I have been writing this post in my head for a while after I was catching up on the drama that unfolded with Jason Calacanis and the people at Comscore.  If you have no idea what I might be talking about, you can read all about that flap on Jason’s Posterous blog, and certainly the echochamber that ensued following as compiled by Techmeme and listed out by Jason.

In the tech world online and in social media circles we have been trained that we can do a whole lot of things for very little, and in most cases, everything we want to do has a “Free” application associated with it.  Things like YouTube, Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Flickr, and a plethora of other things we “sell” to clients and companies that come in our toolkit we obtained for free or for very little investment.  Our investment at this point has been the time it takes to understand and implement the use of such tools.  This has been a very lucrative part of being a social media consultant and I suppose why you cannot swing a dead cat in a room and not hit one or two of the “experts” in our business.  Free is always easy to sell.

I have talked before about “The Problems of Free“, and I also talked about how companies are using free as a business model. I want to turn back to the discussion or debate related to Comscore.  We have begun to expect companies to provide services online for free or for very little cost, and as I see it that proposes a problem somewhere in the chain.  Comscore cannot compete with Free.  Someone has to pay for free.

If you are providing a service online, or if you have the latest cool application and you offer it to your users for free, how do you make money?  I often ask many of the startups that come to me what their revenue model is and how they plan to make money.  This is usually followed of course with “How are you going to pay me?”  I am not yet providing “Free” for my own services.  Many companies have long drawn out plans with “ad revenue”, affiliate marketing”, or worse yet I get a blank stare of “we have not yet come to that part of the business plan.”

In the end, you have to pay for the service you provide, be it your time, servers, salaries, and long lunches at In-N-Out.  Comscore is having the problem explaining that they have to pay their bills.  We have to give our stockholders a piece of the pie and we have to pay our salaries and everything associated with the costs of giving you what you want.  They are not able to barter it all and they certainly cannot ask their employees to do it out of the goodness of their hearts, so they have to charge.  I am not sure whether Jason or anyone else has really come up with an alternative to charging for Comscore’s services, other than perhaps the aforementioned ad revenue or the like.  Someone has to pay for the free in the chain of the exchange.  The problem that I see is that Comscore is asking the customer to pay when others are offering it for “free”, but even in that instance, someone is paying for the free.

Photo via Photos8.com

Sphere It

I am behind the times on this one but I wanted to get it on my site to refer to it later.  This is a great video and worth the watch.

Some of the information in this video is already obsolete.  Social Media is moving at a rate that none of us can keep up with, and I for one sometimes must take a step back to look at the big picture to keep up with the rate of growth.

Sphere It

I have been a follower of the sponsored conversations and sponsored tweets and the sponsored anything for a while now and I intend to keep on top of it because it does have somewhat of a effect on my business model although indirect. TechCrunch talks about banning sponsored status updates from their application.  This will take on quite a white hat look in many of the purists’ eyes, but in my eyes if seems to be a horse of a different color.  As a social media consultant I always talk about the metrics and ROI of using some of these tools, and the business model given today’s idea of return does not have much spark as it relates to sponsored status updates on Facebook. 

For the most part, sponsored conversations or updates or tweets or whatever the case is mostly about reach.  Part of that reach and probably what is most important to advertisers and brands is the amount of eyeballs.  Let’s face it, they are not banging my door down to put up banner ads here as I am not getting the reach they require, and that is exactly why Facebook’s idea of banning the practice of sponsored updates is sort of a moot point.

With the limits they have on "friends" there will never be the huge amount of eyeballs that brands and media buyers are looking for in a property.  My Facebook page will only ever have 5000 friends at the most.  That is not what they want.  They are looking for the biggest bang for their buck.  I do understand and argue that its not about the number of followers it is about the number of conversions, or how or who you influence, but that thinking has not reached the heads of the people that are signing the checks.  I think if I were to ask Ted Murphy the best way to sell the sponsored conversations it would be about your number of page views over the number of cool people you know. 

I think this has to do with a preemptive strike and more about what they have for plans down the road.  I do think however that with the addition of FriendFeed now in their crown jewels, it may also be a tell of what they have in store for a plan to for future looks of their new acquired service. As the FTC becomes involved and we see more and more of a crackdown these types of maneuvers will be quickly reversed or adopted but I applaud Facebook for taking a stand in this part of the controversy.

UPDATE:  I forgot to mention something I thought I should get into this post.  With the banning of sponsored conversations this also make it difficult to cross pollinate all of your networks with a sponsored post which in turn keeps the walled garden feel to Facebook which I think also helps their business plan.  Keeping third party applications from sending out a mass tweet/update/status message to all of your "friends" at once makes it also difficult.

Tags: Facebook, TechCrunch, Sponsored Status, Sponsored Conversations, Sponsored Tweets, ROI, Marketing, Social Media Advertising

Sphere It

I was reading through an article on Spiegel Online International and an interview of Chris Anderson, Editor of Wired magazine.  The article goes into detail as to the thoughts of Anderson and how he perceives the idea of new media.  I wanted to pull out some of the quotes from that article and comment on them.  The first of the comments that jumped out and smacked me across the face and it should others in the print media world was his take on the San Francisco Chronicle:

SPIEGEL: Your local newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle, is fighting for survival. If it was to disappear tomorrow …

Anderson: … I wouldn’t notice. I don’t even know what I’d be missing.

In a word, OUCH.  Up to this point I was forming an argument in my head that the print media was another form of consumable information we all rely on for another take of a news story, but to say that a newspaper’s disappearance has not bearing on your world is a mind-numbing thought.  I wondered what Anderson would think if a statement about Wired would make him have talk differently if it were to shut down tomorrow?  I think he goes into the real reason why that wouldn’t happen, and a take similar to what I inferred with the remaking of BusinessWeek. His take on the cost of old media:

Anderson: The math of profit is pretty easy, revenues minus cost. You do your best on the revenue side and if you are not making money you lower your costs. The problem is not that there isn’t money to be made online, it’s just that our costs are too high.

This seems like a no brainer but for some it seems that this is the mountain they cannot climb.  The problem is that there are people out there giving away the cow for free which is of course the book Anderson released.  He goes into the economy issue:

Anderson: Attention and reputation are two non-monetary economies. The vast majority of people online write for free. We’ve tried paying some of our bloggers and they thought it was insulting. They’re not doing it for the money, they’re doing it for attention and reputation, or just for fun. For example, two years ago, I started this Web site called geekdad.com. It’s about being a dad and being a computer geek. We’re writing about how to do things that are fun for kids and fun for dads. It’s a community project, everyone contributes for free but we now have an audience bigger than many newspapers. And there are an infinite number of sites like this out there.

Not only are there an infinite number of sites out there that are doing just as he states, but they are doing it on budgets that most expense accounts could not cover in the traditional industry.  They are providing the news and they are doing it with close to nothing, which is completely game changing in this economy. 

I do like the end of the interview when Anderson is asked about charging for his book and they talk about "time is money."  This is somewhat of a dichotomy since nothing seems to be actually free.  This could be part of the reason we are in this situation to begin with, someone did it for free.

[photo via LA Times]

Tags: Spiegel Online International, Chris Anderson, Free, Old Media, New Media, Traditional Media, Newspapers, Blogs

Sphere It

It used to be that in order to be seen as an influencer or to be really taken seriously in your niche or genre, you had to be on someone’s blogroll.  Being added to a blogroll gave you some credibility and it also helped you get read by others in your group.  You got to be one of the cool kids if you were recognized on a blogroll.  The goal was to get listed on a blog roll by someone with lots of readers as well.  It also helped you get read by others, or it helped your voice get heard. Being on a blogroll was the gold standard.

Now with the likes of Twitter we get more of a situation of more noise less signal.  It is difficult to be heard. 25 Million people all hoping their 140 characters get in front of someone to read.  You may have the best ever 140 characters in the history of the world, but to broadcast it to Twitter is to cast it into the sea of information hoping to find a home. I liken it to casting an SOS note in a bottle into the ocean and hoping someone finds it.  Chances are it may never get read by the person that matters.  Twitter can be the same way.  It seems that many online marketing types believe this a great way now to broadcast their message.  They think a message in a bottle is a good way to broadcast.  Cast a net big enough and sooner or later someone may hear what you have to say.  This is not the best case scenario unless you get on someone’s list or in a group.  Instead of blogrolls, we now can put our Twitter friends or followers into groups.  I use the popular application Tweetdeck, and I have many groups of my followers distilled into readable tweets.  I have my social media colleagues and I have technology people and parenting bloggers and no, even though I joke about it quite a bit I do not have a "Hottie" Twitter group. This is how I track what is being sent via Twitter by those I want to listen to and want to hear. I want to hear all 250 Million people out there but I have yet to figure that out sans some special paid for application.

This is how I read most of the important stuff on Twitter.  I go through a specific group and see what they are talking about and what they have to say.  It may be an hour after the fact when I re-tweet something or I comment or take notice, and the reason is, I don’t have time to scan the river of noise going by at 10,000 people a minute. In the instance I am talking about you get added to my group if you provide me good thoughts or value. I don’t want to miss your tweet.  The only thing is, my groups are not public.  I need to find something that allows me to show you my groups.  I need a public app that shows my Twitter groups, my blogroll of twitter friends. I need to develop this as a widget for blogs or web sites.  You can get on my group in in my Twoops (URL taken I checked)?  Anyone? 

Photo via Mykl Roventine

Tags: Twitter, Blogrolls, Web Apps, River of News, Noise vs. Signal

Sphere It

For a long time I have been touting that we all live in a Google world.  We cannot seem to leave our house without first checking directions on Google, or order Chinese food without getting the local menu and number from Google, etc.  Many companies have come to us and asked, "How do we get on page one of Google’s search results?"  That has been the mainstay of my presentations about why companies need to get into blogging and other forms of social media.  I have yet to figure into the mix, Facebook.

Reading the article today that Wired put out about the "Great Wall of Facebook: The Social Network’s Plan to Dominate the Internet — and Keep Google Out", I began to think of living in a Facebook world.  I never really considered these to be rivals in the big scheme of things as Facebook is a social network and Google a search engine, but I see now that there are many players all jockeying for position in world of the Internet. 

I also think there is another small player that might be making things interesting and that of course is the social media darling of the bunch, Twitter.  They can help perform the function of both search and of the social network.  All of it actually has to do with data.  As we begin to see the emergence of what I call 2009 The Year of Listening, more and more companies are concentrating on brand monitoring and reputation monitoring and how they can get into community and infiltrate them with their brand, their message and their mission.  Yes, it is all about the business after all and that is the company that will win.  Which one will provide the best of all worlds?  Right now we are still living in the Google world, but there are some other players in the Internet solar system. 

Tags: Facebook, Google, Twitter, Search Marketing, Social Media Marketing, Social Networks

Sphere It

As a social media consultant, I don’t actually rely on ad revenue from my blog, i.e. Google Adsense or the like to pay my bills.  If I did, I would have gone back to working in the law as I was before.  I am helping out the folks at Qumana, the blog editor I am testing, with a revival of an old feature.  I used to be back in the day when I was first introduced into Qumana that we had ads that were served using the blog editor and that no longer became viable. For a little bit I am going to feature some ads here in the posts, not because I want to make the big dollars and show you my six figure check the likes of a Darren Rowse at Problogger.net or like Shoemoney.  I am doing it to help out a company that will help out bloggers.  We are always here to help bloggers become better bloggers.  That in turn helps companies that want to hire a blogger or bloggers that go on to get real jobs as bloggers.  I will let you know more as they are ready to launch these things again and will let you know my review of their service and offering.

Tags: Employment, Jobs, Social Media Jobs, Monetizing Blogs

Sphere It

Just reading over at Profy and Svetlana Gladkova asking the question, "Twitter is a Popular Marketing Tool?".  The analysis is interesting on Svetlana’s piece and I think you should read it.  The thing that caught my eye was less about the written words and more about the graphic she had in the post.

The thing that made me note this graph was the far right three forms of online tools being used, blogs, podcasts and Twitter.  I preach of course that these are the "new media" and that companies should be embracing them, but it is nowhere near the use of direct mail.  I was amazed at the lopsided view of this. Twitter is the new media darling and blogs are making somewhat of a comeback since breaking on the scene at the beginning of the century.  I am curious how the study was conducted and as I understand it it was conducted by WebTrends.  The study appears to address only the European companies but I think that the results can be indicative of what is happening here as well.  As the economy keeps dipping and we go back to the "what works" idea of marketing, I see the testing of social media to be take a backseat to the more measurable results of the past.

Tags: New Media, Twitter, Twitter Marketing, Social Media, Social Media Marketing

Sphere It

Reading Marketing Profs Paul Dunay’s post regarding the company budget for social media I found it interesting specifically about the idea behind content creation. Paul states:

Ok but the real cost (again unlike the traditional media stuff) is in Content Creation to fill up those social media / new media channels – here is where the cost can get large. I happen to think I am very fortunate since I work at a consulting firm where many people are thought leaders – so we have no shortage of opinions

He does not get into the costs specifically as he does with pricing the actual tools of social media. The tools he itemizes are:

A Blog;

A Podcast;

A Video;

A Wiki; and

A Community.

I refer to these things as tools as I also believe that applications can be used in a social media planned budget as well. The applications are mostly free to very inexpensive. I did notice he did not budget for the activities surrounding the likes of Twitter or other which enhance the above tools. Basically, they are free. He is correct however when he states:

So unlike traditional media – Print, TV and Radio – which can cost big money. Social media’s upfront costs very little…

You have to read through his original post regarding the overall budgets to get an idea of the numbers, but I wanted to wrap my mind around the budget ideas first and foremost. The low cost of social media is right now making it a hot and much sought after way of accomplishing a company’s advertising, marketing and public relations strategy.

The real cost is the people that can manage this strategy, someone that can understand the uses of each tool and application and how to make it work for its intended use. This is where the budget has to be difficult to nail down. The person that is responsible for this doesn’t even have a job title or description these days. Is it the marketing person, the advertising person or the public relations person that handles this? What department do we charge for the implementation of this new way of handling our media? These are some difficult questions to answer. I am personally seeing many more job openings on job boards, and seeing recruiters provide the answers to the question of who to place in the position. The real question I have for Paul is the budget for the wage for this person. How much does your company expert in the leadership of social media get paid? Do you have a budget line item for a social media manager?

Sphere It

I continue to explain to people that this social media thing is not the quick fix, not the get rich quick and not the answered prayer or the be all and end all of business revival medicines.  Every time a story hits the Internet that gets a viral following, or a YouTube Video goes crazy, or something happens that causes a server somewhere to crash from the load of traffic to a company blog or website, I know I’ll be getting an email or a call.  The question first out the mouth of the caller or the subject line of that  urgent email:

“How can we get a viral component planned for our company?”

My response is something less than jovial, and sometimes it is met with sarcastic responses like “I wish I could bottle that”, or something along the lines of “Better yet let’s go buy that winning Powerball lottery ticket!” 

I recently read a post from a blogger that talked about those social media people that you need to run away from.  He hit the nail on the head when he said to run away from a consultant that says:

“We will implement a viral marketing strategy.”
Uh, no you won’t. Viral is the effect, not the cause. If someone says, “I can make a viral video,” please show him the door.

Yes, I completely agree.  Not only show them the door but make sure to report them to the social media police.

I tend to cringe when I see things like the company that somehow “positions” itself on page one of various networking sites.  The stars aligned well for them and they got a bump or large spike in traffic. Then I see them as they are bragging to all of their friends how their servers crashed under the weight of traffic that came to see their product.  Yes, it is pretty cool to watch and I have seen it happen first hand.

After that traffic spike honeymoon is over however, they don’t talk about the return to normalcy as they continue to struggle to get those much needed conversions.  In fact, they soon find that their conversion and other numbers have been skewed by the strange anomaly that occurred.  At this point, all we can really do as consultants is to tell you where and how to buy your chance at the golden lottery ticket, but I cannot tell you which one of those tickets will crash your server.

Sphere It

I have been watching the recent demise of one of my favorite blogging networks called Know More Media. A business blogging network with its focus on the business world. I have been reading Easton Ellsworth’s blog since it’s inception at Business Blog Wire. As I understand it they intend to discontinue paying their bloggers as of this Friday on August 1, 2008. An open letter from Jeremy Wright, CEO at b5Media to the leadership at Know More Media was my first alert to this happening.

I have also been following the rumors, innuendo and some of the people involved with the blogging network at Weblogs, Inc., a blog network company that was purchased by AOL, and the idea that they too may be stopping the payment to their bloggers for the content that they are providing. They are supposed to also learn their fate on August 1, 2008. I would say that this Friday could be referred to as Black Friday as it relates to the blog networking agencies.

What is the cause of this demise? I believe there are two components to this dilemma and it starts with the economy and the ad spends we are seeing in the online marketing realm. I too have felt the economic crunch with companies that were early adopters to enter into the social media arena. Experimental marketing such as the kind I provide, is usually the first to suffer the cuts of companies tightening their belts to prepare for the new downturn. Companies using blogs to market their products and services are still seeing the advertising as experimental not being able to yet show a return on their investment. Measurement of social media marketing is still in it’s infancy and companies are falling back on what they believed was working before they began to experiment and then experience tougher times. The economy has taken its toll. Advertisers are repositioning their budgets to go to something more stable and more quantifiable.

Another problem I see is the way blogging networks are managing their properties. Some of the companies that are in trouble with their networks are those companies that are not flexible and have the ability to move with the market. The leadership of these companies are beginning to see what happens when you rest upon your laurels and get too comfortable with a business plan that really must grow with its market and adapt to market changes. Leadership continues to take profit and not go back to those leaner times. In addition, since the sale of Weblogs, Inc., we have seen the emergence of social networking sites like Facebook and Myspace and the explosive emergence of microblogging sites such as Twitter and other applications. These blogging networks must also evolve to adapt these tools to make them a part of their own properties. They may have some components in place, but for the most part relying on their bloggers to keep them profitable is a tough chore for those bloggers and it will not last forever.

What do I see for the future of the likes of blogging Networks? I see smaller niche networks fracturing off to make single networks and written by perhaps multiple bloggers. We are seeing the emergence now of social sites such as in the food realm, the sports realm, and the automobile industry and other hobby type sites. The mommy blogs have embraced the idea of community and are some of the best in the business at making a social group made of many bloggers. The only problem we are seeing is the bloggers themselves are not making money from these groups. It’s an advertising property for the owners. Groups that are joining as a member/friend/follower of the group as a whole are becoming their own target market. They are generating content for the group and it all ends up in one place. They have built in forums for discussion, they have feeds that are brought in from each member of their own member blogs, and they have a Facebook look with each community member owning a certain part of the real estate. We see it now with FriendFeed Groups and other places.

Some of the players like b5 and others are still able to show profits because they have positioned themselves to give the best product. I believe even b5 has adjustments that they make on a regular basis to bring in new properties and cutting off the parts of the network that are bringing their number down. A type of survival of the fittest as it relates to their participating core. The problems we face have to do with metrics and what those with money see as the value. I have heard tell that those that have a target audience with the most impressions are the most valuable and are riding that wave. It seems Jeremy Wright is able to continue to surf that wave.

What do you think. What is the new thing to replace networks? Do you think networks are here to stay? As we all become our own citizen journalists, how can we monetize that content, or is their a different way of thinking for advertisers. These are questions I get and wrestle with on a regular basis. Any ideas?

[photo via Benny Bloomfield]

Sphere It

Technorati has been an icon of the blogosphere since Dave Sifry began the company to track blogs and provide bloggers with statistics and search.  It was the first thing people downloaded to their blogs, and the first part of setting up a blog.  They seem to have lost that celebrity status.  There are so many companies that have been cracking away at that Technorati keystone that it appears they may crumble.  I have been waiting to hear some news from the Technorati camp and it appears that news is bubbling up as reported by TechCrunch.

When I talked with Richard Jalinchandra in Las Vegas at the Blog World Expo in November, he mentioned then that Technorati was in for some changes and that he wanted to lead the company back to its glory days.  He couldn’t talk then about what he was doing but it seems that the cool stuff I expected and the things the head of marketing, Aaron Krane,  talked about on my Social Mediapshere radio show would make them a shining star again.  I didnt expect them to enter the advertising arena.

Tris an I questioned them on why they were not indexing search results past six months and it looks like they may be rethinking that with adding an advertising component to their search.  Arrington states:

Technorati will certainly be competing head to head with FM, although sources say they’ll focus on the long tail of the market as well (FM only takes larger sites). The network will be a self-serve exchange for bloggers (and other publishers) as well as advertisers. Ad units will include both display and text ads, and will allow units to be charged on both a CPM and CPC basis. (emphasis added)

I was hoping that Technorati would be adding some features that would be more than just another way for bloggers to add a revenue component to their blogs.  I want to see them return to an application I would run to five times a day because they offered a way to see stats and a something that was cool to experience as I did back in the day.

This is part of the reason I have hooked my wagon to the folks at Lijit*.  I certainly see that they have ideas to make their “wijit” something that is a first add-on to a blog.  I am not sensing that Technorati has that coolness factor in mind.  I certainly understand that after raising $20M in funding you might want to start thinking of making money and perhaps they will change the way they run their business and we have only seen the beginning of their new glory days.  It appears Richard is doing his job of CEO and is running the company in the best interest of those investors, but I for one want to see them do some things they used to do, only better.  Don’t make it about the page views make it about the blogger and a company that every blogger loves to use.

[photo via Brian Solis]

*Lijit is a client and I do some evangelism for them.

Sphere It

I have been thinking about the comment left on my post about Blog Talk Radio and their attempt at monetizing their application.  Then I read today over at HipMojo the article about why companies that are basing themselves on ad revenue will fail.  It helped me formulate my own opinion about how companies in the tech world are struggling with making money.  It is a dance that seems hard to learn.

The game plan seems to be along these syllogistic lines.

• Come up with an application that fills a need.
• Develop the application.
• Launch it and see if it scales, get user feedback and adjust its use accordingly.
• Begin to build your user base until you reach some determined tipping point number. (This is probably the most difficult step in the overall business plan.)

These are the initial outlines I have seen.  During this period you may have an angel investment or a small first round to get to the tipping point number.  The next step is where it gets tricky.  Now that we are at our initial goal, how do we make it profitable?

Companies have built the trust and admiration of their users by providing a great application that is free and useful.  The users are making it an integral part of their lives.  The company has developed and gathered this large community.  They must leverage that into real money.  As I see it, they have but two choices, advertise or begin charging for the service they once before gave away for free.  A blend of these two would be a third choice.

Advertisers want eyeballs and reach.  The users are what they seek, and the more the better.  It’s all about the page views and the numbers generated from people.  Fewer users, the less they pay for your real estate.  Increasing page views and users increases revenue.  This is a hard fact as CEO’s try to guide the company to profitability.  If an application has 100,000 users it is worth more to an advertiser than 10,000 users.  Companies sell to advertisers and tell them, “We have 100,000 users at X amount of page views.”  The media buyers line up for those numbers.  Problem is, companies such as Blog Talk Radio have to sell based on those numbers, but then they must get the customer or users to get behind the plan. If they ask the users permission perhaps they only have 50,000 of the 100,000 users that will allow ads.  Now their property is worth 50% less to advertisers, and they don’t make money at that level.

Their second choice.  They begin charging the users for using the service.  Or as I indicated above the third choice, charging those that elect not to have advertising on the application a premium. The third choice allowing both opt in and opt out income.  This is risky as you may chase off users that were really sold on the application that was free, but not so warm to paying a fee for the service, or having advertisements show up on a usually clean page. 

It’s a chess match played by advertisers and CEO’s and ultimately users.  How can they all be happy?  I’m not sure that is entirely possible but their must be a compromise somewhere.  Companies are struggling to be profitable, advertisers are cutting their spend to increase their return on their own investment, and meanwhile, the user holds the power of being part of the community and whether the user wants to sell their eyeballs.

I have been touting 2008 as “The Year of The User.”  Companies have been building their user base.  The power the users hold with their attention and their eyeballs and presence make the other parties to the dance want to court them.  I’m not sure the answer, but I think ultimately it will raise the cost of advertising, and may force a new metric not based upon the number of eyeballs and page views.  Who flinches first has not been determined.

Sphere It

I can remember the first time I had my name appear in the phone book after I purchased my first home.  Like Steve Martin in the movie “The Jerk”, I danced around and shouted, “I’m somebody now”.  Back then of course, I think computers were something in sci-fi movies, and the Internet had not yet been thought about.  But I can still see that brand new version of the white pages all clean and crisp with my name right there alongside the other 30 people that shared my name.

I was recently watching television when the new Dex advertisement came on and I had a trip down memory lane.  I am still amazed that anyone would be spending much time looking at a Yellow page book in the modern era of finding everything through search.  I think the last time I used a yellow pages directory it was for a booster seat for the kids to reach the table better. 

Then I saw a related article recently put out by eMarketer.com.  The article states that online local advertising will reach 2.9 billion in 2007, which is only 13.4% of the total online advertising market.  The study and article are an interesting look at local advertising.  It made me wonder about the dollars being spent on traditional offline products such as the yellow pages.  I also wondered whether what they were being told about the results they would get as business owners and placing the ads.

I can remember the game back in the day of Yellow page advertising, companies wanted to somehow be listed first in their niche.  If they had a plumbing business, they would call it AAA Plumbing, because then they would be listed as the first alphabetical result listing in the book.  We are not that far off now with the way companies are clamoring for that all important number 1 placement in search results.  Now we are doing it with SEO and other tactics.  The ideal is still the same and that is to be that first listed business under plumbing.  Even though advertising is drastically changing since the old days, in some respects it stays the same.

Sphere It

For some time, I have been wondering about all of the data that is exchanged on the Internet between individuals and companies and what is being done with that data, and where it is being stored and what it is being used for and who has access to it.  At the risk of sounding somewhat like a conspiracy theorist, I have a nagging feeling that somehow we are in for a rude awakening in this country as it relates to our privacy and our anonymity in our life.

This thought surfaced again as a result of a video by Loren Feldman and his friend Michelle’s take on the use of Facebook.  I’ll let you judge her reaction, but it seems that she represents a normal adopter of a social network.  I say normal because of the issues of the technical elite and the early adopters that are all but normal with new applications.  She innocently typed in her email address and password and suddenly realized that the application had just accessed all of public, private, known and unknown contacts that she has ever sent an email to with that email address.  Yes, she was a little taken aback by that, and she should be.

What are these companies doing with every keystroke and each of the addresses that pop up in a window of every adopter of their application.  Am I to think that their promise of “we won’t tell, cross our heart and hope to die” is supposed to make me not question what exactly is being done with that data?  Michelle is just but one user, now think of the access to all of the users in Facebook and the data becomes a staggering look into the lives of all of us.

Facebook tells me who is talking out there, and what they are saying, who is a friend I have in common with another friend, and it knows the opinions of those friends, and whether I agree with them.  It can access my credit cards when I buy a $1 gif image of a ice cream cone I send to a friend.  I am afraid to say that Facebook knows more about me than my own mother.  Think of the data acquired now in the wrong hands…”Conspiracy Theory”, not really, but I’m sure we’ll see a Crichton book and movie deal about the idea and what can happen.

UPDATE:  I couldn’t find this video in my original post but was able to find it later.  Big Brother can be very scary.

Sphere It