are fan pages/public profiles the new hot commodity?

Domain names (good ones, specifically) are running out. Unless you want to exceed the magic 5 or 6 character rule, choices are limited and resulting in somewhat oddly named sites such as snurl.com or uladoo.com. These names work fine for new start ups, but what about existing brands wishing to add their presence to the internet? Are they forced to adopt some cryptic, vaguely-related URL?

Enter: Facebook Fan Pages/Public Profiles. I've been thinking, writing and speaking about Public Profiles a lot lately. I feel that with Facebook's continued exponential growth, Public Profiles will only become a more dominant brand outlet. Additionally, with the shortage of search-friendly URL's entering crisis status, and domain prices shooting through the roof, utilization of Facebook's Public Profiles feature only makes sense. We've seen brands like Coca-Cola quietly assume control of fan-initiated pages, with some money almost undoubtedly changing hands in the process.

Now, lets take it one step beyond simply acquiring branded pages. What about more generic pages, such as Sleep or Cuddling? With each page totaling nearly 300,000 fans at the time of writing (and growing rapidly), these seemingly pointless pages offer a huge audience with a common interest.



Now, imagine Serta Mattress Co. quietly acquiring the "Sleep" page and using it as an extension of their branding efforts. Instantly, Serta would have an audience of 300,000 people all interested in what they are trying to sell--a good night's sleep. Same goes for "Cuddling". Imagine if any number of companies acquired this page. A few off the top of my head that could forseeably succesfully leverage the page to their advantage may be Cosmopolitan magazine, Trojan condoms (since we all know what cuddling inevitably leads to), or even a breath mint company like Certs.

I'm figuring that some are asking how having a page without the company name on it benefits the company in any form. As mentioned, it instantly gives the company a large targeted audience, instantly. People that like sleep are probably interested in tips on how to achieve the most restful night possible. Why not use a fan page as an outlet for tips on sleeping comfortably? Why not import the Serta corporate blog?

Keep fans updated with new information in mattress technology, or even post a status update reminding fans to flip their mattress once a month. Subtly insert the Serta name or logo here and there, and you have an enourmous as well as low-effort branding campaign. Serta could potentially become synonmous with a good night's sleep among 300,000+ people. The same could go for any number of seemingly generic and glib Public Profiles.

With Facebook being as large as it is, and Public Profiles being indexable for all major search engines, the potential for search traffic is also staggering. Imagine typing in "good night's sleep" and having the "Sleep" Public Profile appear in the top ten results, with all kinds of useful information, tips and have it attached to the Serta brand. Most brands pay thousands upon thousands to SEO analysts for this kind of exposure and ranking. Given Facebook's size and continued growth, its not unrealistic to think that a Public Profile could potentially make the top 5 Google results.

What this boils down to is a chance for huge and relatively inexpensive brand exposure to companies who may be struggling to actively engage customers. Print and television adverstising is in a sharp decline, in terms of effectiveness and relevance. Brands must explore new and diverse outlets to establish their image, and Public Profiles is nearly certain to be one of the biggest outlets in years to come.

Establishing Brand Presence with Facebook

I recently gave a presentation at the 3rd Grand Rapids Social Media Lunch. I wrote a recap of the presentation for the GRSML blog.

Given the direction Public Profiles have been heading through the past few updates, it is safe to say that Facebook Groups are dead. The lack of updates in functionality leads me to believe that Groups will either no longer be supported or may be relegated to “maintenance mode”—a concept akin to life-support in the online world.

Check out the complete post here. Check out the accompanying slideshow here.

are you a one trick social media pony?

I am going to pose a question to all the social-media-marketers and social-media-experts: if social-media dried up, and all the sites went belly-up today, would you be able to get a job tomorrow? I have a feeling that many of the self-titled social media experts out there would not be able to continue in a marketing career beyond our current social boom.

There are two categories I like to assign social- media folks to. There are marketing professionals who utilize the tools social media provides, and there are one trick ponies, who don't exist outside the world of social media.

The folks in the second category may be able to get you on the front page of Reddit or Digg. They may have a huge IM army and multiple accounts and be able to leverage the various SM sites. However, do they understand marketing beyond online exposure? Could The Expert write a press release and effectively distribute it? Could The Expert write an effective, multi-faceted marketing strategy including outlets other than SM?

Here is what I am getting at: I firmly believe social media to be an effective and extremely relevant tool for marketers in today's economy. Entry barriers are relatively low, and it is relatively cost effective versus more traditional advertising. With the closing of established news outlets across the country, I believe social media will only continue to grow and evolve for the foreseeable future.

Given the pace social media is evolving, its hard to say exactly how long into the future. I would like to remind readers at this point about the dotcom bust of the early millennium. Remember all those startups with no business model that were not profitible but somehow were still trading at $60 a share? It seemed to good to last, but the money and investors poured in. It certainly proved to be too good to be sustainable.

How is the social media boom any different than the millennial dotcom boom?

Twitter, currently the fastest growing social service, has yet to unveil a concrete business model or make any money other than a few bucks for advertising in Japan. What makes us so sure that these companies will find a way to become sustainable and profitable? In the end, I don't think anyone can be certain about the longevity of social media.

If Digg dried up tomorrow, what would you do?

Would you be out of a job, or would you be agile enough to adapt to the changes? Are you a multi-faceted marketing expert, or do you just have a lot of solid accounts on social media sites?

Social media is evolving and growing at a staggering pace. Will The Expert--the one-trick-pony--be able to evolve and grow with it?

new twitter directory goes beyond who's got the most followers

Upon checking my email this morning, I noticed I had just received a press release from loadedweb.com touting their newest addition--a local Twitter directory. While the idea of a local Twitter directory is nothing new, loadedweb's seems to offer the most value thus far.


Going beyond simply ranking who has the most active account, or the most followers, loadedweb aggregates a variety of statistics from a specific local region and provides a bit of a cultural thermometer which allows users to see what the regionally-hot buzzwords are. Included in the statistics are hashtags, URL's, and @users.



For a long time I've thought the trend in social media would be to localize it a bit, and I feel that loadedweb's new directory just confirms my prediction.

I see huge possibilities for local businesses interested in branding and reputation monitoring. There is no doubt that having a finger on the local cultural pulse would help any business better target and meet the needs of its customer base.

digg: the number's don't add up

I won't say who's Digg profile this screen grab is from, but just check out the numbers. Over 100% popularity ratio? Dugg 0 items? 41 comments? Submitted 9, made 12 popular? The numbers just don't add up. This isn't the only profile like this either. Whats going on, Digg?

google to buy twitter? doubtful, but...

In a recent post, TechCrunch speculated on the possibility of search giant Google aquiring Twitter.

"Here’s a heck of a rumor that we’ve sourced from two separate people close to the negotiations: Google is in late stage negotiations to acquire Twitter. We don’t know the price but can assume its well, well north of the $250 million valuation that they saw in their recent funding."

Honestly, I don't think anyone can competently speculate on something this major. However, I do have a slightly different theory of my own. It was announced about a month ago that Twitter was integrating their search feature, previously found at search.twitter.com into the menu bar on each user's profile.

Twitter started to roll out the redesign, and many pages received the update. Twitter however has issued a new statement saying they are delaying integration as they are revamping their search feature entirely. Interestingly enough, this was about the same time that the Google acquisition rumors started to surface.

I think a complete acquisition by Google may be a little far-reaching, given Twitter's current valuation and their reluctance to sell as of yet. Would it be so far fetched to imagine a Google-enhanced search feaure? Think about it: Twitter starts to integrate their search feature. They stop halfway in favor of a total overhaul. Rumors of talks between Google and Twitter start circulating.

Could the talks between Twitter and Google be for a search feature that would allow Google to mine the staggering amount of information posted in real-time on Twitter? I don't think that's too hard to image.

microsoft's new ad campaign doesn't mention microsoft: brilliant.

Recently, Microsoft launched a new ad campaign aimed at promoting the value of a PC versus an Apple. Surprisingly, the ads actually make sense. In case you haven't noticed, Microsoft as of late has been steadily turning out one advertising fop-ah faux-pas after another.

Whether its the Mojave Experiment, a girl singing about Microsoft Songsmith (while on a thinly veiled Macbook) or the utterly bizarre Bill Gates/Jerry Seinfeld ad series, Microsoft's ads have been missing their target and only provided Apple enthusiasts with a good laugh.

Microsoft's latest ads represent a radical departure and an entire shift in focus for the company. The latest ads are not emphasising the "superiority" of Vista (or trying to convince consumers that "really--Vista isn't that bad!"), or even advertising Microsoft products. What customers are being sold instead is the value of the PC platform.

In the advertisement below, Lauren, a college student on a budget of $1,000 is sent into an Apple store to pick out a laptop. She wants a 17" screen, and finds that the only Apple that meets her requirements is the Macbook Pro, to the tune of $2,499. She leaves.





Frustrated, she observes that she is "not cool enough to be a Mac person", which is a jab Apple's elitist image. Lauren then shops a consumer electronics store, and of course falls in love with a 17" Hewlett Packard which she purchases and accessorizes for well under $1,000, leaving the store content and happy.

Windows, Microsoft or Vista is never mentioned through the course of the advertisement, which may seem a bit odd considering the the advertisement is in fact a Microsoft advertisement. I would wager it a brilliant move on Microsoft's part.The reality is that after series of questionable OS's plagued with security flaws and lampooned by critics, Windows is no longer a selling point.

After a resounding failure with Windows ME, a rough start with Windows XP (which I would argue only came into favor AFTER the release of Vista), and a total misfire with Windows Vista, Microsoft has come to the realization that they can no longer sell the operating system. Instead, Microsoft is selling the value of the machines that come preloaded with their software. Microsoft couldn't care less if you purchase a Dell, a Lenovo or an HP.

What it boils down to is Microsoft selling strengths instead of trying to patch up weaknesses. They are doing exactly what McDonald's did for Starbucks, and attacking a perceived image. In this case, instead of the elitist image of Starbucks, they are attacking the elitist image associated with Apple computers.


Will this campaign save Microsoft and Windows? Its hard to say. Honestly, with a 90% market share, they don't really need saving. What they do need is a shift in consumer perception of their product.

What the campaign will do, if nothing else, is cement the image of Apples as overpriced into consumer minds, which honestly may be more valuable to Microsoft at this point than actually selling copies of Vista. Perception is powerful, and leveraged properly can completely shift consumer thinking.

I've always been told its better to play to your strengths rather than trying to fix your weaknesses. I guess someone must have mentioned that to Microsoft too.

why a $2,000 dell makes sense

Many have raised an eyebrow over the seemingly-untimely introduction of Dell's new micro-thin flagship laptop, the Adamo. Thinner than a Macbook Air and milled from a single piece of billet aluminum, the Adamo represents a big diversion from the bland plastic PC clones that Dell has been steadily churning out for most of their history.In a recession economy, it may seem foolish to unveil what is essentially a $2,000 novelty computer. It is not nearly as powerful as most laptops costing half, and seems largely an exercise in design rather than actual function.

I would contend that Dell isn't trying to, nor is expecting to sell many of these computers. What they are trying to sell is an image or a brand.

As I mentioned before, Dell has had a long past of cranking out PC clones that don't stand out in the crowd. They are nicely featured and represent "a good value" in most cases, but they don't exactly get anyone's heart racing. Enter, Adamo. The Adamo is more a selling of ideas and image than it is an actual product.

Look at the marketing. The words used most repetitively through their entire campaign are "craftsmanship" and "style". Dell goes through great lengths to emphasize the quality of materials and construction. Check out the introduction video below if you don't believe me:



What Dell is doing is creating a major shift in their image. Apple has long dominated the market in terms of perceived quality. Their machines are solid, elegant and sculpted. They don't creak and crack when they are handled, and their lines are fluid enough to find a home in a modern art museum. Apple has long made a market for their product based mostly on image, and Dell wants a piece of that (Apple) pie (pun intended).

Dell is not introducing the Adamo to sell Adamos. To do so would be a rather foolish expectation at a time when high end computer sales are plummeting, and the PC is earning a bit of a bad reputation in the wake of the rise of Apple's OS and the rampant Vista bashing.

What I firmly believe Dell is trying to do is instead sell more low-end product through a shift in their branding. If they can create a change in the consumer's perception of their product by introducing something high-end, Dell knows that buzz generated by the Adamo will attract consumer attention to the rest of their product line.

A lot of people wander into Chrysler dealerships to look at the new Dodge Viper, but how many actually leave with one? Consumers will be reassured that Dell is in fact a competent and leading-edge manufacturer, which will trickle down into consumer confidence in their lower-end offerings as well.

So maybe a $2,000 laptop isn't such a stupid idea after-all. What do you think?

fanpage glitch confirms facebook does keep all your stuff forever

I logged in to Facebook today to update a few fan pages I administer. Right away, I noticed my list of fan pages seemed a bit longer than I remembered it being yesterday.

Interesting, considering I had deleted the fan page bearing my name months earlier. Also, notice that I allegedly have 10 active fan pages. I had 6 yesterday. In fact, I am not sure I have had 10 pages total since creating my first Facebook fan page. This clearly shows that Facebook does in fact keep information even after it is removed by the author of the content. Interesting given the fact that Facebook’s retention of information was a major focus in the ruckus surrounding the controversial TOS changes.

The reappearance of deleted content doesn’t particularly concern me—I don’t really have anything of major concern. It does make me wonder, however, about users who do have some deleted skeletons in their closet? What are the implications for them?

it feels good to be popular

Finally!

facebook opens up TOS changes for voting

Just logged into Facebook and saw this:

From the Facebook blog:

Last week, we returned to our previous Terms of Use as we worked on a new set of governing documents that would more clearly explain the relationship between Facebook and its users. Since then, I've been excited to see how much people care about Facebook and how willing they are to contribute to the process of governing the site.
Our main goal at Facebook is to help make the world more open and transparent. We believe that if we want to lead the world in this direction, then we must set an example by running our service in this way.

We sat down to work on documents that could be the foundation of this and we came to an interesting realization—that the conventional business practices around a Terms of Use document are just too restrictive to achieve these goals. We decided we needed to do things differently and so we're going to develop new policies that will govern our system from the ground up in an open and transparent way.

Beginning today, we are giving you a greater opportunity to voice your opinion over how Facebook is governed. We're starting this off by publishing two new documents for your review and comment. The first is the Facebook Principles, which defines your rights and will serve as the guiding framework behind any policy we'll consider—or the reason we won't consider others. The second document is the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, which will replace the existing Terms of Use. With both documents, we tried hard to simplify the language so you have a clear understanding of how Facebook will be run. We've created separate groups for each document so you can read them and provide comments and feedback. You can find the Facebook Principles here and the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities here. Before these new proposals go into effect, you'll also have the ability to vote for or against proposed changes.

I believe these steps are unprecedented in promoting understanding and enabling participation on the web. I hope you will take a look at these documents, read them carefully, and share your thoughts.
Facebook is still in the business of introducing new and therefore potentially disruptive technologies. This can mean that our users periodically experience adjustments to new products as they become familiar with them, and before becoming enthusiastic supporters. The launch of News Feed and the recent interface redesign are excellent examples that illustrate why we need to continue to make independent decisions about products in order to push technology forward. While these products must be consistent with the Principles and in compliance with the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, they will not be subject to the notice and comment or voting requirement.

We're honored that so many millions of people around the world have decided to bring Facebook into their lives to share information and experiences with friends and loved ones. We understand that gives us an important responsibility to our users.

History tells us that systems are most fairly governed when there is an open and transparent dialogue between the people who make decisions and those who are affected by them. We believe history will one day show that this principle holds true for companies as well, and we're looking to moving in this direction with you.

grand rapids social marketing lunch 2.26.09 @ founder’s brewery

Yes folks, that’s right. This Thursday (2.26.09) at Founder’s Brewery, we’ll be having our first Grand Rapids Social Marketing lunch. From the GRSML blog:

How will these meet ups work? Like I said earlier, this is a conversation. There will be a topic that will frame the meeting. We’ll have a moderator to keep the conversation on track and to get the ball rolling (depending on the topic you could be the moderator). The moderator will have knowledge of what we’re talking about that week and should be able to answer questions. From there let all questions, comments, experiences flow forth.

We’ve been tweeting this for a couple of days now, but in case you haven’t heard, our first meeting is scheduled for this coming Thursday, February 26th, from 12:00 to 1:30 at Founders. Please drop in and say hello, meet some interesting people and share your thoughts. It should be a blast.

More details & information here.

I hope to see you there!

following the fray: a look back at the facebook TOS debacle

There is no doubt that Facebook’s changes to their Terms-of-Service was the hot blog topic last week. Let’s recap the events blow-by blow.

The Consumerist originally broke the story with the quasi-sensationalist (and ridiculously-long-titled) blogpost Facebook’s New Terms of Service: We Can Do Anything We Want With Your Stuff Forever.

Facebook's terms of service (TOS) used to say that when you closed an account on their network, any rights they claimed to the original content you uploaded would expire. Not anymore.

Now, anything you upload to Facebook can be used by Facebook in any way they deem fit, forever, no matter what you do later.* Want to close your account? Good for you, but Facebook still has the right to do whatever it wants with your old content. They can even sublicense it if they want.

Mashable was right behind The Consumerist with a similar, albeit less sensational blogpost. Tremendous user backlash ensued, which resulted in a lot of unqualified speculation as to the implications of the changes.

AllFacebook News then published some clarifications from Mark Zuckerberg regarding the new terms-of-service, and the ability of users to delete their accounts, along with some much-needed editorial perspective (highlighted below in bold). Zuckerberg stated:

When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created—one in the person’s sent messages box and the other in their friend’s inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear.

Mark goes on to highlight the conflicting position with users:

Still, the interesting thing about this change in our terms is that it highlights the importance of these issues and their complexity. People want full ownership and control of their information so they can turn off access to it at any time. At the same time, people also want to be able to bring the information others have shared with them—like email addresses, phone numbers, photos and so on—to other services and grant those services access to those people’s information. These two positions are at odds with each other.

So should users be angry about the latest change in the terms of service? I don’t think so. Do you think Facebook is going to resell your family photos to others? Does the company have a diabolical plot to resell your personal information? Doubtful.

Zuckerberg’s clarifications seemed to quell the masses for the most part. Facebook did lose a few users in the fracas, but with nearly 500,000 new users each day, I doubt they will really notice the loss. It seemed the controversy was over.

That is, until bloggers like Alexander van Elsas and Razzed called into question Zuckerberg’s response. Or lack-thereof. Van Elsa’s aptly-titled post Mark Zuckerberg is answering the wrong question, and we fell for it again deftly exposed Zuckerberg’s avoidance of what was the larger and more important of the issues brought to light in the change of terms:

While Mark does a good job explaining this process and it’s complexities I cannot help but feel that the blogging community has let Mark get away with answering the wrong question. He has done a perfect job in avoiding a much more important privacy issue than the issue that arises when two people share information via Facebook.

The questions Mark should have answered are the following:

What exactly does Facebook do with all the user data has been collected on Facebook, and how exactly does it monetize that, even after a user has deleted his or her account?

Begin Backlash Round 2. Facebook’rs quickly realized that in fact, Zuckerberg had answered the least important of the questions raised by the controversial new TOS clause. More users deleted their accounts, and the rallying cry in the comment section of most social media blogs became “cancel your account!” I’m not sure how many actually followed through with their threats and delete their Facebook account, but I’m confident it wasn’t enough to truly matter.

With threats of formal FTC complaints and government involvment, as well as new protest groups popping up across Facebook’s own network, the situation was quickly spiraling out of hand, gaining momentum by the second. Nick O’Neill wrote for AllFacebook News:

One group, “People Against the new Terms of Service (TOS)“, has been at the forefront of the backlash although the group doesn’t appear to be gaining a ton of traction beyond the 58,000 members that have joined it. While 58,000 users is nothing to sneeze at, it hasn’t yet surged to levels witnessed during Facebook’s news feed launch or during the Beacon backlash.

I can no longer find the group, however I do know it surged well beyond the 58,000 member-mark. It became clear that Facebook had potential for a serious PR disaster on their hands. Then, something occurred which no-one quite expected (at least I sure didn’t). Facebook reverted to their old TOS. This was clearly a move to avoid the impending PR debacle. The controversy died as soon as it started. All this—the whole series of events beginning to end--took place in the span of less than a week.

The debacle brilliantly displays the speed at which social media moves, and how quickly a company’s reputation can be destroyed. In less than a weekend, Facebook’s brand had gone from the benevolent and much-loved social media giant to a sinister power-grabbing corporation, with no concern for it’s millions of loyal users.

Facebook, seeing the potential for disaster, did exactly what the angry users and bloggers wanted: they reverted to the old TOS. It was a move that shocked many, and pleased nearly everyone. It was not the move of a heartless, power-grabbing corporation. It was the move of a truly social network, ruled by its loyal users. Facebook re-established their brand as one of benign benevolence, as the decision created a sense of empowerment and influence among the dissatisfied users.

Perhaps even more than the potential for destruction of a brand in social media, the series of events illustrates the forgiveness of social media. That is, if:

• A situation is met head on
• The situation is handled with transparency
• There is a willingness to concede that were mistakes were made
• And finally, a substantive and and more-than-adequate response is produced

mixx suffering growing pains (hopefully)?

I’ve been seeing screen at Mixx more and more lately. Hopefully it means they are growing, and not that they are suffering some sort of internal problems. Anyone know whats up?

this is why you don't have a search cloud on your site...

Did I mention this was from a publisher's blog?

a fun blog everyone should follow

I get tired of reading 50+ articles a day about Facebook and Twitter, so I try to subscribe to some more “fun” blogs. It breaks up the monotony and give my brain a break for a second. I subscribed to This is Why You’re Fat last week, and this week I came across another gem—Forgotten Bookmarks.

At first, I assumed it was something to do with organizing my chaotic list of bookmarks in Firefox. Come to find out, it is actually a photo-journal of sorts from a rare/antiquarian bookseller, cataloguing some of the more interesting and unusual bookmarks found left in volumes they have received.

The front page description reads:

I work at a used and rare bookstore, and I buy books from people everyday. These are the personal, funny, heartbreaking and weird things I find in those books.

My family was adept at forgetting bookmarks apparently, as nearly every antique book I own is stuffed with markers, newspaper clippings and even in some cases, hundred-year-old pressed flowers. I’ve always enjoyed finding these hidden treasures, and its pretty cool to see some other folks leavings.

So there you have it: Forgotten Bookmarks, now part of my daily break from the social-media blog-o-sphere.

facebook reverts to their old TOS (we won)

We won… Facebook has rescinded their TOS and returned to the original one. Its rare to see this happen, but kudos to Facebook for making this decision in the favor of their users.

facebook’s zuckerberg answers questions; unfortunately none were important

In response to the wake of recent criticism and controversy stirred up by Facebook’s change to their Terms-of-Service, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg sat down to answer some questions. Unfortunately, no one asked him the right questions. Zuckerberg said in defense of Facebook’s new policies:

“When a person shares information on Facebook, they first need to grant Facebook a license to use that information so that we can show it to the other people they’ve asked us to share it with. Without this license, we couldn’t help people share that information,” stated Mark Zuckerberg on the Facebook blog. “One of the questions about our new terms of use is whether Facebook can use this information forever. When a person shares something like a message with a friend, two copies of that information are created—one in the person’s sent messages box and the other in their friend’s inbox. Even if the person deactivates their account, their friend still has a copy of that message. We think this is the right way for Facebook to work, and it is consistent with how other services like email work. One of the reasons we updated our terms was to make this more clear.” (pulse2.com)

While this does address some of the concerns raised, it leaves out most of the more troubling portions of the changed clause. The new controversial clause reads as follows:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

The troubling portions of the clause, none of which were addressed, are emphasized in bold for your reading pleasure. Many users feed their blogs through Facebook as a way of keeping friends updated on new posts. Actually, if I did my math right, about 1/4 of the people who read my blog post will be reading this on Facebook. According to the new TOS, my blog, because it is fed through Facebook, is theirs to use at their discretion.

What may be even more troubling is the portion that reads “including by offering a Share Link on your website…”. How many websites offer Facebook share-links on their website? It is without a doubt well into the millions. Most any blog or online publication knows that a Facebook share-link is a sure-fire way to attract readers. Does this mean just the presence of a Facebook submission button constitutes the legal right for Facebook to distribute the information at their discretion and wont?

Alexander van Elsas saw right through the shallow response to the most benign of the TOS’s changes. In his (as always) outstanding post Mark Zuckerberg is Answering the Wrong Question, and We Fell for it Again, Van Elsas writes:

…I cannot help but feel that the blogging community has let Mark get away with answering the wrong question. He has done a perfect job in avoiding a much more important privacy issue than the issue that arises when two people share information via Facebook.

The questions Mark should have answered are the following:

What exactly does Facebook do with all the user data has been collected on Facebook, and how exactly does it monetize that, even after a user has deleted his or her account?

I could care less about the information I share with others via Facebook. That sharing process is a conscious act. I know that if I share that whatever gets shared is out of my control. What I do not know is what Facebook does with that information. Why do they tap into all of my interactions and my data? What do they store, and how do they monetize that exactly? If I set my privacy settings as strict as possible do they still see everything? How is that data being used outside of Facebook? Do 3rd parties get access to that information as well, even if I do not want them too?

The problem at hand isn’t users sharing things on Facebook. It isn’t even controlling privacy on Facebook. The problem is that I do not have a clue or option to protect myself from Facebook. Any service that monetizes user data and interactions indirectly using a free but advertisement business model puts the value of the network in front of the value of the individual user. You get a free service, but you do not know exactly what you are giving up for that. And that is what Mark should be explaining. The rest is just a decoy so that the really difficult questions do not need to be answered.

I might not even mind that Facebook monetizes my user data, my friends, and my interactions. But right now, I don’t know how Facebook uses that data.We might think that our online lives are not connected to our real lives. We might even think that privacy is dead. But the problem is not that privacy is dead, but that it is distributed unevenly. In other words, the user is forced into total transparency when signing up for services like Facebook. But the service itself lacks transparency. There is no way we are going to find out what Facebook does with us. And it is this unbalanced relationship that we should be worried about. Mark Zukcerberg does a great job answering the wrong question, and we all fell for it again.

Are Facebook users truly satiated by this non-response by Zuckerberg? It seems that for now the controversy has died down, despite a distinct lack of questions of consequence being answered. It seems that the same users who let Facebook’s TOS nearly slip past them were just as easily duped by Zuckerberg’s non-answer. The same users who were shocked to learn that Flickr, Gmail, Yahoo, Tumblr and most other popular social networking services have similar TOS’s to Facebook's revised version. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us again--shame on us.

Alexander van Elsa had it right when he said Zuckerberg duped us again. I have a feeling this won’t be the last time.

all your bases are belong to facebook?

Mashable and The Consumerist broke the news today that there’s been a significant change to Facebook’s Terms-of-Service (or “TOS”). There is a flurry of speculation as to what exactly the changes mean, but one thing is clear: Facebook more or less owns any content you publish on their site, and your account can never be deleted. So, anything you put on Facebook is probably going to follow you around for awhile. Check out the new TOS paragraph:

You hereby grant Facebook an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to (a) use, copy, publish, stream, store, retain, publicly perform or display, transmit, scan, reformat, modify, edit, frame, translate, excerpt, adapt, create derivative works and distribute (through multiple tiers), any User Content you (i) Post on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof subject only to your privacy settings or (ii) enable a user to Post, including by offering a Share Link on your website and (b) to use your name, likeness and image for any purpose, including commercial or advertising, each of (a) and (b) on or in connection with the Facebook Service or the promotion thereof.

Yikes. Photographers—take note. You probably want to start watermarking or digitally signing your photographs. I’d recommend a huge, ugly watermark right across the photo. As a writer that feeds his blog through his Facebook account, this has left me to wonder if my blog, though published externally, is also subject to this new clause. Would my posts then become the property of Facebook, to be re-used and re-purposed at their discretion?

As disturbing as the new TOS may seem, there is something much more disturbing brought to light by the controversy sparked by this change. The fact is, Facebook’s new clause in their TOS is closer to an industry standard than an exception. The outrage sparked by the changes highlights how few users actually read TOS’s when signing up for an online service. Even Google’s Gmail service, despite Google’s benign and egalitarian image, has a clause almost identical to Facebook’s controversial clause.

If anything comes out of this, I am hoping it will be a renewed interest in TOS agreements, as painfully long and boring as they are. Rarely do I take the time to read a TOS agreement anymore, but Facebook has reminded us just how far the implications & consequences of glossing over a TOS contract could extend.

...and they're back

Looks like Cash4Gold created a new Twitter account after their original was suspended. They must be doing some reputation monitoring as I received this tweet within an hour of publishing a post regarding the investigation of their previous Twitter account.

even twitter is investigating cash4gold

I’ve been keeping up with Cash4Gold on Twitter for the past week, and noticed I hadn’t received any tweets from them lately. I wasn’t particularly sad, as most of their tweets were self-serving propaganda and pro-gold drivel. I was, however, curious. I checked out their Twitter page and was greeted by this message:

Interesting. I have to admit that I am curious as to what they could have done to warrant being investigated by Twitter. Was it the constant stream of propaganda? Did they try to add too many people at once? Were they harassing other Twitter users that dared mention their name? My guess would be the latter, given the way their PR firm’s lawyer so boldly threatened fivemilliondots.com with a defamation lawsuit. As I previously mentioned, their whole PR strategy seems rather inept and inadequate to say the least.

Nothing hurts PR worse than sending a threatening letter to a blogger. Oh, except for offering a blogger cash to kill a story critical of your company. The value of a cash settlement pales into comparison to the value of sensationalism generated by a blogger being threatened with a lawsuit or tempted with a bribe.

Mack Collier (Marketing Profs) has four steps for handling negative feedback in the blog-o-sphere that would have greatly benefited Cash4Gold, and maybe even saved or at least moderated their online reputation:

1 - If someone is leaving negative comments about your company, respond.

2 - Be thankful and polite. Nothing escalates a negative comment into a full-bore flamewar faster than an 'Oh yeah?!?' reply from the company.

3 - If commenters are jumping to the wrong conclusion about your company, kindly correct them with the proper information.

4 - Thank them for their feedback, and encourage them to provide more. Leave your email address so they can contact you off the blog, if they choose.

If you are thankful and respectful toward commenters, even those that are attacking your company, the end result will almost always be a positive experience.

quoted @ changification

I recently read an outsdanding post titled Futurology is Not a Real Career; Futurism Sites Suck. The article deftly pulled apart the so-called field of "Futurology", which often crosses paths with social media and marketing.

Ms. Alana Taylor, the post's author and venerable social media maven, liked my comment enough to publish it in a follow-up to the original post. I'm flattered to say the least! I highly recommend reading the original article and the subsequent follow-up.

i'm a top mixxer? cool.

I need to take a second to gloat. A coworker noticed a familiar headshot on the front page of Mixx today. I was trying to figure out why I had so many new followers today...

meet obama's new chief technology officer, darthpwnz94

new app: chart your life with twitter & uladoo

Recently, I stumbled across a new Twitter app with a funny name (as most of them have) called Uladoo. Uladoo is a very easy and simple way to create running charts of anything you could think of.

At a glance, users are currently testing it out with categories such as calories, doo (the kind a dog does), telekinesis, packed lunches, miles walked and many others. Setup is simple. To create a chart, simply tweet a name of a chart and a value @uladoo.

For example: @uladoo miles walked 1.8

Uladoo then automatically generates a user profile for first-time users (uladoo.com/yourname) and a chart with the value tweeted. Users may have as many charts as they wish.

There are some definite possibilities here for a potentially powerful app, especially if a mobile utility were to be created, or some sort of corporate account allowing followers to tweet in votes on a poll or question posed. Those with SMS or Twitter mobile will appreciate being able to add values to their charts even when away from the computer. This is handy if you're charting calories while you're out to lunch, or on the road and in-between wifi connections.

It is apps like Uladoo that are adding value to Twitter and making it a valuable and genuinely useful utility. Though in its infancy, Uladoo is a fantastic way to help organize, manage and quantify your life using a web app you probably already spend too much time on.

Curious to see how it looks? Check out my charts at http://www.uladoo.com/seelowitz.

97th floor: new social media toolbar for firefox 3.0

The folks over at 97th Floor have released a new version of their popular (and free) Social Media toolbar geared specifically towards FireFox 3.x users. I have known about this toolbar for some time but have neglected to install it due to a longstanding hatred of over-cluttered browsers and half-functional, largely unnecessary add-ons. Well, I was wrong on this one. Its brilliant. 97th Floor's toolbar combines everything I love in an add-on.


97th Floor's toolbar is:

• 100% functional
• Extremely lightweight
• Very discreet & unobtrusive
• Actually quite useful

The above are, sadly, rare qualities in most browser extensions. 97th Floor nails it, however. It will provide you with one-click submissions to all your favorite social bookmarking sites, as well as integration with Twitter and Sphinn. And my favorite part: it anchors into the foot of the browser window, instead of adding to the heap of toolbars you already have at the top.


I'd encourage anyone to download this utility--and truly it is a utility--97th's Social Media streamlines your social-media endeavours into a one-click affair. Truly a valuable and well-thought-out tool in the sea of half-baked toolbars and extensions.

Edit: After writing this, it was called to my attention that this potentially could be considered a "script" by Digg, as it does modify your "shouts" page. I cannot verify if this app is sanctioned by Digg or not--it does NOT offer any cheats on Digg--but regardless I would still exercise caution using this, lest ye be banned from Digg!

new facebook app posts your criminal record

I'm not kidding. Someone finally created an app that essentially works like PeopleSearch and runs a public background/criminal record search on any of your Facebook buddies. Its called TrueScoop. If you want to see how it works, I recommend the writeup over at AllFacebook News.


This app is particularly alarming the wake of recent Facebook blackmail scams, wherein hapless (albeit somewhat stupid) Facebook'rs were duped into paying a fake Facebook hottie not to post the nude pics they had sent "her". Now, its even easier to dig up some skeletons and bring them out of the closest--by posting them on your wall.



What are the implications? Well, suppose a thoughtless friend were to post your record on his wall? Do you know how it would read? Also, as pointed out in the AllFacebook writeup, there are multiple occurences of most names. I know there are numerous Jonathan Seely's, and I would not want anyone confusing their misdeeds with this Jonathan Seely.

In light of privacy concerns TrueScoop raises, I encourage anyone who values their reputation (this would apply especially to those in the business world) to block this Facebook app. It serves no other purpose than to dig up dirt, and all it takes for that dirt to become public knowledge is one careless click.

Edit: I created a group protesting this new app on Facebook... join us if you feel this app has gone too far.

cash4gold (attempts to) cash in on internet pr

I was surprised to overhear at the office today that the infamous sell-your-jewelry-get-cash consortium "Cash4Gold" has established a presence in the Web 2.0-sphere. I decided to check them out on Twitter, and as I suspected its mostly pro-Cash4Gold propaganda being shelled at followers, with some damage control thrown in for good measure. They are, afterall, involved in a lawsuit for term-infringement and under investigation by the Florida attorney general.

I question the wisdom of their decision to enter into the web-o-sphere. It seems largely motivated by a desire to do some reputation-building and damage control, both of which I'm confident could easily backfire on them. With all the negative press surrounding their business, Cash4Gold is making themselves extremely vulnerable to vengeful consumer attacks.

We've seen in the past how a web presence of a less-than-reputable company can backfire. Admittedly, this is less underhanded than the infamous fake Walmart blog, but consumers generally meet such attempts at spin control with hostility and warranted skepticism.

Sox First has some great advice on their list of six ways to avoid PR disasters that Cash4Gold would be wise to follow:

2.Be upfront providing the public with information and apologise. But won't an apology increase the risk of litigation? Not necessarily. There are hundreds of different ways of saying sorry without jeopardising your legal position, but in the end, you need to express regret and sympathy. Otherwise, you just come out looking like you're protecting your backside.

3. Go out of your way to show you are doing everything possible to solve the problem.

4. Identify your vulnerabilities, find ways to stop them blowing up, have a plan for what to do when the worst happens and keep the plan updated.

5. Develop strong relations with employees and customers.

So far, its not looking great for Cash4Gold if we're grading against the above rubric. Rather than create a plan to stop their vulnerabilities from opening up, they have opened themselves up for a backlash of consumers in a public setting. Chances are, even if they do offer some rebuttal to claims, it will fall on deaf ears of consumers who have already made up their minds.

Let's take a look at their Twitter strategy thus far:

So far, the strategy seems to be consisting largely of paid pro-Cash4Gold blog posts, and general information regarding the gold market. There are no satisfied customer testimonials, no answers to questions regarding their business practices, and no real responses to recent allegations.

Hate to say it but... Cash4Gold: sending out spammy, self-serving blogposts on Twitter is probably not going to grow your buisiness (especially when you're sitting at 19 followers), or repair your reputation. There is no target, no focus and clearly no strategy. It has been demonstrated that social media marketing is not about selling, it is about building a brand or reputation through a relationship--not blindly flinging corporate blogposts out into the Twitter-sphere.

slowly getting there

You may notice the formatting looks a little weird, page elements are being moved around, or something may be a bit askew. No worries--its just me trying to tweak my blog layout a bit. I'm amazed how fast I forgot HTML.

captcha wtf of the day

Okay, I figured out the first word, but anyone got any guesses on that second one? I typed in 'pneumonia' which is nowhere near correct and surprisingly--it was accepted.

paper vs. plastic: i can't decide

I get coffee first thing every morning. My day can't start without it. Fancying myself an evironmentalist of sorts, as well as a frugal West Michigander, I decided to purchase a mug at the coffee bar I frequent for $5.99, which then entitles me to $1.25 refills of their delicious coffees. I'm killing two birds with one stone. I'm saving the environment by keeping landfills clear of waste with my reusable mug, and saving myself a few coins while I'm at it. Win-win situation.

I'm afraid it is not quite that simple.

Lately, I've been plagued with doubts. We are constantly told to "reduce, reuse and recycle", but in some cases I firmly believe a disposable product can actually have less environmental impact than its reusable counterpart.

Let's analyze the plastic cup first. First the pros:

• it is theoretically infinitely reusable

And the "pros" pretty much stop there. It is reusable, therefore, it is around a lot longer before winding up in a landfill.

Now the cons:

• environmental impact of manufacturing process (i.e. pollutants & byproducts created)
  
• non-biodegradable
• made from non-renewable & artificial resources

Infinite reusability is, in theory, fantastic, but only good so long as you do in fact use the cup infinitely. The second the cup is thrown away, it is just another peice of non-biodegradable chemically-created plastic sitting in a landfill.

Now, let's take a look at the paper alternative. Pros:

• trees are a renewable resource
• while standing, trees provide oxygen, recycle carbon dioxide, prevent erosion, etc...
• paper is 100% biodegradable
• paper can be manufactured from post-consumer content
• paper degrades quickly in landfills

Cons:

• most cups are either wax or plastic coated, which has a questionable environmental impact
• they are not reusable, which means that a new one is necessary with each beverage, thus there will be a greater quantity in landfills
• paper mills have been previously shown to be grossly environmentally irresponsible in manufacturing process and waste disposal
• trees, though renewable, would still need to be cut down to produce the paper

I firmly believe most of these "cons" could be, and in some cases have been, addressed. Tighter EPA regulations have made the paper-making process more friendly, many cups now are un-coated or coated with a readily biodegradable substance, and logging companies are opting not to cut down old-growth and replanting in a more responsible manner.
There is no guarantee that any paper product is manufactured with post-consumer content or that the company behind the cup is replanting or not poisoning a river with waste. Consumers need to actively ask for products like Solo's ecologically-friendly line of hot cups.
Is paper the clear winner? Not yet--but it could be.

kurt vonnegut: how to write with style

I came across this outstanding post on Reddit today. Its rare to see something with content this good from such a reputable source on most social bookmarking sites. Vonnegut truly was a master, and this how-to for aspiring writers might as well be the ten commandments for aspiring authors.

How to Write With Style

by Kurt Vonnegut

Newspaper reporters and technical writers are trained to reveal almost nothing about themselves in their writings. This makes them freaks in the world of writers, since almost all of the other ink-stained wretches in that world reveal a lot about themselves to readers. We call these revelations, accidental and intentional, elements of style.

These revelations tell us as readers what sort of person it is with whom we are spending time. Does the writer sound ignorant or informed, stupid or bright, crooked or honest, humorless or playful-- ? And on and on.

Why should you examine your writing style with the idea of improving it? Do so as a mark of respect for your readers, whatever you're writing. If you scribble your thoughts any which way, your readers will surely feel that you care nothing about them. They will mark you down as an egomaniac or a chowderhead --- or, worse, they will stop reading you.

The most damning revelation you can make about yourself is that you do not know what is interesting and what is not. Don't you yourself like or dislike writers mainly for what they choose to show you or make you think about? Did you ever admire an emptyheaded writer for his or her mastery of the language? No.

So your own winning style must begin with ideas in your head.

1. Find a subject you care about

Find a subject you care about and which you in your heart feel others should care about. It is this genuine caring, and not your games with language, which will be the most compelling and seductive element in your style.

I am not urging you to write a novel, by the way --- although I would not be sorry if you wrote one, provided you genuinely cared about something. A petition to the mayor about a pothole in front of your house or a love letter to the girl next door will do.

2. Do not ramble, though

I won't ramble on about that.

3. Keep it simple

As for your use of language: Remember that two great masters of language, William Shakespeare and James Joyce, wrote sentences which were almost childlike when their subjects were most profound. "To be or not to be?" asks Shakespeare's Hamlet. The longest word is three letters long. Joyce, when he was frisky, could put together a sentence as intricate and as glittering as a necklace for Cleopatra, but my favorite sentence in his short story "Eveline" is this one: "She was tired." At that point in the story, no other words could break the heart of a reader as those three words do.

Simplicity of language is not only reputable, but perhaps even sacred. The Bible opens with a sentence well within the writing skills of a lively fourteen-year-old: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."

4. Have guts to cut

It may be that you, too, are capable of making necklaces for Cleopatra, so to speak. But your eloquence should be the servant of the ideas in your head. Your rule might be this: If a sentence, no matter how excellent, does not illuminate your subject in some new and useful way, scratch it out.

5. Sound like yourself

The writing style which is most natural for you is bound to echo the speech you heard when a child. English was Conrad's third language, and much that seems piquant in his use of English was no doubt colored by his first language, which was Polish. And lucky indeed is the writer who has grown up in Ireland, for the English spoken there is so amusing and musical. I myself grew up in Indianapolis, where common speech sounds like a band saw cutting galvanized tin, and employs a vocabulary as unornamental as a monkey wrench.

In some of the more remote hollows of Appalachia, children still grow up hearing songs and locutions of Elizabethan times. Yes, and many Americans grow up hearing a language other than English, or an English dialect a majority of Americans cannot understand.

All these varieties of speech are beautiful, just as the varieties of butterflies are beautiful. No matter what your first language, you should treasure it all your life. If it happens to not be standard English, and if it shows itself when your write standard English, the result is usually delightful, like a very pretty girl with one eye that is green and one that is blue.

I myself find that I trust my own writing most, and others seem to trust it most, too, when I sound most like a person from Indianapolis, which is what I am. What alternatives do I have? The one most vehemently recommended by teachers has no doubt been pressed on you, as well: to write like cultivated Englishmen of a century or more ago.

6. Say what you mean

I used to be exasperated by such teachers, but am no more. I understand now that all those antique essays and stories with which I was to compare my own work were not magnificent for their datedness or foreignness, but for saying precisely what their authors meant them to say. My teachers wished me to write accurately, always selecting the most effective words, and relating the words to one another unambiguously, rigidly, like parts of a machine. The teachers did not want to turn me into an Englishman after all. They hoped that I would become understandable --- and therefore understood. And there went my dream of doing with words what Pablo Picasso did with paint or what any number of jazz idols did with music. If I broke all the rules of punctuation, had words mean whatever I wanted them to mean, and strung them together higgledy-piggledy, I would simply not be understood. So you, too, had better avoid Picasso-style or jazz-style writing, if you have something worth saying and wish to be understood.

Readers want our pages to look very much like pages they have seen before. Why? This is because they themselves have a tough job to do, and they need all the help they can get from us.

7. Pity the readers

They have to identify thousands of little marks on paper, and make sense of them immediately. They have to read, an art so difficult that most people don't really master it even after having studied it all through grade school and high school --- twelve long years.

So this discussion must finally acknowledge that our stylistic options as writers are neither numerous nor glamorous, since our readers are bound to be such imperfect artists. Our audience requires us to be sympathetic and patient readers, ever willing to simplify and clarify --- whereas we would rather soar high above the crowd, singing like nightingales.

That is the bad news. The good news is that we Americans are governed under a unique Constitution, which allows us to write whatever we please without fear of punishment. So the most meaningful aspect of our styles, which is what we choose to write about, is utterly unlimited.

8. For really detailed advice

For a discussion of literary style in a narrower sense, in a more technical sense, I recommend to your attention The Elements of Style, by William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White. E.B. White is, of course, one of the most admirable literary stylists this country has so far produced.

You should realize, too, that no one would care how well or badly Mr. White expressed himself, if he did not have perfectly enchanting things to say.

In Sum:

1. Find a subject you care about

2. Do not ramble, though

3. Keep it simple

4. Have guts to cut

5. Sound like yourself

6. Say what you mean

7. Pity the readers

the votes are in: pidgin ftw

I asked my Twitter followers today if anyone knew of a good IM service mashup program.

I have been exploring ways to streamline my communication to my friends on social bookmarking sites, since about half are on AIM, half on gTalk, and a lot have both. I'm hoping to save redundant IM's to people--which no-one likes--and to hopefully have more reliable messaging, given how often gTalk seems to get overwhelmed.

As you can see, nearly everyone recommended Pidgin, and so far it seems like a great recommendation. It doesn't use the resources Trillian did, and seems much more stable than gTalk or Trillian, with a more streamlined and clean interface similar to what I'm used to on AIM Professional.

meet my high-maintenance girlfriend: digg.

Digg is a high-maintenance girlfriend. She's demanding, time-consuming, finicky, hard to please and will dump you at the first slip-up. She can be great when things are going good, and give you some great results, but you have better be willing to invest the time and energy its going to take to get those results.

Every night I ask myself--is it worth it?

politics & social media: an exploitation of trust?

Its nearly indisputable fact that the 2009 US Presidential election was the first election won using social media. President Obama's campaign utilized Facebook as no candidate had previously. I can almost say with certainty that campaign coordinators were also using services with user submitted content like Digg, Reddit and Mixx. Its only logical, and if the technology is there, why not take advantage of it?

That brings me to my point, however. Is politics utilizing social media to spread a message, or to exploit our naive trust of the social web? When I see content on the front page of Digg, I rarely think about who has submitted it, or why. Its been proven time and time again how easy it is to "game" the system and buy/trade votes on social bookmarking sites across the web.

Who's to say that Obama's permanent place on the Digg front page throughout the entire election was entirely natural? Honestly, if his campaigners were smart, they were voting up the positive stories and burying the negative ones. And if one thing was apparent through out the election, it was that Barack Obama's campaign understood and utilized social media in the most effective ways possible. Its hard to believe that they didn't game the system like so many other Digg users do everyday.

For me, this raises the question: are we too naive? Just because something hits the front page of Reddit or Digg--does that mean its good, solid information? As gaming spreads, even now to Mixx which was touted a refuge for those tired of Digg power users dominance, is not immune.

Recently, I came across a horribly written, outdated, and ultimately pointless post that gave a short description of each social content site. The English was broken, there were words misspelled, and the site offered absolutely no valuable insight beyond a short description of each. This blog post was also on the front page of Mixx. There is no way that could have come to fruition naturally, as anyone reading the post would right away dismiss it as a pathetic joke of an article.

How many other "pathetic jokes of an article" have we read, thinking that in fact the content was good and the research was solid? Are we critical enough of content found in blogs and on social submission sites? Or, are the same people we revolted against, the media conglomerates, spin doctors and talking heads, now using our own weapon against us?