Earlier this week, I participated in this years Search Engine Strategies Show. I was on a panel with Jack Myers of JackMyers.com, Pauline Ores of IBM, and moderated by Kevin Ryan and Kevin Heisler of Search Engine Watch.
Brian Cosgrove was kind enough to blog about it here, and I think he got most of what we said right. One notable exception, which I found funny.
"Alan states that you should let your child surf wherever they want without supervision"
Ha! My ten year old would love to hear that....
The point I was trying to make (but apparently didn't do so clearly enough) was this.... Back in the 1960's, many people used to sit their children in front of the television with little supervision. The TV as babysitter turned out not to be such a good idea. Similarly, parents who allow the Internet to be their babysitter are making a huge mistake.
There's been a good deal of noise around Facebook's beacon program, the company’s new advertising system. (See here, here and here.)
Btw, I am extremely sympathetic to the argument that MANY (if not most) people don't really care about any of this. The problem is that SOME do, and they can be a very vocal minority. Moreover, the Beacon program can (and already has) provided great fodder for the press and advocates looking to provide that 'gotcha' story. The same advocates who were struggling to define harm at the recent FTC behavioral advertising forum now have their “Aha” moment -their shining example of WHY the interactive space needs further governmental regulation.
My take? This is nothing new. I think Facebook is simply running up against the same issues that have created problems for other social networks over the years. Specifically, how does a social network offer adequate permissioning and information sharing options given the complex nature of human interrelation? And how can the social network create those permissions in a way that is easy and straightforward enough so that most Users will be both willing and able to use them?
Case in point - I am a moderate User of Facebook, and I have maybe 250 friends – a list that includes; clients, people I went to high school with, close friends, people I met while speaking at trade shows, former co-workers, and at least a few people I’ve met randomly. I don’t mind sharing my email and postal address, my band’s myspace page, my company URL and a few pictures with just about anyone. (It's all on my website anyway) However, there are other things that I might not want to share with all of my Facebook friends. And a list of what I’ve recently purchased is something that (at least for me) is not something that I necessarily want broadcasted to those friends.
What happens if my girlfriend sees that I've bought lingerie or a diamond ring recently? (And imagine the fallout if either or both gifts never makes it into her stocking this xmas!) (just an example....)
So I’m not yet ready to castigate Facebook on this, but I do think the company needs to be more sensitive in the future. Relevant advertising is fantastic. Permission marketing is even better. But as others have pointed out, the Beacon program is neither of those things. And that’s a problem. Data collected for one purpose should not be used for another unless the data provider has been notified that the deal has changed.
So here's what I think Facebook should do in the short term.
Provide Facebook Users with MUCH better notice of the Beacon program - and do so in multiple places. I don't necessarily think that they need to make Beacon an opt-in program, but I think they absolutely must make sure that Users know about it. And clearly, there are too many examples where Facebook hasn't done that sufficiently.
Enable Users to edit their list of purchased products after the fact – Many Facebook Users update their profiles on a daily basis. The upload new photos, change their preferences, list new favorite movies, Etc. Similarly, Facebook Users should have the opportunity to edit the list of purchases that appears on their profile. I wouldn’t be nearly as ticked off that I missed the notice from Amazon.com saying that the book I purchased would wind up on my Facebook profile if I could simply delete the purchase after the fact.
Offer a Universal opt-out – They were apparently planning to do this at one point. Bring it back, folks!
I’ve often said that with large databases comes large responsibility. Facebook has compiled significant information on its User base. What the company chooses to do with that information over the next 18 months will go a long way towards validating that hefty $15 billion valuation - or not.
I was up fairly late last night working on a project for a new client. This happens from time to time, and when it does, I like to sleep in a bit the next morning.
At 8:01 AM, I was awakened by a call. A pre-recorded call from John Greco, CEO of the Direct Marketing Association. John's message was that there was some important information on - get this - ethical and permission based marketing at the DMA 07' Conference in October.
And just to add to the irony, the DMA website doesn't empower it's members to adjust their communications preferences.... which, if you think about it, is kind of permission marketing 101. Yes, they provide me with the option of not getting email messages, but nothing regarding unsolicited phone calls.
Now honestly folks, would you take advice on permission based marketing from someone that demonstrates so little respect as to call you at 8am?
I sent an email to John and to the DMA's customer service #. I'll let you know if/when I hear back.... ugg.
Via MobileCrunch, AT&T recently announced a new set of parental controls, which allow parents to set limits on the way their kids use mobile devices.
Don't kid yourself - this is in direct response to ongoing investigations of the ring tone space by state and local regulators, and paralells what some of the adware companies were doing a few years ago.
The adware companies were, generally speaking, enticing kids to download their software which was bundled with screen savers or file sharing programs such as Kazaa. Parents would come home to computers which (at times) were rendered unusable due to aggressive pop-up ads.
Companies in the ring tone value chain were enticing kids to sign up for ring tone subscriptions at $9.99 per month. Here, parents are often left footing the bill for something that they had no idea that their 16 year old had purchased.
As a parent, if I'm going to allow myteenaged kid to use what amounts to a credit card, I'm going to want to be able to exercize some control over how they use it.
Earlier this week the NY Times published an Op Ed that discussed the hazards of archived, and out of date news stories appear in search engine rankings. (Thank to Kevin Ryan for sharing)
Apparently, the issue is that newspapers sometimes print things that, upon further reflection, or additional evidence, turn out to be incorrect or untrue. While most newspapers print a retraction if their initial article turns out to be incorrect, that initial article often remains available on their site as well. Moreover, it's usually accessible via a search engine. So, if you happen to receive some negative press, and it ultimately turns out to be incorrect, that initial story could follow you around for years to come.
If an article is factually incorrect, then correct it. If the article is about someone with a negative connotation, then a later article comes out updating the story, link prominently from the top of the negative article to the latest version of a story. It's called online journalism in the 2000s.
FWIW, here' my take...
I did an interview for a trade mag a few months ago and the reporter quoted me as saying something that came off as completely idiotic in many circles. Btw, he didn’t just misunderstand me. I was 100% clear that my position was the exact opposite, and for some reason, (e.g., it made his story better) the reporter essentially made up a quote and attributed it to me. I looked like a fool, and got a bunch of WTF emails from the privacy crowd. I got the publication to change the story, and make a small comment at the bottom announcing their error, but the damage had been done as an email had already gone out with the original article…
Not the end of the world, but a pain in the arse, nonetheless…. But I'm not going to sweat one bad article. Why?
As more companies such as Spock.com and ZoomInfo collect information on me - some of that information is going to be incorrect. That’s just the way it is, unless I want to spend half my day trying to get them to update. Given that there are so many sites, search engines, social networks, not to mention lazy journalists, there is not much I can do about it. Just not enough hours in the day.
What I have to hope for, is that the totality of the information out there is complete enough to create a reasonably accurate portrait of me when its all said and done. If you search for “Alan Chapell” you might find a link to an investigation conducted by the NY AG’s office where my name comes up. But you’ll also find my name linked to some thoughtful articles, best practice standards and other very important programs that are helping our industry. And you may even find some really cool MP3’s from my band.
Most people I respect will look at the big picture – and I think that’s all one can hope for these days….
This comes from O'Reilly's discussion of Where 2.0. fatdoor is "is a Community Network that allows you to get to know your neighbors."
I agree that this service is potentially a bit disconcerting. I signed up using postal addresses in NYC and San Francisco, but fatdoor does not currently operate in either of those areas. Until they are up and running in my hood, I have no idea how they protect User privacy.
One potential byproduct of fatdoor and similar apps is that it organizes the data licensed from InfoUSA in such a way that makes that data much more digestible.
How does one opt-out from being listed on fatdoor? Do I need to go to InfoUSA or fatdoor? What if I don't know that either either company exists?
Yesterday the NY Times discusses the FTC's preliminary investigation into Google's proposed purchase of DoubleClick.
I don't see this investigation going anywhere. Whether there is an antitrust issue will hinge on the definition of the relevant market. If the relevant market is the ONLINE advertising market, then I think the merger may be in trouble. However, if its defined as the advertising market, (as I believe it will be) then this deal has little risk of not moving forward.
Having said that, the level of consolidation in the online advertising space has been nothing short of amazing. For the sake of comparison, think about how long it took the U.S. auto industry to consolidate into the three major U.S. automakers.
If the 2008 election ushers a Democrat into the White House, (fingers crossed) we'll likely have a significantly more active FTC on issues of privacy. Until then, we're looking at more Laissez-faire.
