Session Blog Reviews

Posts Tagged ‘time’

Google and the newspaper industry truly have a love / hate relationship. Google loves the hard news generated by traditional media outlets but hates that the newspaper industry paints them as freeloaders. The newspapers love the traffic that Google sends to them but hates that they are doing it for free. This tug of war has been going on for some time but the inevitable “winner” in any tug of war is the side with the strength and the stamina to pull the team over the line. Right now Google has plenty of strength and stamina while the newspaper industry is in a tailspin. So when Google’s CEO Eric Schmidt addressed the ASNE (American Society of News Editors) meeting last night there was some interest in just how he would handle this situation. His overall tone was to let the newspaper people know that things would get better. Politico reports And Google CEO Eric Schmidt told a group of newspaper executives Sunday evening that his growing company will be an integral part of those changes. Newspapers will make money once again, he said, but it will be from online advertisements and an altered subscription model. Schmidt said his firm is working on new ways to tailor advertisements and content for consumers, based on what stories they read. “We have a business model problem, we don’t have a news problem,” Schmidt said. He also took the time to throw a nice barb at bloggers by noting that quality journalism is an art and making that implication that blogging is, well, less of one. Fortunately, I have never claimed to be a journalist so this doesn’t really bug me but I suspect that more than a few bloggers would find Mr. Schmidt’s words offensive. So how will the newspaper industry heal itself in the world according to Schmidt? Organizations should refocus their attention on personalizing content and disseminating news through mobile devices – businesses in which Google is heavily involved. Schmidt told the mostly full ballroom that “new forms of making money will develop,” and that Google is working on those forms. But he declined to divulge many details about that work. Isn’t it great when a guy blasts a group of people for being less than professional (bloggers) then he just drops a statement to placate a group with no backing to it whatsoever? Maybe Mr. Schmidt is readying himself for political office since it appears that he has plenty of answers but no real details. Much of Schmidt’s advice seemed to point to changes that might emerge from forms of technology that Google is developing, has developed or could foreseeably develop. Some of those advances in technology, he said, could create new revenue streams for news organizations. News sites should use technology to predict what a user wants to read by what they have already read, he said – technology his company has. Schmidt said he doesn’t want “to be treated as a stranger” when reading news online. He also said he wants to be challenged through technology that directs readers to a story with an opposing view. Google, he said, can uncover why a news organization doesn’t have readers in specific areas. Schmidt essentially knows he has this industry over a barrel. Without Google many news sites would see traffic numbers plummet along with the site’s ability to charge for advertising. If you are the newspapers you may be hearing Rupert Murdoch’s cry for paywalls and calling Google on copyright issues but most smart newspaper people are taking the stance of The Boston Globe Boston Globe Editor Martin Baron told POLITICO after Schmidt’s speech that Google is “already a big part of our presence”: “The reality is all newspaper Web sites get a lot of traffic with Google.” Baron, whose newspaper has been hit particularly hard in recent years, said Google is having a “dramatic impact” on the news industry, which he said needs to “adapt quickly” to the fast-changing media environment. Newspaper folks realize they are in trouble and maybe they are also seeing that being cooperative with Google vs. adversarial may help them eventually. Until that time they need to take this very direct and pointed suggestion from Google’s Schmidt. It’s an equation that’s not easily solved, Schmidt said. “The fact of the matter is there are not simple answers to any of these questions. And in order to really find them, you’re going to have to run some experiments.” Boy, I sure hope these newspapers’ editors didn’t pay much to get that advice. Even a silly blogger could have come up with that one.

Here is the original post:
Google’s Schmidt Offers Advice to Newspaper Industry

Social Media Marketing in One Hour a Day Drop Ship (press release) (blog) Social media marketing is hot, but are you holding back because you think you don't have the time to spare? If so, you might be surprised to learn that you ... Twitter Social Media Marketing Strategy Tips Techniques and Applications Jazzou (blog) all 2 news articles

Last month, Google announced a new “ remarketing ” feature, allowing advertisers to later target people who’d visited their sites or YouTube channels. Retargeting like this is a popular marketing topic: an Advertise.com/SEMPO survey ( via ) found that slightly under 70% of marketers had never used it, but 46.3% of marketers thought retargeting was the “most underutilized marketing strategy.” With Google just getting in on the market, obviously the time is ripe for established companies to make bigger moves as well. However, as with all behaviorally targeted marketing, protecting consumer privacy is a big concern—especially for consumer privacy watchdogs. The Center for Digital Democracy has filed with the FTC asking for a probe into behavioral targeting by Google, Yahoo and Microsoft, among others. This is just the most recent volley in that battle. Interestingly, a French company is also choosing now to enter the American retargeting marketing. Criteo is moving its HQ to Palo Alto (from Paris)—but they’re bringing with them the European standard of privacy, which thus far has proven to be higher than that of the US. CEO JB Rudelle says: We have been working in countries like Germany, which is probably the most demanding country in the world when it comes to privacy. We put a direct opt-out link on all retargeting display banners in Europe, and hope to bring this feature into the U.S. market. (I do have to say, though, that the CDD’s director might be taking this a bit far when he says “Online marketers have made what was science fiction in ‘Minority Report’ now a reality.” Maybe it’s been a while since he’s seen that movie, but last I checked we’re not talking about iris-scanning identifying and tracking technology—or even technology that requires or uses your name (necessarily). There’s a debate over whether an IP address constitute personally identifiable information in the first place—though tracking consumers from site to site without their consent does feel like it’s crossing a line.) I don’t know if directly opt-out links would be enough to assuage some of the privacy critics. What do you think? Can retargeting and privacy peacefully coexist?

View original post here:
Retargeting Picking Up—And So Are Privacy Concerns

A lot of concern circulates about just how much information a company like Google has on individuals and virtually everything else. While it makes me queasy at times as well, I don’t get the same Orwellian feeling about Google as I do about the government and the data they collect. That’s why the White House’s new policies on social media interaction with the public are both interesting and a bit troubling all at once. The Washington Post reports Soon it will be much easier to interact with government through tweets, blogs and wikis without forcing federal agencies to jump through the procedural hoops set up by the Paperwork Reduction Act. As part of the Obama administration’s effort to bring a new level of openness to federal agencies, government lawyers have clarified — sort of — how the PRA will treat the new forms of online interactions between federal agencies and the public. Sort of, because, as in many government documents, there’s no simple yes or no answer in the memorandum titled “Social Media, Web-Based Interactive technologies, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.” On the surface this seems like a good thing to possibly cut through bureaucratic red tape and get things done. That can be a good thing. What is giving me the heebie-jeebies is just what potential harm someone can do to himself or herself by having some direct digital interaction with the government. Think about it. People screw up online all the time. They get fired up and type something they regret then get in the inevitable online pissing contest that does no good for anyone. I’ve been there. I suspect we all have. Well, what if you have one of these low moments with a government agency and you put something in writing that can be taken in several different ways? What kind of electronic “profile” would you create because you lost your cool in trying to deal with something that makes most people crazy anyway? Talk about online reputation monitoring and management concerns. So just how does the government intend to “open up” communications online? Federal wiki pages can encourage interactions between the public and officials at federal agencies without running afoul of the law. (But wikis that are used to gather specific data — like a compliance spreadsheet — are still covered.) Webinars (considered online public meetings) can happen without triggering the PRA requirements, the document says, along with “blogs, discussion boards, forums, message boards, chat sessions, social networks, and online communities.” The document warns, however: “If an agency takes the opportunity of a public meeting to distribute a survey, or to ask identical questions of 10 or more attendees, the questions count as an information collection.” “Government websites that host social media interaction can ask visitors to set customized preferences for layout, color scheme, subject areas and topics without requiring a Form 83-I. The government can seek general commentary from the public without having to justify the effort, according to the document. “Agencies may offer the public opportunities to provide general comments on discussion topics through other means, including but not limited to social media websites; blogs; microblogs; audio, photo, or video sharing websites; or online message boards (whether hosted on a .gov domain or by a third-party provider).” General commentary? How wide open is that? And how long will this data be stored? By whom? For what purposes? If people are worried about what Google and others know about us, doesn’t this government “openness” to data collection throw up a red flag too? I realize there is a lot of conspiracy theorist in my thinking and I may be way off base. I hope I am. I just don’t think it’s the best idea to go into any interaction with any company or government in the electronic age without having both eyes wide open. Heck, things that are supposedly private aren’t really if the government deems so (Patriot Act). As marketers we understand how communication and data collection has changed dramatically in the past 20 years. Our activities of gathering data to help sell things is annoying to many, including the government at times. What makes anyone think that this new “transparency” won’t have a very serious down side potential in ways we won’t even recognize until it’s too late. Your thoughts? Am I paranoid or is this something to be concerned about? Hey, did you just say something about me?

Read more:
And You Thought Google Was Big Brother?

Well, well. Apparently Kevin Rose is not messing around, now that he’s taken over the reigns of Digg. No sooner had the door hit Jay Adelson on the way out, Rose has decided to reverse two very unpopular decisions. The first–actually the second on his list, but I think you’ll find it more interesting–is the decision to lift the ban on the many sites that had previously faced the Digg blackball: …with the launch of the new Digg will be unbanning all previously banned domains. While we will apply automated filters to prevent malware/virus/TOS violations, no other restrictions will be placed on content. That’s what Digg should have been doing all this time. Look, I know some people were gaming the system, but those same people game Google all day long–it’s called SEO–and yet Digg decided not to trust either the “wisdom of crowds” or its own algorithms. It’s not too far-fetched to suggest that about the time Digg started banning popular marketing blogs, it started fading as a popular destination and talking-point for marketers. I know we don’t control the internet, but if marketers stop talking about your product, you’re going to face an uphill battle! The second decision is to remove the much-maligned iFrame from the DiggBar. It was annoying and did nothing but provide a lame attempt to keep Digg users within the Digg community. Rose explains the change… Framing content with an iFrame is bad for the Internet. It causes confusion when bookmarking, breaks w/iFrame busters, and has no ability to communicate with the lower frame (if you browse away from a story, the old digg count still persists). It’s an inconsistent/wonky user experience, and I’m happy to say we are killing it when we launch the new Digg (sign up for the  beta here ). I’m still not sure Digg can be the comeback kid, but I welcome these two changes. Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

See the original post here:
Digg “Unbanning” All Previously Banned Web Sites