March, 2009

TweetUp at Conference is Just Tip of Iceberg

Download most current list of Tweeters attending the LMA Conference right here (will update document as names are added).

One (of the many) unscheduled activities at this year’s Legal Marketing Association 2009 Annual Conference is a TweetUp to be held Wednesday, April 1 at 5 PM EDT in the courtyard just outside the exhibition hall. As an exhibitor with access to the pre-conference attendee list, I promoted the TweetUp and offered to compile a list which I would distribute.  I wasn’t thinking beyond the paper the list might be printed on. I wasn’t thinking. But I’m glad others were.

The Power of Community

I didn’t propose the TweetUp.  I just had convenient access to the list. This good idea, which has already built great excitement which will carry over into the Conference, emanated from Lance Godard @lancegodard and @22twts and was given momentum by other Twitter users as they passed the word.

Lance then suggested that I make the list available sooner than later by posting it to our company blog. Duh. So here it is.  Thanks, Lance, for reminding me that information wants to be free (of its non-digital constraints).

At the moment I’m very wrapped up in tactical implementation. But if one takes a step back and reflects for a moment, there are a lot of cool things happening here.  Yes, the jury is out on Twitter. But, as we head into a marketing conference, a couple things are already being realized starting with the Twitter interface including:

  • Creation of community – strangers become friends; warm intros
  • Crowdsourcing good ideas – great ideas come from everyone
  • Attendee value generation – interaction insures communication of new ideas
  • Exhibitor promotion opportunity – help standing out in a crowded field

I suspect this is just a start. And I’m looking forward to exploring it with others who have already proven they have ideas better than my own.  Add yours below.

Add a Comment (4)

Earth Hour Generates Instant Online Community of Independent Thinkers

Earth Hour Takes Affect in Toronto on March 28, 2009

Earth Hour Takes Affect in Toronto at 8:30 PM EDT March 28, 2009

You may or may not have been privy to the non-event on Saturday night, March 28, known as EarthHour. Quite simply, EarthHour was intended to draw attention to overall planetary energy consumption by making a token effort of turning off one’s lights for 1 hour. You know, the Power of One, etc. Now if you don’t know what to do on a Saturday night with the lights off for one hour, I’m not going to tell you. But what many did was sit down at their computer and opine in social media forums about EarthHour. And in doing so, communities came together to discuss, debate, bicker, ridicule and commiserate. There was no shortage of opinion.  And there was no shortage of community either.

I used as my barometer the search tool in Twitter. In the course of the one hour that I sat in the dark, there were over 3000 “Tweets” about #earthhour and the sides were quickly drawn. @antiidiots let us know, “Turning On my Dry Washer, Lights and Ironing all my shirts, #earthhour Sux”. @BrianMcDaniel spouted, “If you want to live in the dark, then move to North Korea.” And @ianessling informed, “And so it begins. That Trace Adkins song is now playing and my place is buzzing like a ComEd substation.”  From the Greenie side, we learned about dinners being eaten or games of Uno being played to candlelight. How some people are afraid of the dark. Or my personal favorite from @apieceofquiche: If nothing else #earthhour has helped me realize how badly i am in need of candles. lol!

Mentions about the Vegas strip planning to go dark or the iconic Citgo sign in Boston that was turned off and other anecdotal experiences were viral-ly forwarded from one Tweeter to another. Perhaps @siobhand said it best with, “ i love the @earthhour tweets. makes me really feel connected across the globe” In sum, thousands of stories, opinions and responses to the issue of energy conservation shared 140 characters at a time among a lot of independent thinkers drawn together online for a brief moment in time.

Add a Comment (1)

Web Content Mistakes and Worst Social Media Campaigns

We’re becoming more accustomed to correcting small-ish errors on wiki web pages when we come across them. I catch myself looking for an “Edit” link on other people’s pages, but of course not all web pages are editable. But that habitual reaction has me wondering about web content mistakes and how best to correct them.

What’s the biggest web content mistake you’ve seen (or done?)

Michael Silverman told us about the six-year-old news article that went out due to inaccurate automation techniques, causing a 75% drop in a company’s stock price before it could be corrected, in Save $1 Billion with Web Content Management! Now that is a big web content mistake.

So, what’s the best way to correct someone else’s web page? Does it matter if that web page is a blog entry? I typically would email someone whose blog entry I wanted to see a correction in. And when I correct blog entries, I always show the text deleted in strikeout format so that it always remains in the original post. I don’t want to seem like I’m hiding anything if readers who read it before the change remember the content differently. I think that approach only works well with blog entries, though.

The Suxorz

SXSW Interactive was last week in Austin, TX, and they will once again feature the “hall of shame” for social media at The Suxorz. They feature the web content campaigns they consider to be the most embarrassing or most poorly executed.

One of the common mistakes from last year’s panel was creating all-flash based sites but hiding the metadata from search engines. There are certainly ways to solve that problem, though. One example from a panelist at SXSWi last year was an example from Samsung. They used Flex and AJAX to create a web-based catalog containing 20,000 SKUs of different TV models. To avoid the problem of a lack of deep search, they used XML site maps to get all the deep links that werere previously not findable.

This year’s Suxorz are being discussed on this Facebook Group. Hasbro shutting down Scrabulous seems to have a couple of votes, and really any campaign with the scent of dishonesty will get a vote or two. For example, Belkin paying for reviews on Amazon and New Egg stuck out to me.

What would you vote for as an example of poor execution on web content?

Add a Comment (2)

Polls, Surveys, And A Thirst For Entertainment

Who gets your vote for biggest sleaze?

Who gets your vote for biggest sleaze?

We all know that using polls and surveys on blogs and websites increases traffic and can generate some great user feedback, yadda, yadda.  But today I ran across a survey that does not only do that, but uses “timely and relevant” content to drive visitors into the site, inviting them to stay a while – a long while.

And besides that, it’s funny.  People like to be entertained and give their opinions and one of my favorite dirty little secrets, Gawker.com, has cracked the code on doing all this with one survey. The survey, Pick the Most Loathsome Financial Villain, lets users vote on who’s the biggest sleaze of the financial meltdown. Oh, there’s lots to choose from; Bernie Madoff (of course), Jim Cramer (for those of you who haven’t been following his spat with Jon Stewart, go here), and Tim Geithner (Do I hear, “you’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie” ??), among others.

Each candidate has a short profile and links to related Gawker stories from previous articles.  I warn you though, once you start clicking on those links, you will have to work through lunch and stay late to meet your deadlines (and a few bad words are spoken).  As of this writing, there were just over 2500 votes with Madoff in the lead. Really, Madoff is worse than Dick and Kathleen Fuld?

In these days of outrage over retention bonuses and CEOs hiding their asse(t)s under their wives skirts don’t just get angry.  Vote for change!


Add a Comment 

Trust Me. No, Really!

A new survey released from TRUSTe, says consumers are wary of internet marketing practices and taking internet security into their own hands. Yet at the same time are more comfortable than ever with behavioral advertising; the type of advertising that shows site visitors certain ads based on their tracked internet history. I wonder, though, if those surveyed would still feel so comfortable if advertisers knew about them what they apparently know about me.

Most people surveyed agree that internet security is an area that the government should be involved in, at least in some way. Indeed, 57% of respondents to the TRUSTe survey (conducted by TNS) felt that government was at least partially, if not fully, responsible for protecting on line privacy through regulation or legislation. However, 70% felt that Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) and browser manufacturers were responsible, and most  (four-fifths) agreed that we–meaning both users and website owners–are responsible for our own on line security. Statements like that have some IT publications producing headlines that read: Survey: Online privacy is your problem, not DoubleClick’s. (DoubleClick is Google’s ad server service. Who knew?)

Surprisingly, despite all our security concerns, 39% of consumers admit that they do not consistently take the necessary steps to protect their privacy. And most fail to carefully read the privacy statements of the sites where they enter personal information.

I’m not sure, but I think I may fall into that category of people. For example, Anne Gentle wrote about Facebook’s new privacy policies a couple of weeks ago, but did I bother to read them? So today I logged on to check out the new homepage (which incidentally, people aren’t loving) only to be surprised by finding the following ad directed at me and other “women of a certain age.”

Am I how old?

Okay, I get where they got my age (from the date of birth I gave Facebook in my personal information). But how did they know my kitchen and baths need remodeling?

And how did they know my New Year’s resolutions were to lose weight, floss more often and try like hell to look more like Jennifer Aniston? (Sorry, did you see that article about how  hard economic times make people cuss more?)

Not only are some consumers taking security into their own hands, so are some big companies. The New York Times reports that internet giants Yahoo! and Google are already making changes that give users confidence their information is safe.

Yahoo recently shortened the amount of time it keeps data derived from searches. It is also including a link in some ads that explains how the viewer’s browsing history resulted in the ad shown.

Google, as it introduces its own behavioral advertising system, is allowing consumers to see what information it has gathered about them for advertising purposes.

Some suggest the FTC is already trying to put all the responsibility on web sites to protect our privacy, but at this point they’ve only published a set of guidelines for companies(.pdf) that track our internet use  to encourage “self-regulatory action.”

We’ve seen lately where that can lead (ahem, SEC/Sarbanes-Oxley). So it’s no wonder many consumers are doing a few things on their own, such as deleting cookies, to ensure greater privacy. TRUSTe openly admits that security is still “uncharted territory” in behavioral advertising. Though the survey shows that year over year, internet users are becoming more accepting–indeed welcoming–of behavior targeted advertising, they still have good reason to be concerned about advertisers capturing their browser histories to gain information for the targeted advertisements.

“Behavioral tracking techniques represent the future in digital advertising, but as companies adapt to take advantage of these technologies, we are seeing some stumble as they struggle to provide transparency around privacy,” said Colin O’Malley, VP of Strategic Business at TRUSTe.

Then how did they know?

Then how did they know?

In an effort to educate both consumers and companies about the practice of behavioral advertising, TRUSTe produced a whitepaper giving us guidelines–a checklist, really–of things we can do to ensure users feel their information is safe, essentially the same things that Yahoo! and Google are doing, such as not keeping information as long, and letting consumers know about and/or choose behavioral ads. One web site I visited recently politely asked me if I wanted to see “ads chosen especially” for me based on my browser history.”  I thought that was nice. I said no, of course.

Where I see behavioral advertising lacking, though, is that just because they know that I have certain behaviors, doesn’t mean they know how I feel about those behaviors. Maybe someone is holding me at gunpoint when I surf for Arts and Crafts style lighting fixtures. Now they are even trying to find that out. On the new Facebook page, it doesn’t ask what I’m doing, it asks what I’m thinking.  And I’m not telling them.

Recently my husband received an unsolicited (according to him) subscription postcard from Playboy. I assume they sent it based on other subscriptions we have carried–slightly liberal, slightly trashy–but Playboy couldn’t possibly know how I feel about getting their postcard in the mail. They don’t know that I marked it up with a black Sharpie with comments like “They obviously don’t know your wife,” and “Do it and die!” Nor that I drew hairy moles and mustaches on the photos of the girls. Look, just becuase I let my husband read Esquire out in the open doesn’t mean I’m willing to cross that line.  I’m a woman of a certain age, afterall. But only Facebook knows for sure.

Add a Comment 

Twitter on Trial

” . . . technology is moving so fast that it’s difficult for the legal world to keep up.”

That statement, spoken to ABC News by Greg Brown, attorney for plaintiffs in a multimillion dollar investment scam trial, is getting harder to dispute in the light of two unrelated cases in the news this week. Both cases are high profile, and both involve jurors tweeting and wall-posting while serving duty.  Attorneys for the defendants in each case have filed appeals after juries found both defendants guilty of fraud (among other things), and in one case a hefty settlement was awarded.

In the case of Russell Wright and his company, Stoam Holdings, the jury awarded investors Mark Deihl and William Nystrom 12.6 million dollars even after lawyers for the defendant alleged a juror’s tweets showed bias against his client. He has filed a motion for a new trial.

“I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money.”

And another:

According to the motion, one posting listed the company’s Web address and read in part: “oh and nobody buy Stoam. Its bad mojo and they’ll probably cease to Exist, now that their wallet is 12m lighter.”

In the case of former Pennsylvania state senator Vincent Fumo who was charged with using state-employed staff to work on his homes, farm and political campaigns, lawyers filed an emergency motion last weekend asking that at least one juror be removed because he was posting messages to both Facebook and Twitter, but on Monday Fumo was found guilty on 137 counts.

In the Fumo case, attorneys argue that the juror “discussed the case” by posting those messages:

“Stay tuned for a big announcement on Monday everyone!”
He then sent out a Twitter message, or “tweet,” that said, “This is it … no looking back now!”
He also posted other comments, such as “Day 1 has come to a close.”

I certainly hope new technology isn’t creating another way for criminals to avoid convictions. Though the jurors claim they never read anything from the outside but only posted, can we ever really be sure?  But its interesting to see how these tools are being used by regular people ( the Stoam juror was a Wal-Mart photo dept manager) who are being heard by millions of other regular people.

I'm sorry, you must have me consfused with someone else.

I'm sorry, you must have me confused with someone else.

Could all the noise over this be that people are taking power back from the sources that have frustrated them for so long, and the tyrants who have inflicted the domination don’t like it very much? The news is full of irate physicians, lawyers, and municipalities threatening to sue over sites like RateMDs.com, RateMyCop, and Avvo.com, because of user comments. And boy are they mad! Even trying lame tactics like copyright infringement as a basis.

So maybe technology is turning out to be the great leveler we all hoped it would be. Like-minded people are finding information and support in weird ways we never would have imagined, and someone is finally listening to the voice of the little guy.  It’s only too bad the little guy needs a $300 phone to be heard.

Add a Comment 

Why Pay When You Can Get it for Free

With news agencies searching for strategies to keep the money flowing despite large losses and diminishing ad dollars, talk of charging for on-line news is being heard from even the big sources like the New York Times and Newsday. But maybe what these papers need are not ways to charge for news, but some kind of sugar daddy that makes the money so the papers can give the news away for free.

In January, Times exec editor, Bill Keller, held an open discussion with readers regarding the newspaper’s plans to charge for on-line content.  You may recall the Times charged for columns and archive information for a period of time, and it generated $10 Million a year, but the company decided it could reach more readers (and bring in more ad dollars) if they allowed everyone to read the news for free. Keller suggests that perhaps what they put behind the firewall wasn’t the right information so now they’re considering other options.

“A lot of people in the news business, myself included, don’t buy as a matter of theology that information “wants to be free.” Really good information, often extracted from reluctant sources, truth-tested, organized and explained — that stuff wants to be paid for.”

It wants to be paid for? You mean, like, taken on a date?

It’s not so much that information wants to be free, but we want it to be free.

Because news is happening all the time, and changes by the second, it’s hard to capture it long enough to charge someone for. If the Times starts charging for news, what stops me from going to CNN.com or just turning on the TV?

The top three pay models the Times is considering include pay-per-read, subscriptions, and some sort of pain-in-the-neck reading device like Kindle. No way I’m getting pimped into buying a Kindle just to read the NYT—or any other reader for that matter—or any other newspaper.

Last week Newsday announced its plans to cease giving news away for free as well.  They haven’t given details on plans—but it might have something to do with Cable TV subscriptions.

“When we purchased Newsday we were aware of the long-term issues facing the traditional newspaper industry,” Rutledge said. “Our goal was, and is, to use our electronic network assets and subscriber relationships to transform the way news is distributed,” he said. “We plan to end distribution of free Web content and to make our news gathering capabilities service our customers,” Rutledge added.

If advertising on Cable TV is still profitable, why not just charge a little more and give advertisers space on the web site, too—and keep the news free.

A healthy foundation of support

Keller of the Times refers to The Guardian when a reader suggests perhaps a foundation such as the one NPR has might help support the paper and keep news free.  The Guardian is considered  a success story among newspapers that moved from print-only to an on-line presence, but even it has been losing money. However, The Guardian has more than just a trust supporting it.

Op-ed writer Stephen Glover, has an interesting piece in The Independent about what really  keeps The Guardian and sister-paper, the Observer  “recession-proof.”

“. . . the two papers have been buttressed by the considerable profits of the Trader Media Group, which publishes Auto Trader, the motoring classified ads title.”

(Coincidentally, he has another op-ed about why he thinks US papers are worse off than the ones in the UK.)

But Auto Trader is not the only thing buttressing The Guardian and keeping it protected from the recession. In 2004, the Guardian launched its own dating service, Soulmates and in just a few short months had 20,000 subscribers. Now it has about 110,000 members with subscriptions running at about 35 bucks a month (L24.95)

In this recession, folks may not be spending money on newspapers, but they are looking for love online like guppies.  Major online dating services like Match.com and eHarmony.com are reporting double-digit surges  on their sites since December 08, and at times a direct relationship between what happens on Wall Street and what daters are doing.

“On days when the Dow went down by 100 points we found an increase in our site usage relative to when the Dow increased by 100 points,” says Gian Gonzaga, a senior research scientist for dating website eHarmony.

Following suit, another popular (with a certain crowd) British paper, The Daily Mail launched a dating service of its own this year, MailDating, hoping to draw more like-minded people to its site.

So maybe what newspapers really need is some kind of cash cow like Soulmates to keep afloat and keep the news flowing free.  Like maybe celebrity rehab advice subscriptions with Dr Drew or pay-per-view of the Octomom’s birth tape.

Any other ideas?

Add a Comment (7)

Site Loading? Skip Intro? You’re Kidding? I’m Outta Here.

Site zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz loading

Site zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz loading

I have very little time to indulge website publishers with their theoretical coolness.  So when I visit your website do not ask me to wait while your site loads so you can show me how cool you think you are.  Because what I am thinking, as those seconds tick by and you keep me informed to the nearest one hundredth-of-something with a snazzy loading time line, is how much you are all about you. But wait, there’s more.

In return for my permission-not-given patience, you now reward me by loading a useless page that has no information.  And I know that you know it has no information because the one and only option you give me is to “skip intro” and leave the page. Are you listening?

Yes, I see that the page you've loaded for me is entirely vacuous. Thank you for the option to leave - your site.

Yes, I see that the page you've loaded for me is entirely vacuous. Thank you for the option to leave - your site.

So if you are a web developer that likes to build cool sites that insult the site visitor with pages that take so much time to load you have to provide a reassuring graphic, find another line of work because you’re giving the rest of us a bad name.  And if you are a website owner that requests these kinds of features, you are barred from using the words “client focused” Because you’re not.

Add a Comment (9)

Terms of Contention: Who Owns Uploaded Content?

Terms of use and privacy policies, how often do you read these terms before agreeing to them? Most of us would admit we don’t read the fine print even when it’s prominent large type. But when a community member does pay attention to a change in the terms of service and gets 100,000 other people to pay attention also, you’d better believe that the originator of the terms and policies are going to take notice. That scenario happened just last week for members of Facebook, one of the largest social media sites with 175 million active users and the most visited site in January 2009 with 1.2 billion visits according to Compete.com.

Democratic Approval for Social Networking Usage

Rather than a Terms of Use statement, the phrase for the future terms on Facebook will be “Statement of Rights and Responsibilities.” Now, to get a user-voted statement approved, it needs 30% of active users to vote on it, which is 53 million people according to this article on Top Tech News. That number is 23 times the number of “fans” that Facebook has on Facebook. Yow! The voting closes March 29, and you had to be a member on February 25th to be eligible to vote.

The content “ownership” isn’t all that contentious, in my mind. It’s similar to how you treat email – you send a message to a friend, then delete it from your “Sent” box, but it still exists on your friend’s email server. As this Scientific American blog entry points out, ” The terms still indicate that Facebook can make copies of member content and, even if a member removes content from the site, Facebook can still retain archived copies of that information. Facebook isn’t claiming to own that information, but it isn’t promising to delete that info either.”

Watch out for a viral message that you’re in violation

And now for the Public Service portion of this blog entry. If you’re on Facebook and see a message from one of your Facebook friends that you’re in violation of the Terms and Conditions, do not “Click for Details.” It’s a virus that someone has engineered.

Sony’s Network Policy

Sony had a similar uproar from users over the network policy changes that occured before a new game called LittleBigPlanet was released last fall. For a game whose premise contains aspects of sharing creations, the terms that players agreed to were vital to its success. One blogger, Dean Longmore, a technical writer no less, talked about his concerns last October in “LittleBigRipoff? Sony can sell your user content” where he noted that the terms say that “Sony may sell subscription services or gain advertising revenue related to your content.” It seems that Sony hasn’t gone so far as to sell user content, nor does it yet allow users to create their own “stickers” by uploading images to the game. So it could be that this contention in the terms of use have perhaps limited gameplay to an extent.

What do you think? Are you concerned about your rights to one day delete uploaded content? Or is this uproar going to settle out as more trust is built between companies and their customers?

Add a Comment (2)