Alliance Blog Reviews » words

Zuckerberg Sparks More Privacy Discussion

cgseo — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 15:18:03 +0000

For many in the online space these days the words “Facebook privacy” would be called an oxymoron. Then of course there would be the usual calling others at Facebook morons and then it would get worse from there but I digress. Michael Arrington recently interviewed the poster child for the “Privacy? What privacy?” movement, Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Mashable’s Pete Cashmore tells us : Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg claims that if Facebook was starting out now, sharing with everybody would be the starting point, rather than with a small group of friends. Is this more about reflecting social norms or changing them to help Facebook compete with Twitter? The statement, made during a livestream of the Crunchies awards , hits on a hot button issue for Facebook: it recently notified users of privacy changes via a pop-up notification. While the message claimed that Facebook was displaying the message to give users more privacy controls, blindly clicking “next” was a way to make much of your data public. And in fact, some data like the Friends List has become more public without any settings changes by users. I honestly don’t know where I stand on all of this. I think my only real concern is just how little attention most people pay to these major shifts in social norms especially when they are moved along at rocket speed by something as pervasive and powerful as Facebook. I know that even with the new “everyone needs to see everyone else’s stuff” privacy policy at Facebook, I can go in and lock down my public profile to whatever degree I want. How many of the 350 million supposed users of the service actually know that or even care? I don’t know. I suspect not as many as should. An interesting article appeared in the Wall Street Journal today from Jaron Lanier , which is an excerpt from his new book. He is a pioneer in virtual reality technology and has some very real concerns about this new move to the “social collective” and I don’t disagree with him on much of it. Here’s a sample: Here’s one problem with digital collectivism: We shouldn’t want the whole world to take on the quality of having been designed by a committee. When you have everyone collaborate on everything, you generate a dull, average outcome in all things. You don’t get innovation. There’s a dominant dogma in the online culture of the moment that collectives make the best stuff, but it hasn’t proven to be true. The most sophisticated, influential and lucrative examples of computer code—like the page-rank algorithms in the top search engines or Adobe’s Flash— always turn out to be the results of proprietary development. Indeed, the adored iPhone came out of what many regard as the most closed, tyrannically managed software-development shop on Earth. I realize that I am mixing and matching the personal web and the business of the web. They are, however, intricately intertwined especially as we move into the future. When the generation of “open information and free stuff etc, etc” are in the business world (and a lot are already) this new “social norm” that Zuckerberg talks about so casually could very well mean the end to true innovation unless signed off by the collective. As a result that means watered down ideas in most cases. As if it’s not bad enough, the US government is showing socialist tendencies. What if the business world became that way too? Geesh, time to buy some land, make my own clothes and grow my own food. We will all be brought to the middle and the world could be very average. Of course these are just my own opinions on this but I am really no that interested in having to depend on everyone “signing off” on one my ideas before it can move forward. I am not thrilled about the idea of things like “search neutrality” that reared its ridiculous head in the recent weeks. I like privacy. I like some semblance of control. Maybe it is time to consider that plot of land and a tractor. That is of course, if it’s OK with everyone.

More:
Zuckerberg Sparks More Privacy Discussion

For Google Maps It’s Not the Problem but How You Handle It

admin — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 20:48:25 +0000

How many times have you heard it said in business (or anywhere for that matter) that how you respond to a problem is more important than the problem itself? It’s said over and over again because it’s simply good advice. Well, Google had a chance to practice that principle last night when it began sending out e-mails to those with listings in the Local Business Center. Search Engine Land’s Barry Schwartz reports of the issues that occurred . Starting last night, Google began sending out the monthly (or so) Google Local Business Center updates. The updates go out via email and contain analytical information about how many times a listing was viewed, clicked on, and other miscellaneous analytics. The analytics are a summary of what they would see in their Google LBC analytics dashboard. But instead of these emails going to their actual business owners, they went to the wrong business owners. Schwartz received information for a business that was 1,500 mile from his location and he was not the only one having the experience. To Google’s credit they recognized the error and set things straight as quickly as one might expect. The following was sent to Barry so he could help the rest of us get some clarity on the issue. Of course, it doesn’t hurt your ability to get these kinds of responses when you are the News Editor of Search Engine Land. In other words, not everyone received the following explanation right away. As you’re aware, we send a monthly newsletter to our Local Business Center users, featuring product news and a glimpse at the Dashboard statistics which show the traffic Google properties drive to their listing. Shortly after sending the newsletter to a small portion of our users last night, we discovered that some emails included incorrect business listing information. We promptly stopped sending any further emails and investigated the cause, which we found to be a human error while pulling together the newsletter content. We’d like to sincerely apologize to all the business owners impacted and assure all our users that we’re working hard to ensure that nothing similar will happen again. Oh no! It appears that there may be a Googler who is, gulp, human and made a mistake. Of course it would never be one of the thousands of faithful servers around the world, it had to be one of those pesky human thingys. All kidding aside, as Schwartz points out, the data is pretty innocuous. It could even be looked at as a sideways form of advertising to a very small market because now people know about a business somewhere else that they never heard of before. Google later sent an automated reply to all those impacted by this glitch and it appears that all is well in the world again. While I would rather not have something like this happen I have to give Google credit for calling themselves on the error and working to make it right. Hopefully, any of the business owners who got the wrong data would treat one of their mistakes with the same approach. Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

As Advertising Evolves Google Talks About Barbie

admin — Tue, 29 Dec 2009 13:25:00 +0000

Advertising is morphing and evolving at a rapid pace. That pace still hasn’t moved the online space too far down its own evolutionary road yet. That is at least according to Nikesh Arora, president of Google’s sales operations. In an interview with the Financial Times he gave some insight into how the online advertising world is shaping up and the role that Google intends to play in it. Oh, the reference to Barbie? Here is how Mr. Arora sees the current state of online advertising when he compares it to the history of advertising as a whole. He has been watching – on Google’s YouTube video site – a 1959 television ad for Barbie dolls. “There’s still a guy moving the Barbie doll in the ad and a radio jingle playing. We all say: ‘How could they think that was a good TV ad?’ – but that’s sort of where we are. We’re still moving the Barbie doll with our hands.” I get that. Sometimes I even wish we might go back to that every once in a while. Essentially, Arora and others at Google are convinced, and probably rightly so, that right now the online space is simply repeating what TV has done but that this attempt at ‘advertising’ is selling the Internet medium short. In other words, there is so much more that can be done. As you might expect Google intends to be there at the forefront. Some more of Arora’s thoughts Mr Arora is keen to recast the online advertising debate in a way that could increase the share of advertising budgets available to the search engine operator. “The whole idea of online advertising is going to go away in the next few years,” he says. “We’ll stop talking about online advertising and talk about advertising. Radio, print, TV are all getting distributed over [internet protocol], so those distinctions will vanish at some point in time.” That will be a brave new world for marketers, advertisers and consumers alike. With purchases like DoubleClick and more including mobile play Admob ( which has its own issues apparently ) Google is positioned to be a leader in the movement. And, as will likely be the modus operandi of all Google interactions with the press, Mr. Arora talked about relationships with publishers improving and that Google is the ultimate partner. “We give $5bn-$6bn away to partners of the $20bn we make,” Mr Arora notes, adding that it has stepped up its “research online purchase offline” studies, which analyse how search behaviour affects buying. How thoughtful! And to wrap up that thought so that no one will get too suspicious about Google’s plans for world domination Mr. Arora goes all “Aw shucks!” on us with this one. “Fundamentally, we’re a tech company . . . You show up with a huge technological problem, we’re going to get totally turned on by it.” I am no code cracker but I think “technological problem” is Googlespeak for “huge pile of money”. Your thoughts?

Original post:
As Advertising Evolves Google Talks About Barbie

Facebook’s Privacy Policy Produces Plea to FTC

cgseo — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 05:40:21 +0000

Back in July, Facebook was challenged by the Canadian government about some privacy concerns around third party apps and information shared that was taken about users. Many wondered how the social media giant would handle the situation. Would they thumb their nose at the information police? Would they stand up to the Canucks? Well, that was answered in August when they folded like a cheap card table and rewrote their policies to meet Canadian concerns . Well, if that was a precedent then the folks who run the Facebook Legal team fan page (Is there really one of these? I just made that up) are about to get real busy. You see there are several privacy groups who are up in arms about the latest privacy policies handed down by Zuck and the boys. According to the WSJ’s MarketWatch Ten privacy and consumer groups announced Thursday they’ve filed a complaint with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission alleging that Facebook Inc.’s privacy-policy changes violate federal law. The Electronic Privacy Information Center said in a statement that it and nine other groups are urging the FTC “to open an investigation into the recent changes made by Facebook … and to require Facebook to restore privacy safeguards.” These kinds of things usually sound a lot worse when they are first brought to light. Ok, so let’s stand in Facebook’s shoes and let this one sit for a second and let the scariness of the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) being called on to investigate your company’s privacy policies go away. Hmmm. Doesn’t seem to be working this time. Why? Well, because this could be a real serious deal for Facebook. They went from cruising along and just gathering more and more steam in their quest to become a money making machine to now being a social media whipping boy……again. While what they have been accused of lately (breaking a valued trust with their users by making their information, all of it, public unless opted-out) isn’t sleazy on a Tiger Woods like level, it is a serious issue. That’s not good. Now add on the possibility of the US government (you know the one that thinks it can do everything for everyone so no one needs to think for themselves anymore) being asked by not one but 10 privacy advocates to take a look at your policies. There probably were happier endings envisioned by the Facebook folks on this one, like huge profits from data being available to mine and sell. EPIC said in its statement that the service “should not be allowed to turn down the privacy dial on so many American consumers,” adding that the changes “violate federal consumer-protection law.” As they say in some parts of the world “Them thar is fightin’ words!” Of course Facebook has something to say about all of this. In a statement, a Facebook spokesman said: “We’ve had productive discussions with dozens of organizations around the world about the recent changes, and we’re disappointed that EPIC has chosen to share their concerns with the FTC while refusing to talk to us about them.” The spokesman, Andrew Noyes, also said that Facebook discussed its privacy program with regulators “including the FTC” prior to its launch. Well, shame on EPIC for telling on Facebook after the company worked so hard to grease the skids to prevent this very thing from happening. By the way, how productive a meeting is can be pretty subjective. In other words, there is no mention of groups endorsing what Facebook did, just a statement that they met and talked. Look this may turn out to be a non-issue. The FTC may decide to not act on the request of these groups but it might be hard for them to do so. Of course, with Facebook letting the world know that they spoke to the FTC before this move was made may make some wonder just what kind of ‘agreements and understandings’ may have been reached. Whatever they were, they may now be null and void if there is enough of a stink raised. So what looked like a pretty strong year for Facebook may end on a sour note. They’ll get over though just like they did with Beacon. Apparently that gaffe was either forgotten or it’s the policy of the company to see just what it can get away with until someone slaps their hands or slaps them with an investigation. Your thoughts? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Excerpt from:
Facebook’s Privacy Policy Produces Plea to FTC

Twitter Developing Specific Features for Business

admin — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:40:35 +0000

If you are Twitter you have to be feeling a bit dizzy by now. 2009 has been a year of tremendous growth, more than a little success followed by more than a little criticism. There are always questions hovering over why Biz did that or if Jack really meant that or if Evan is saying something that isn’t supposed to be public or whatever. Meanwhile, the rest of the market is flying around at a rapid rate. Google has come up with nearly forty innovations in the past 70 days alone. Some of which involve the real time search genie that Twitter represents. Well, while not innovating at Google-like speeds (who does that anyway) there are some things emerging from Twitter like their announcement yesterday about a new ‘business’ feature. On the Twitter blog we read The feature we are beta testing is called ‘Contributors’ – it enables users to engage in more authentic conversations with businesses by allowing those organizations to manage multiple contributors to their account. The feature appends the contributor’s username to the tweet byline, making the business to consumer communication more personal; e.g. if @Twitter invites @Biz to tweet on its behalf, then a tweet from @Twitter would include @Biz in the byline so that users know more about the real people behind organizations. Here’s a picture or it for you. Now all of this was couched in very non-committal terms. Now, in its beta form, twitter is allowing what appears to be a form of sub-accounts for a business. In other words, if you have Skippy, Biffy, Buffy and Irv all tweeting on behalf of your company the tweets will all come from your company but the actual contributor will get a byline mention. The idea being to show the variety of people that are tweeting on a company’s behalf and giving that account more of the various personalities. Makes sense. The blog promises several other non-specified changes but is very cautious in how these are presented. In other words, there will not be a ‘ask for forgiveness rather than permission’ approach to new ideas at Twitter. Maybe they aren’t as willing to work out their issues as publically as Google does. This feature is one of several in development; some of them will be visible to regular users and some of them will not. Our goal at this time is to get basic feedback from business users and ecosystem partners. The beta will be released to a limited subset of folks for some time so that we can get an idea of how the features work from a system perspective. After we kick the tires a bit, we’ll do a full launch to all business users and ecosystem partners. Stay tuned! Who knows but one thing is for certain. The upcoming year will be critical for Twitter as it really needs to establish what it intends to be when it grows up and what it’s going to do to keep everybody aware of “What’s happening”.

Go here to read the rest:
Twitter Developing Specific Features for Business

Oh No! Google’s Buying Twitter Again?

admin — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 13:30:33 +0000

Rev up the rumor mill engines! We’re not sure what the expiration date is on this one either so we better get on it fast. It appears that the fresh, French air at the LeWeb conference in Paris has created an awkward moment for Twitter co-founder and chairman, Jack Dorsey. Let this be a lesson for all you kids out there that words are powerful things and they are also very malleable. In other words, people like to twist them. So what did Jack say? According to the Telegraph During a panel session entitled: ‘European Gang Live’ at LeWeb 09 in Paris, Mr Dorsey was asked if Google was planning on acquiring Twitter. Instead of denying the possibility as expected, he replied: “There have been no announcements.” Mr Dorsey was then repeatedly questioned as to why he had not flat-out denied the possibility of a deal happening between the two companies. He said, “It [the answer] just came to me.” He went onto say: “Twitter is focused on building a sustainable company.” Did you ever see the Seinfeld episode where George says “I love you” to his ‘girlfriend’ and Jerry reminds him, “That’s an awful big matzoh ball you floated out there!”. Ditto for Dorsey. The long and short of this is that now the rumors will fly again as they did earlier in the year (Google did get those real time search results up and running pretty quickly didn’t they?). Even if there was a a note of sarcasm in Dorsey’s voice when he said it we will never know. Thus the limitation of the printed word. He may have said it jokingly but it may be reported without the emotion. Who knows? Either way I suppose this will be something to keep people talking through the holidays because a juicy rumor whether there is a shred of truth in it or not is something that makes the Internet go round. Any thoughts or additions to keep this thing rolling or stop it dead in its tracks?

Read the rest here:
Oh No! Google’s Buying Twitter Again?

Online Spending Up Year Over Year for Black Friday

cgseo — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 14:35:07 +0000

Let’s face it this holiday season is a pivotal one for all of us from a macro point of view. While many retailers will be focused on their individual bottom lines it will be important to look at how this whole ‘first weekend’ of the holiday shopping season plays out from start to finish with the latest entry, Cyber Monday, happening as you read this. First the good news. Online sales for Black Friday were up 11% over last year according to comScore and the rest of November was an improvement over the prior year. Let’s remember, though, that last year’s holiday season was on the heels of “Bailout 1” and waiting for a new president to be inaugurated. In other words, last year sucked so any improvement over those numbers needs to be tempered. Overall, meaning the performance of the Black Friday weekend in total, was less heartening in that it appears that people are intent on spending less and there was virtually no increase in spending overall from last year. Yahoo News reports Consumers spent significantly less per person at the start of the holiday season this weekend, dimming hopes for a retail comeback that would help propel the economy early in 2010. Consumers said they will have spent nearly 8 percent less on average, or about $343 per person, over the weekend that includes Thanksgiving, Black Friday and runs through Sunday, according to the NRF (National Federation of Retailers). Traffic to stores and websites rose to 195 million people from 172 million in 2008, but shoppers were focused on buying low-priced items, like $10 toys and $9 books, the NRF said. Total spending for the holiday weekend rose to an estimated $41.2 billion, up 0.5 percent from a year earlier, NRF said. Since I am not a prognosticator I am not going to offer some thoughts on where this will all go. What I will say is that this will not be the time for irrational exuberance over numbers that look nice in a silo. This season is about online and offline together and if there is little or no increase (or even a decrease) in spending then we are looking at some interesting times ahead.

View original post here:
Online Spending Up Year Over Year for Black Friday

AOL Asking 2,500 Employees to Fall on Their Sword

cgseo — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:12:51 +0000

While I just read this over at All Things Digital I am still scratching my head (which means I am typing with just one hand, so if this reads slow you’ll know why). AOL tends to be in the news in the past year or so more about whether the business will survive and how will it look when it is pushed out of the Time Warner nest officially in December. Why today would be any different I don’t know but the news from AOL is how they are asking for 2,500, or one third of their work force, to volunteer for a layoff. AOL, which has already told investors that it will spend up to $200 million firing a good chunk of its staff, has now told its employees. It is looking for “up to 2,500 volunteers,” CEO Tim Armstrong told his staff today. That’s a third of the company’s payroll. The voluntary layoff program begins on December 4, a few days before the company spins off from Time Warner (TWX). If the company doesn’t get enough volunteers, it will axe people on its own. Ok, so in this crappy job market you are asking someone to either volunteer to move on or just wait and see if they will be told to move on. What I didn’t see was what would make that kind of move better than rolling the dice and hoping that you don’t get axed? In other words, if there is any doubt in an AOL employee’s mind as to whether they would survive this what is the advantage of volunteering. Is there monetary incentive? I’m a little baffled. Of course, if you look at it from the business side this is the kind of news investors like to hear. In a gesture of “I’m suffering too” Tim Armstrong is not taking his bonus in the neighborhood of $1.5 million due him this year. All of the cynics in the crowd can chime in on that one I am sure. I have no comment but here is Armstrong’s take. “As a member of our team and the person who takes accountability for the results of the company, I am making the decision to forego my 2009 bonus. That decision is a personal one and is not a sign for the future payout of the overall bonus plan for employees.” So what about AOL as an Internet business? What about what this will look like moving forward? With ICQ on the block and MapQuest as well what is AOL going to be offering the market place when it is asked to stand alone other than 2,500 more folks with AOL on their resume when looking for work? It might be interesting to hear from the MP crowd as to what their view of AOL is in the Internet marketing space as we approach this new phase in the company’s history. Let’s hear it.

The Evolution of Blogging

admin — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:08:06 +0000

Oh, how I wish this was a cool YouTube video that could go viral. But it’s not. Instead, it’s some pretty interesting research by PostRank on how reader engagement in blogging has evolved over the last three years. Not so surprisingly, trackbacks as a means of joining the conversation have dropped off in favor of taking the discussion to Twitter or other social sites. Over the last there years, trackbacks have dropped from 19% of total engagement to 3%, while social networks have soared from

See the article here:
The Evolution of Blogging