly intriguing. I have covered several video classifieds and video UGC ad and other video ad start ups, and they all impress me as something the may catch on. The jury is still out. It will be more than interesting to hear their verdict.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Change Round Up: Proof Positive That Every Little Helps!
One certainty in my world view is that people mean well. They may not always actually do well, but most people try to be a positive force for change in the world.
Giving to nonprofits is a powerful way that people try to make their positive mark. But lots of people give less than they might actually want to because they might not be able to afford a donation that they feel matters, or they may just not get around to it in their lives of work, schlepping kids to t-ball, and the like.
Change Round Up is a phenomenal concept that connects nonprofits and retailers in a collective effort to get billions of small donations from consumers -- donations they can afford and are very happy to provide.
It works like this. You're buying something, and the bill is 43.11. The web site asks you if you would like to round up the change to the nearest dollar and give the difference -- 89 cents in this case -- to one of the charities that the retailer chooses to offer as options. According to their info, Change Round Up sees donation attach rates of up to 70%.
But what good is 89 cents??? Well, actually the donation is 80.1 cents because Change Round Up charges a 10% fee to run their systems, pay their people, and make a little dough. Well, 80.1 cents doesn't buy much, but millions or even billions of 80 cent donations add up to real money.
My Keep the Change Savings account with B of A is proof positive. I've had it for about three years and have something like $2K as a result of rounding up bills and saving the difference.
Here's their Tech Crunch 60 second pitch:
As you heard, their vision is not for just online retailers. In fact they hope to expand their model to catalogers and other categories of the hundreds of billions of transactions in the US every year.
The retailer wins with a warm and fuzzy factor.
The consumer winds because they get to give in a way that works for many people's lives.
The consumer winds because they get to give in a way that works for many people's lives.
The nonprofits win by growing new revenues and beginning to form relationships with new donors.
And Change Round Up makes a good profit with an eminently reasonable 10% cut. For perspective, 10% is a LOT less than it costs to raise money -- even in major gift programs.
I wish I had a louder megaphone to support this company. Cuz this makes me smile.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Start-Up Brand Jury and The Citizen Kane of Yogurt Commercials
When I started in advertising before the beginning of recorded history, I worked at a variety of agencies. And we always feared consumer feedback on our ads -- well, maybe that's a little too sweeping. Actually, what we feared was copy testing. McCollum-Spielman, and the dreaded ARS test.
We also feared client reaction to consumer letters. While I never worked on the brand Yoplait, I had friends that did, and they created one of the most remarkable pieces of advertising I ever saw, called "Nothing on the bottom." The ad was basically 30 seconds of seeing cute butts walk away from camera, dramatizing the dieting benefits of eating the yogurt, while simultaneously making the prestirred characteristic of Yoplait a benefit. For you see, many people [thought they] preferred the fruit on the bottom Dannon brand. But Yoplait was the yogurt with "Nothing on the bottom."
Nothing butt natural.
Nothing butt low fat.
Nothing on the bottom...
And that's the end of that!
Sadly, that was the end of that.
The story goes that the ad contained one baby's naked tuckus, and a handful of users were offended. They wrote, and the campaign, which I will editorialize and say was the Citizen Kane of yogurt advertising, was killed after one flight. Now, there were other reasons why the campaign died, notleast because Yoplait actually had a fruit on the bottom offering. Though it was a tiny fraction of their total sales But in my opinion sometimes you have to overlook this tiny fraction of a strategic misfire for copy genius. Cuz genius it was.
So what does this have to do with the start up Brand Jury? Well, nothing and everything. Because what brand jury is is a community of opinionated people and brands -- a community where consumers can sound off about ads, handing out kudos or raspberries. But wait, there's more! that same community gives viewers the opportunity to make their own ads -- using concepts that they consider better than the pro version submitted by the brand.
Here's their indisputably inventive Tech Crunch Elevator Pitch:
It's sort of twisted, eeh?
But regardless of that, I love this concept, because it creates what I feel will be a far better way to collect consumer feedback about brands. A mechanism not driven by bizarre testing methodologies, or write-in campaigns from Concerned Citizens for a Misguided Definition of Decency. Rather, people that care -- whether for positive or negative reasons -- can provide a host of comments about a concept, and truly enrich brand understanding as they solidify their own brand relationships.
Brand Jury is in private beta, and I am not in yet. But I'll be writing more when I am.
And if the creative people working on Yoplait are reading this, maybe that fine assy campaign can be resurrected. Because it was worthy of a yogurt Clio!
In the meantime, enjoy this funny bit of Yoplait-inspired UGC:
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Glam Buys Codex Media: Fashion and Beauty For St. Pauli Girls?
German women need glamor too, apparently. Glam just bought the German women's ad network Codex Media.
Glam has its fans and its detractors. There are those that think their success and network are absolutely remarkable, and those who feel the company is on the wrong side of hyperbole. They are, without question, very passionate about reporting growth figures and lording their size over women's mainstay iVillage.
The valuation for glam has historically been astounding -- its success is one of the key drivers of the ad network mania that swept our industry over the past 12 months. Everyone wanted a piece of the money machine.
Buying Codex seems a very good idea to me. It's got a nice foundation in the German speaking world. And Glam's content will have great impact in German, I'm guessing. St. Pauli Girl sure as heck needs new togs. Not to mention a new do. But at least she isn't all weight-obsessed-protruding-clavicle.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Monday, September 29, 2008
From Reuters: John Durham On The Effects of the Economic Downturn on Digital Ad Spend
Great interview of an even greater guy. I am grateful every day to be able to work with him.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Fellow Digital Marketers: Have We Become The Enemies of Privacy?
Privacy is very important to me. Call it a typical Boomer trait, or something else. I don't care. But I am also a believer that the bills have to be paid. And in a digital environment in which consumers are not willing to pay for most content, we need to recognize that 80 cent untargeted CPMs are not going to pay for the array of content types consumers want.
Concepts like BT are essentially a trade off of better content for our non PII behavior data points. Some would call that an aspect of privacy. And certainly some people worry, rather understandably I might add, that in an environment of government "guidelines" you can drive a truck through, it's challenging to believe that companies will always behave honorably.
I like the idea of the NAI -- of companies making a concerted effort to set some standards that are clearer than the squishy FTC stuff, which it appears was written to provide everything short of actual standards.
But the problem with ONLY self regulation is that not all companies are in the NAI, and the potential for abuses is very high when there is no set-in-stone set of rules, the violation of which would yield jail time.
Frankly, I want some jail time rules. I want a set of rules that governs disclosure so that we know the limits of technologies, policies, and processes that drive ROI. And I want to see people who end up doing things that are against such laws end up behind bars. Because the stakes are too high to let self regulation govern what could well be gross violations of privacy.
I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that many jurists, particularly of the sort appointed by Republicans, who do not feel that the US Constitution provides privacy protections beyond those enumerated in the Bill of Rights. A document, I remind you, that was authored more than 200 years ago when the most advanced information source was a four page broadsheet newspaper. SO I would LOVE a privacy law that put that sort of thinking in check.
The sort of laws I seek would define what disclosure means in an opt-out scenario.
The sort of laws I seek would outlaw the collection of an enumerated set of sensitive information categories. Health, DNA, identity, legal behaviors, etc.
The sort of laws I seek would govern HOW data are collected.
The sort of laws I seek would govern how long information can be stored.
The sort of laws I seek would make it illegal to take acceptable forms of non PII and use them to reverse engineer PII.
There was and is some talk of such laws in Washington. I am not optimistic that that talk will continue after the election. But perhaps I will be pleasantly surprised.
But let's go a little deeper -- returning to the title of this post. I was recently at a panel discussion in which four industry leaders communicated four ideas that I found disturbing when they were juxtaposed in the three minutes or so it took to communicate all of them:
1. BT does not add value consumers understand. Targeted ads are not a consumer meaningful benefit.
2. BT does add value, consumers just could never ever ever ever ever see it. So Opt-In would never work.
3. Consumers are becoming mroe tolerant of cookies and other forms of tracking.
4. If consumers knew we were collecting the info we are collecting, they would be terrified. So, in the context of BT, we actually take steps NOT to target consumers as precisely as we can.
The bundle disturbed me individually as well as collectively.
1. I agree that targeted ads have no consumer value in most cases.
2. I take issue with the idea that consumers are stupid, or that the indirect value of free content is a concept that is beyond their understanding.
3. I think consumers hate all this tracking. You can show me all the studies you want that dispute this. As a researcher I assure you that someone could create a study that proved ANYTHING a company or organization wanted proven. You have to look at who is paying for a study, and how the questions were worded.
4. The deception in the fourth sentence is precisely the reason why consumers don't trust all this tracking.
Collectively the statements seem contradictory, and yet they appear to be the tenets of our industry.
And the underlying deception in these statements is repugnant in a world where we constantly talk about the need for transparency online.
Transparency works. Which, in my book, means that someone should be able to develop an opt-in model that gives consumers so much value that they will be happy to offer up information for the components of value that they desire. Consumers would opt in if they really could make INFORMED choices about what was traded with whom.
And until we meet that challenge, we are going to see a lot more companies and technologies go the way of NebuAd, which spent a lot of VC money on a model that is DOA. Because consumers ARE smart enough to recognize something wrong when they see it. And because companies have to make choices in very squishy arenas when there are no actual, you know, rules to live by.
Yes I get it that the world is constantly changing and that it would be nigh on impossible to make a law that would work forever. But here's the thing. We could always change the law. Update it. Make it reflect new technologies. Just because something is hard, doesn't mean we should walk away from the challenge. Or cede the concept of privacy, making hopeful noises about expecting people to behave honorably but doing little or nothing to define what that means exactly.
Look, companies are out to make money. Their behavior is checked by laws and regulations -- stuff that defines acceptable commercial behavior.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Clickjacking: A New Kind of Digifraud We Should All Be Worried About
Info on clickjacking is deliberately sketchy but as I understand it, the idea behind clickjacking is that a hacker would offer a sort of invisible button that would take you to the destination of their choice when you click. You THINK you are clicking on something you see on the screen, but the click actually takes you somewhere else.
It places a tag below your mouse, wherever you point, so that when you click you go to the destination of their choice.
From http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=16&articleId=9115700&intsrc=hm_topic Computer World article:
Hansen's research partner, Jeremiah Grossman, chief technology officer at WhiteHat Security Inc., explained how attackers could exploit clickjacking vulnerabilities.
"Think of any button on any Web site, internal or external, that you can get to appear between the browser walls," Grossman said in an e-mail on Friday. "Wire transfers on banks, Digg buttons, CPC advertising banners, Netflix queue, etc. The list is virtually endless and these are relatively harmless examples. Next, consider that an attack can invisibly hover these buttons below the users' mouse, so that when they click on something they visually see, they actually are clicking on something the attacker wants them to."
Hansen seconded Grossman's example with one of his own. "Say you have a home wireless router that you had authenticated prior to going to a [legitimate] Web site. [The attacker] could place a tag under your mouse that frames in a single button an order to the router to, for example, delete all firewall rules. That would give them an advantage in an attack."
Hackers would not need to compromise a legitimate site in order to conduct a clickjacking attack underneath it, Hansen added.
Those that discovered the vulnerability are voluntarily staying mum about the details until protections can be created. Until then, we can only hope that what we see is actually what we clicked.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
It places a tag below your mouse, wherever you point, so that when you click you go to the destination of their choice.
From http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyId=16&articleId=9115700&intsrc=hm_topic Computer World article:
Hansen's research partner, Jeremiah Grossman, chief technology officer at WhiteHat Security Inc., explained how attackers could exploit clickjacking vulnerabilities.
"Think of any button on any Web site, internal or external, that you can get to appear between the browser walls," Grossman said in an e-mail on Friday. "Wire transfers on banks, Digg buttons, CPC advertising banners, Netflix queue, etc. The list is virtually endless and these are relatively harmless examples. Next, consider that an attack can invisibly hover these buttons below the users' mouse, so that when they click on something they visually see, they actually are clicking on something the attacker wants them to."
Hansen seconded Grossman's example with one of his own. "Say you have a home wireless router that you had authenticated prior to going to a [legitimate] Web site. [The attacker] could place a tag under your mouse that frames in a single button an order to the router to, for example, delete all firewall rules. That would give them an advantage in an attack."
Hackers would not need to compromise a legitimate site in order to conduct a clickjacking attack underneath it, Hansen added.
Those that discovered the vulnerability are voluntarily staying mum about the details until protections can be created. Until then, we can only hope that what we see is actually what we clicked.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Tumblr Takes Blogging for a Quick Tumble
I have been remiss in writing about a company called Tumblr, a website that seems to be staking out a position in between bona fide blogging and the snippetology of Twitter.
They call it Tumblogging, and the idea is to increase the ease at which consumers can make posts to a personal presence. By enabling users to build a personal soapbox via traditional blog entries, mixed media, photos, vids, whatever they might want to use to express themselves and their opinions.
There is a real need for this, I think. One of the blogging realities is that while tens of thousands of blogs start every DAY, I'm guessing that the average number of posts made on those new blogs is 1.000000000001. Blogging is hard work -- take it from someone who averages about 40 posts a week. It takes me about 25 hours a week to keep u this presence. Now, I do it because I love it, but most people will not have the time or inclination to make this kind of commitment to a blog. They lose interest because a blog entry is a big commitment of time.
But people really WANT to express themselves, and to do so in an ongoing dialogue instead of some sparkly social network profile that ultimately limits expression to snapshots and song choices.
People need to be able to say more. In words, in video, in music, and yes in photos. And this is generational. One thing I so admire about young people in their twenties is the ability to multitask, to communicate whole ideas in seconds as they simultaneously consume other ideas.
The downside to that,in my opinion, is an inability to focus on issues in a deep way. Which we can argue. But I'll win. ;-) Anyway, perhaps the way to think about this is generational. Maybe blogging is for older farts like me. And Tumblr is for the younger set. Whether you agree with that hypothesis or not, I'll wager that if you visit the Tumblr site, you'll agree with me that this is a great concept.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Vox: Making Blogs More Attractive and Private
Like Tumblr, Vox takes another tack at blogging, this time with a focus on ease of use and privacy.
Both features are absolutely needed. With hundreds of millions of blogs (though many sitting there with only one or a couple of posts)there is clealry room for segmentation. And making blogging easier is a welcome innovation.
But let's focus first on privacy. The idea that every post anyone makes is intended for a global audience is silly. How is it possible for children to blog safely in this environment? How is it possible for people to share family stories with other family members? Email is all well and good, but it lacks a certain privacy, and it makes it far harder to include photos and other forms of non text content.
So that's that. Now let's go to ease. Different blogging platforms have different strengths. Blogger for example is easy peasy but is more limited in its feature set than Wordpress, for example. Vox, however, takes easy to another level.
Another Vox strength is in the broad range of designs available. To use more than the dozen and a half templates in Blogger, you need to mess with HTML, which is clearly beyond the interests of most people.
Here's the Vox sell copy on design and ease of use:
Vox is the only service that combines words, images, music, books, audio and video. Your life is more than just text. Finally, a place that makes the "video" setting on your digital camera something more than an extra feature you never use. And, of course, all your rich-media items have Vox's fine-grained privacy options built right in.
Hey, it's another blogging platform. There are well over a dozen major ones. Which one is right for you depends on what you want. But Vox is definitely worth a look, especially if privacy and attractiveness are high on your list.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Medialets Goes Android: iTastic!
As you know I have a lot of heart for what the people at Medialets, the iPhone ad network specializing in deeper and more engaging marketing experiences in apps are doing. Well, as you can tell from the headline, it is no longer appropriate to call them an iPhone Ad Network, because they are quickly broadening their offerings. Their announcement last week of a beta test of new Android analytics and ad offerings is big news for both the company and the Android initiative.
I was fortunate enough to meet two of the founders two weeks ago at their offices in NYC. CEO Eric Litman and VP Marketing Rana Sobhany were kind enough to tell me about the short and remarkable history of this outfit, which went from that metaphorical back of a cocktail napkin concept to a broad array of analytics and offerings in about a month. Their passion is infectious, and it was very clear to me that their vision was a lot larger than being one of the six or so ad networks for iPhone apps.
Medialets Chairman and CEO Eric Litman
Medialets VP Marketing Rana Sobhany
The announcement of Android analytics and ad offerings must be welcome news to every carrier but ATT. The iPhone is really a transformative device that positioned ATT at the center of what may well become a revolution in how, when, and why we use phones. It does so, ironically, by essentially allowing developers to sidestep that absurdly draconian development and approval process that has historically limited innovations in cellular. Here's an excerpt from Eric Litman's blog post on this topic:
The world of mobile changed when Apple introduced the App Store. Historically, developers have had to contend with lengthy, often expensive negotiations and certification procedures with carriers to bring their applications to market, and more often than not, the challenges of working in that environment have limited the number and quality of developers willing to undertake the effort. With the App Store, the process has been reduced to a simple submission and review cycle.
Combining that with centralized discovery, distribution and payments for applications has led to a new model for mobile app developers that significantly opens up the possibility of building sustainable - even venture scale - businesses around mobile applications. But the App Store is just the beginning. Google was quick to recognize the power of this distribution model and earlier this year announced their own App Marketplace, which like Apple’s App Store, bypasses carriers and lets developers market directly to consumers through the Marketplace.
Android offers similar opportunities for other carriers. It'll get the carriers out of their own way in the race to drive innovation and differentiation in the category. More from Litman's blog post:
Mobile operators not selling the iPhone today need strong, competitive offerings to convince consumers to buy something other than the iPhone. Much like we’ve seen historically on game consoles, many future mobile phone purchases will likely be influenced by the applications available for the platform. Android and the App Marketplace give carriers a potentially viable alternative to the explosive application market for the iPhone, and with the might of Google behind the platform, we may see development activity that equals or even surpasses that of iPhone developers.
It is naturally welcome news for developers as well, because they will be able to make things for Android, and indeed port their current iPhone offerings to Android. More installs means more use occasions means more money through ad support! Means more development, natch.
I am inspired to see how rapidly this company is making moves and getting things done. We need drivers like Eric and Rany in mobile so that perhaps...just perhaps...we will finally have that year of mobile marketing that the industry has been promising since about the time that the Constitution was signed in 1789.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
I was fortunate enough to meet two of the founders two weeks ago at their offices in NYC. CEO Eric Litman and VP Marketing Rana Sobhany were kind enough to tell me about the short and remarkable history of this outfit, which went from that metaphorical back of a cocktail napkin concept to a broad array of analytics and offerings in about a month. Their passion is infectious, and it was very clear to me that their vision was a lot larger than being one of the six or so ad networks for iPhone apps.
Medialets Chairman and CEO Eric Litman
Medialets VP Marketing Rana Sobhany
The announcement of Android analytics and ad offerings must be welcome news to every carrier but ATT. The iPhone is really a transformative device that positioned ATT at the center of what may well become a revolution in how, when, and why we use phones. It does so, ironically, by essentially allowing developers to sidestep that absurdly draconian development and approval process that has historically limited innovations in cellular. Here's an excerpt from Eric Litman's blog post on this topic:
The world of mobile changed when Apple introduced the App Store. Historically, developers have had to contend with lengthy, often expensive negotiations and certification procedures with carriers to bring their applications to market, and more often than not, the challenges of working in that environment have limited the number and quality of developers willing to undertake the effort. With the App Store, the process has been reduced to a simple submission and review cycle.
Combining that with centralized discovery, distribution and payments for applications has led to a new model for mobile app developers that significantly opens up the possibility of building sustainable - even venture scale - businesses around mobile applications. But the App Store is just the beginning. Google was quick to recognize the power of this distribution model and earlier this year announced their own App Marketplace, which like Apple’s App Store, bypasses carriers and lets developers market directly to consumers through the Marketplace.
Android offers similar opportunities for other carriers. It'll get the carriers out of their own way in the race to drive innovation and differentiation in the category. More from Litman's blog post:
Mobile operators not selling the iPhone today need strong, competitive offerings to convince consumers to buy something other than the iPhone. Much like we’ve seen historically on game consoles, many future mobile phone purchases will likely be influenced by the applications available for the platform. Android and the App Marketplace give carriers a potentially viable alternative to the explosive application market for the iPhone, and with the might of Google behind the platform, we may see development activity that equals or even surpasses that of iPhone developers.
It is naturally welcome news for developers as well, because they will be able to make things for Android, and indeed port their current iPhone offerings to Android. More installs means more use occasions means more money through ad support! Means more development, natch.
I am inspired to see how rapidly this company is making moves and getting things done. We need drivers like Eric and Rany in mobile so that perhaps...just perhaps...we will finally have that year of mobile marketing that the industry has been promising since about the time that the Constitution was signed in 1789.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Facinating Research from Cone LLC: Consumers Overwheming Want Companies to Participate in Social Media
(From the Flickr account of Deborah Schultz www.deborahschultz.com/deblog/2007/11/snackbyte-a-vie.html
Cone, a strategy and communications agency based in Boston, has just released the results of a truly compelling piece of research on consumer attitudes and expectations about how (or indeed if) companies should participate in social media.
Here are some highlights from their press release:
- 93 percent of Americans believe a company should have a presence in social media, while an overwhelming 85 percent believe a company should not only be present but also interact with its consumers via social media
- When asked about specific types of interactions, Americans believe:
---Companies should use social networks to solve my problems (43%)
---Companies should solicit feedback on their products and services (41%)
---Companies should develop new ways for consumers to interact with their brand (37%)
---Companies should market to consumers (25%)
I think this is a really powerful set of insights. I was frankly surprised at the depth of feeling about companies being social media participants. Now, if you look at the subpoints, you see that people want companies to help meet their needs, not sell at them. But they want us there. Repeat. They want us there. And we wanna make them happy. So why are so
many companies...not there?
Thanks for reading, and don;t forget to write.
Quick.as is Kick.As(s) Or Perhaps Kick.Ars(e)
Start pages are an interesting segment of websites. The idea of getting people to switch to having your page as their homebase is something thousands of companies have tried. Most have failed. But hope springs eternal. Now, I recognize that my Internet use is outlier behavior. I am online perhaps 7 hours a day researching, grabbing, writing, reading. It ends up being like 200 start page loads a day -- meaning that without clicking I am worth pretty good money to my BFFs at Yahoo who give me their pretty homepage so many times a day.
But Quick.as is a really impressive offering. I am not PROMISING that I will fall out of love with Yahoo -- we've had a relationship since 1996 and on some level we've promised each other "for better or worse, in sickness and in health..."
But don't let my Yahoo affair discourage you from learning more about Quick.as. It's a remarkable start up concept that serves up search results in a form that is tailored to the device you are using when you request them. Their goal is to get people to use Quick.as with every device they employ. They're not out to get you to switch search engines -- you actually query your search engine of choice when you use the site. And the results appear in a new window on the page of that search engine.
One advantage of this set up is that you aren't limited to a particular search engine. If, like me, you start with Yahoo, great. But there are times I want to search Wikipedia only. Or a soc net. Or whatever. With Quick.as I don't need to go to those sites piecemeal. I can search each of them right from their Quick.as homepage.
Quick.as also gives you one click access to a variety of popular web properties -- places you are likely to visit frequently.
Here's their 60 second pitch from Tech Crunch, where I first learned about them:
Their web site offers a concise set of reasons why. While a grammarian could improve the parallelism of these statements, you'll get the story from these points, reprinted below:
- It's difficult to type on mobile devices (iPhone and mobile optimized versions, and iPhone app).
- It's hard to remember mobile optimized URLs (example.mobi, m.example.com, example.com/m, etc.).
- Provides consistent method to accessing web content on all devices.
- People don't want to be locked in to walled garden of services/sites/portals.
- Quick.as is independent and does not push services from any particular property (Google, Yahoo, MSN).
- Off-portal mobile browsing is becoming more prevalent yet not simple to access.
- It's hard to remember mobile optimized URLs (example.mobi, m.example.com, example.com/m, etc.).
- Provides consistent method to accessing web content on all devices.
- People don't want to be locked in to walled garden of services/sites/portals.
- Quick.as is independent and does not push services from any particular property (Google, Yahoo, MSN).
- Off-portal mobile browsing is becoming more prevalent yet not simple to access.
- People increasingly go to the same information sources. Quick.as get's them there quicker.
- With intuitive design, Quick.as is bringing keyboard shortcuts to the masses (not just the tech savvy).
- With intuitive design, Quick.as is bringing keyboard shortcuts to the masses (not just the tech savvy).
Time savings are clearly a central feature of this offer. More from their site:
Search sites. These are sites that you go to to find out about something ... hope that did not blow your mind! You can search for almost anything on Google but often it would be quicker and easier to jump straight to searching another "specialist" site. You might want to look up something on Wikipedia, eBay, or Amazon ... or you might want to do a currency conversion, find out the time in Timbuktu. Using a command in the Quick.as search bar your can perform these searches directly and quick.as-a-flash!
Destination sites. These are sites where you and not going to look for the answer to a specific question, rather you are just going to check things out or perform a task (another knowledge bomb for ya). You might want to read the latest news, do some online banking, see what your hommies [sic] are up to on Facebook, or check out the box scores in the NBA. There are often an handful of sites that you visit multiple times a day ... or week. Put links to these sites on your Quick.as page and you can access these sites quick.as-a-flash!
I like Quick.as. A lot. By joining, you can actually customize your array of links and make them public -- something I never thought of at all, but gives me pause. I think there is potentially a lot of value in this feature.
Your first step now is to surf over to the Tech Crunch site and give Quick.as's vid an up arrow. Then check out Quick.as. You will be glad you did!
It's a siren call to me, even if my marriage with Yahoo is a happy one.
Thanks for reading, and don't forget to write.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)