I came across this article in the NY Times on click fraud. It isn't surprising that marketeres are wising up about click fraud. It's a problem, people agree, but the size and scope differ.
What is interesting though, is that it is the clients of the marketers, the businesses and business owners themselves, that are asking about click fraud. In conversations I've had about click fraud, seminars I've attended, it has been brought up by marketers who heard about it from marketers who read an article written by...yes, a marketer.
So it is refreshing to see businesses and business owners taking an active interest in the murky area of click fraud. The idea of auditing clicks is interesting, and one I've discussed on more than one occassion. There is a real need for auditing, not only of clicks but of programs and software used to track the information. There are plenty of legal issues surrounding such an audit, one of which is the sharing of proprietary technology. But if credibility stays with click advertising, auditing will be necessary.
Auditing of the Internet at large will be necessary, not just click advertising. There is talk of email audits too, which are increasingly becoming popular. Deliverability, black listing and content analysis are just areas being audited by email marketers.
Deliverability and black listing are especially important. They are indicators of your email marketing reputation. Poor deliverability and black listing more than likely indicates a soiled email marketing reputation, which means your messages, more importantly your client messages, are not getting to customers. Repairing that reputation can be costly and time consuming.
Regardless of your choice for online marketing, auditing is important, so don't wait until you find a problem, or suspect a problem. It might be too late.
Monday, October 30, 2006
Friday, October 27, 2006
Fantasy Congress: Bringing Politics to Life on the Internet
There is an article in the Chicago Tribune today about some college students at Claremont McKenna College who have taken the idea and popularity of fantasy sports and applied it to politics.
The idea is Fantasy Congress, where you can join a league, draft your team and earn points for the actions your team members take in real life. It is a step toward making politics interactive for all of us regular folk who wonder what the heck these politicians are thinking.
For a political novice like me, it is really interesting to browse the website, see the point leaders (most of whom I wouldn't expect) and then read about their actions. I've often found politics to be boring, aggrevating, downright foolish and something mind-numbingly stupid. All about rising to your level of incompetance, and some seem to reach that level rather quickly.
But Fantasy Congress takes out all the useless political noise, positioning and bantering that goes on, and presents me with information that I want to know. Fantasy Congress makes me more of a participate than an observer.
Talk about giving the power back to the people!
It will be interesting to see hwo this website does, especially once Congress is back in session. It is an election year, afterall, and a new crop of tech-savvy voters are about to vote for the first time.
Will Fantasy Congress bring out the voter in all of us?
The idea is Fantasy Congress, where you can join a league, draft your team and earn points for the actions your team members take in real life. It is a step toward making politics interactive for all of us regular folk who wonder what the heck these politicians are thinking.
For a political novice like me, it is really interesting to browse the website, see the point leaders (most of whom I wouldn't expect) and then read about their actions. I've often found politics to be boring, aggrevating, downright foolish and something mind-numbingly stupid. All about rising to your level of incompetance, and some seem to reach that level rather quickly.
But Fantasy Congress takes out all the useless political noise, positioning and bantering that goes on, and presents me with information that I want to know. Fantasy Congress makes me more of a participate than an observer.
Talk about giving the power back to the people!
It will be interesting to see hwo this website does, especially once Congress is back in session. It is an election year, afterall, and a new crop of tech-savvy voters are about to vote for the first time.
Will Fantasy Congress bring out the voter in all of us?
Thursday, October 26, 2006
What's Next for Brand Protection? Google Audio Surveillance?
A rather curions post on the Google blog yesterday about the word "Google" which has become part of the universial lexicon: a verb meaning "to search on the Internet."
Michael Krantz from the Google Blog Team seems to think that we should only use the word "Google" under certain circumstances:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't search, Internet search, a Google service? Given Google's market share of Internet searches, isn't it safe to say that if we have "Googled" something then we have used Google search to find something on the Internet? Unless otherwise explicitly stated, as the last example in the post shows, which is probably not as common an occurance as they would have you claim.
Maybe I'm off the mark.
So if Google is so adamant about protecting its brand, and who can fault any company for that, should we expect to see a new product offering call Google Audio Surveillance that will keep track of all the uses of the word "Google" and take appropriate action against those who use it improperly?
How else do you propose Google keep its brand from falling deeper into the common lexicon of the world?
Michael Krantz from the Google Blog Team seems to think that we should only use the word "Google" under certain circumstances:
While we're pleased that so many people think of us when they think of searching the web, let's face it, we do have a brand to protect, so we'd like to make clear that you should please only use "Google" when you’re actually referring to Google Inc. and our services.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't search, Internet search, a Google service? Given Google's market share of Internet searches, isn't it safe to say that if we have "Googled" something then we have used Google search to find something on the Internet? Unless otherwise explicitly stated, as the last example in the post shows, which is probably not as common an occurance as they would have you claim.
Maybe I'm off the mark.
So if Google is so adamant about protecting its brand, and who can fault any company for that, should we expect to see a new product offering call Google Audio Surveillance that will keep track of all the uses of the word "Google" and take appropriate action against those who use it improperly?
How else do you propose Google keep its brand from falling deeper into the common lexicon of the world?
Monday, October 23, 2006
Google Compared to the Government
There is an article in the NY Times today talking about Google and its various legal battles. Google isn't shy about proclaiming it wants to "establish a body of legal interpretation that favors the company" and the article makes clear there is little that can be done to stop it. But what is really telling is the lenghts Google will go to stay out of court for fear of the discovery phase could reveal a good deal about Google's propreitary technology, or inner workings.
The most telling quote, however, comes from David A. Milman, the chief executive of Rescuecom who sued Google over trademark infringement and lost. He says:
Also sounds a bit like Disney: a country unto itself. Has its own rules, its own regulations and even its own currency. People fight and lose, even when people are clearly in the right.
The most telling quote, however, comes from David A. Milman, the chief executive of Rescuecom who sued Google over trademark infringement and lost. He says:
“People say you can’t fight the government. Google, in this case, is very similar to the government. They’re the government of the Internet.”
Also sounds a bit like Disney: a country unto itself. Has its own rules, its own regulations and even its own currency. People fight and lose, even when people are clearly in the right.
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Hackers Find Customers in Brand Names
I was browsing Digg.com, which has become my favorite spot to find news and information, and found this article about a company in Australia that had it's PABX phone system hacked, racking up AU$9,000 in a week. PABX stands for Private Automatic Branch Exchange, which is a fancy way of saying automated switch board.
Within the article is another one about malicious code on the Samsung website that reads keystrokes, attemps to disable anti-virus software and steal online banking codes of the unsuspected. And who are the unsuspected? Frequent visitors to the Samsung website who have trust in the brand name.
Joel Camissar, Australian country manager for Websense, maded an interesting point:
Seems like hackers are taking a page out of the marketing play book. Brand names sell, brand names come with a pre-determined trust package, just like YouTube came with a pre-determined audience.
Wonder if companies will be far more protective of their brand behind the scenes than they are in public, knowing that hackers get it.
Within the article is another one about malicious code on the Samsung website that reads keystrokes, attemps to disable anti-virus software and steal online banking codes of the unsuspected. And who are the unsuspected? Frequent visitors to the Samsung website who have trust in the brand name.
Joel Camissar, Australian country manager for Websense, maded an interesting point:
"Why not hack into a site that people are visiting that is a trusted brand? Trust is so important these days. People are being preached to by banks not to trust links [in unsolicited emails] -- that is something people are starting to follow. So if one does go to a site that is trusted, it is certainly a very easy way for hackers to compromise users."
Seems like hackers are taking a page out of the marketing play book. Brand names sell, brand names come with a pre-determined trust package, just like YouTube came with a pre-determined audience.
Wonder if companies will be far more protective of their brand behind the scenes than they are in public, knowing that hackers get it.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Google and YouTube: The Purhcase of an Audience over Technology
I missed this post yesterday, but Google apparently has struck deals with Sony BMG and Warner Music Group. Two more groups to add to Universial and CBS, thanks to the aquisition of YouTube. I find it interesting that, as of this post, there still hasn't been a mention on the GoogleBlog about the YouTube acquisition. I've read about it everywhere else, major and minor publications, but not on the GoogleBlog where they announce just about everything and anything relating to Google.
But anyway. Copyright issues are probably the least of Google's worries, and in an indirect sense you can say they have been given a boost overseas thanks to the UK, whose High Court slackened on its world-famous strict libel laws. But that's a completely seperate issue, and one not discussed much in terms of Internet content, at least not yet.
Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Johnson in his column raises the issue of coolness. Rather, will YouTube as part of Google be able to keep its audience happy and keep growing?
Mr. Johnson makes an important point, and one that I am curious to watch as it develops, is that Google didn't purchase technology but rather an audience, much like Rupert Murdoch did when he bought MySpace. Purchasing an audience over technology raises an interesting dynamic. It turns people like you and me into commodities, things to be bought and sold by people whom we have never met, probably never will meet and assume a good of information about us.
How interesting. We've almost become like cattle, herded here or there, bought and sold by others and later taken to the slaughter house to end up on the dinner table. Even after reading books about globalization, it didn't really occur to me that people, human beings, are very much like commodities. Someone will argue it has been that way since advertising was invented, but with advetising you had the choice of where to put your loyalty, you had a choice, the advertisers were catering to you. That seems reversed with Google's purchase of YouTube. An entire farm and all its cattle has been bought.
So how will the new farm owner keep the cattle happy?
But anyway. Copyright issues are probably the least of Google's worries, and in an indirect sense you can say they have been given a boost overseas thanks to the UK, whose High Court slackened on its world-famous strict libel laws. But that's a completely seperate issue, and one not discussed much in terms of Internet content, at least not yet.
Chicago Tribune columnist Steve Johnson in his column raises the issue of coolness. Rather, will YouTube as part of Google be able to keep its audience happy and keep growing?
Mr. Johnson makes an important point, and one that I am curious to watch as it develops, is that Google didn't purchase technology but rather an audience, much like Rupert Murdoch did when he bought MySpace. Purchasing an audience over technology raises an interesting dynamic. It turns people like you and me into commodities, things to be bought and sold by people whom we have never met, probably never will meet and assume a good of information about us.
How interesting. We've almost become like cattle, herded here or there, bought and sold by others and later taken to the slaughter house to end up on the dinner table. Even after reading books about globalization, it didn't really occur to me that people, human beings, are very much like commodities. Someone will argue it has been that way since advertising was invented, but with advetising you had the choice of where to put your loyalty, you had a choice, the advertisers were catering to you. That seems reversed with Google's purchase of YouTube. An entire farm and all its cattle has been bought.
So how will the new farm owner keep the cattle happy?
Thursday, October 12, 2006
iFizzle: Flash, RIA and Interactive Media
I was diggin' on Digg.com and found this post about a website called iFizzle that is pretty darn cool. The caption on Digg.com reads "A virtual Mac written in Flash, even the iTunes works, and has music in it!" That piqued my curiosity so I clicked on it, and sure enough, a Mac monitor appeared with the customary blue background and dock. Turns out the author of this Web application is using it to raise money to purchase a Mac and is offer personal iFizzles for those who donate.
Worthy cause and a nifty Web application. Clicking around on icons you see that they do, in fact, work. You can check out his iPhoto library, his website design portfolio, what's on his Dashboard and his latest blog entry. The iChat icon pops up to show you his contact information
The other cool thing, too, is the ability to switch between different Macs. MacBook Pro, iMac, and Cinema Display. And each time you switch to something, a new song starts on iTunes. You can even browse through his iTunes to find a different song. It was cool to see we have a group in common: BT.
The "conquering the world, one MySpace at a time" phrase suggests this guy is not a big fan of MySpace, and if you go into Flash Project and open the iFizzle folder, you'll learn he isn't a big fan of MySpace at all.
iFizzle is a pretty nifty use of Flash, pretty much a Rich Internet Application/interactive media website that is also a portfolio of work for this guy.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a such a website for an eCommerce company? Make the online purchasing experiencing a lot less frustrating and a lot more fun, entertaining and enjoyable.
Worthy cause and a nifty Web application. Clicking around on icons you see that they do, in fact, work. You can check out his iPhoto library, his website design portfolio, what's on his Dashboard and his latest blog entry. The iChat icon pops up to show you his contact information
The other cool thing, too, is the ability to switch between different Macs. MacBook Pro, iMac, and Cinema Display. And each time you switch to something, a new song starts on iTunes. You can even browse through his iTunes to find a different song. It was cool to see we have a group in common: BT.
The "conquering the world, one MySpace at a time" phrase suggests this guy is not a big fan of MySpace, and if you go into Flash Project and open the iFizzle folder, you'll learn he isn't a big fan of MySpace at all.
iFizzle is a pretty nifty use of Flash, pretty much a Rich Internet Application/interactive media website that is also a portfolio of work for this guy.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a such a website for an eCommerce company? Make the online purchasing experiencing a lot less frustrating and a lot more fun, entertaining and enjoyable.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Docs & Spreadsheets: The Convergence of Excel and Word Online
Awhile ago, a friend of mine introduced me to an online program called Writely, which was acquired by Google and is now called Google Docs & Spreadsheets which Google posted about on its blog. Not surprising that Google has integrated its spreadsheet program with a word processing program, but unlike other Google inventions I have found rather annoying, silly or just time wasters, Google Docs & Spreadsheets is a rather productive tool. It makes the sharing of documents so much easier.
Case in point: a friend of mine, who is a genius when it comes to numbers but can't string a sentences together to create a coherent paragraph to save his life, sent me an invite that let me access and edit his paper through a Web browser. I thought, cool! Instead of trading emails back and forth with attachments or comments, or even IMs that get lengthy with discussions and debates, it could all be done in one spot where we both had access and could communicate at the same time.
I've noticed that Google Docs & Spreadsheets has had some upgrades and added some advance features that weren't present when I was editing the paper. I'm very curious to see how quickly people take up this idea of online collaboration. Well, the idea of online collaboration through something other than webinars, online training and the like. Video conferencing I guess is what I'm trying to say.
Is the day when video conferencing and online document collaboration will be fused into one? So you can talk to someone as you edit documents with them online. And would businesses be willing to walk through contract negotiations in such a fashion? Mergers and acquisitions require an awful lot of paperwork and back-and-forth. Would something like Adobe Breeze and Google Docs & Spreadsheets make that easier and more efficient?
Curious. Very curious.
Case in point: a friend of mine, who is a genius when it comes to numbers but can't string a sentences together to create a coherent paragraph to save his life, sent me an invite that let me access and edit his paper through a Web browser. I thought, cool! Instead of trading emails back and forth with attachments or comments, or even IMs that get lengthy with discussions and debates, it could all be done in one spot where we both had access and could communicate at the same time.
I've noticed that Google Docs & Spreadsheets has had some upgrades and added some advance features that weren't present when I was editing the paper. I'm very curious to see how quickly people take up this idea of online collaboration. Well, the idea of online collaboration through something other than webinars, online training and the like. Video conferencing I guess is what I'm trying to say.
Is the day when video conferencing and online document collaboration will be fused into one? So you can talk to someone as you edit documents with them online. And would businesses be willing to walk through contract negotiations in such a fashion? Mergers and acquisitions require an awful lot of paperwork and back-and-forth. Would something like Adobe Breeze and Google Docs & Spreadsheets make that easier and more efficient?
Curious. Very curious.
Monday, October 9, 2006
"Sued into Oblivion" -- Not if Google can Help It
So what a shock to get home tonight and find an alert waiting for me saying Google has bought YouTube. I find it slightly odd there is no mention of it on the Google Blog, though maybe that's because the deal isn't official yet, persay. It's even on Digg.com as the most popular story today.
The fact that Google has bought YouTube isn't surprising; the fact that Google paid $1.65 billion is mind boggling. I've been doing quite a bit of reading lately on business and globalization, which oftens means the tossing around of insane numbers like $60 billion in revenues in one year. It is difficult to wrap your head around such a vast sum, but then again if you look at the successful billion dollar companies, they are that way for a reason.
What strikes me as interesting about the YouTube acquisition is that open-ended issue of copyrighted material on the Internet. YouTube has made some strides but stricking deals with the likes of CBS, BMG and Universal Music, but still, in the realm of the Internet, copyright material is still up for debate. Not whether the material is copyrighted (most of the time it is), but whether or not the Internet counts as "fair-use." It is diffcult to see this union as something other than another area for ppc ads for Google that also gives a tremendous amount of funds to fight inevitable copyright infringement lawsuits.
Forrester Research analyst Charlene Li sums it up best at the end of the Tribune article:
It will be interesting to see what happens to the Internet at large and the world of online video in particular now.
The fact that Google has bought YouTube isn't surprising; the fact that Google paid $1.65 billion is mind boggling. I've been doing quite a bit of reading lately on business and globalization, which oftens means the tossing around of insane numbers like $60 billion in revenues in one year. It is difficult to wrap your head around such a vast sum, but then again if you look at the successful billion dollar companies, they are that way for a reason.
What strikes me as interesting about the YouTube acquisition is that open-ended issue of copyrighted material on the Internet. YouTube has made some strides but stricking deals with the likes of CBS, BMG and Universal Music, but still, in the realm of the Internet, copyright material is still up for debate. Not whether the material is copyrighted (most of the time it is), but whether or not the Internet counts as "fair-use." It is diffcult to see this union as something other than another area for ppc ads for Google that also gives a tremendous amount of funds to fight inevitable copyright infringement lawsuits.
Forrester Research analyst Charlene Li sums it up best at the end of the Tribune article:
"It's going to be like, 'You can either fight us or you can make money with us.'"
It will be interesting to see what happens to the Internet at large and the world of online video in particular now.
Friday, October 6, 2006
Googling for YouTube for $1.6 Billion
I saw this earlier this morning on Digg.com from TechCrunch and wasn't the least bit surprised. YouTube has left Google far behind when it comes to online video posting and sharing.
Techcrunch points out that it is just a rumor, though the Wall Street Journal has an article about it and now the Tribune has chimed in via the AP. Created a good deal of buzz, actually. There were roughly 780 diggs this morning when I first saw it, and now at 1:51pm Central there are 1174.
Makes on wonder if this is beyond mere speculation now.
Big news indeed. $1.6 billion (yes, that is billion with a B) though seems a bit steep. News Corp didn't even pay a $1 billion for MySpace. So is YouTube worth $1.6 billion or is the price over inflated?
If it does go through, it will mean more advertising dollars for Google, but will YouTube remain YouTube or will it get integrated and gobbled up by Google, losing its independant feel and identity just like Urchin? In case you don't know, Urchin is more commonly known as Google Analytics, but Urchin was a nifty piece of Web tracking software before it got gobbled up by Google and morphed into a clunky free-for-all Web tracking application.
Guess we shall wait and see...
Techcrunch points out that it is just a rumor, though the Wall Street Journal has an article about it and now the Tribune has chimed in via the AP. Created a good deal of buzz, actually. There were roughly 780 diggs this morning when I first saw it, and now at 1:51pm Central there are 1174.
Makes on wonder if this is beyond mere speculation now.
Big news indeed. $1.6 billion (yes, that is billion with a B) though seems a bit steep. News Corp didn't even pay a $1 billion for MySpace. So is YouTube worth $1.6 billion or is the price over inflated?
If it does go through, it will mean more advertising dollars for Google, but will YouTube remain YouTube or will it get integrated and gobbled up by Google, losing its independant feel and identity just like Urchin? In case you don't know, Urchin is more commonly known as Google Analytics, but Urchin was a nifty piece of Web tracking software before it got gobbled up by Google and morphed into a clunky free-for-all Web tracking application.
Guess we shall wait and see...
Wednesday, October 4, 2006
Google is Bringing Literacy to the World
Okay. So it looks like Google is trying to counter-act is copyright infringe issues associated with the Google Books program by teaming up with Litcam and UNESCO to bring literacy to the world. I can applaud that. Is this technology-driven universe, what better company than Google to bring literacy to parts of the world where there is no running water?
Makes me think of the book I'm reading, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization, by Thomas L. Friedman. In it, he gives quite a few examples and a good deal of background on the development of globalization and how technology is driving force. By technology, Mr. Friedman really means the Internet.
So, in that sense, it only seems logical that an Internet company like Google would bring literacy to the world. The Internet gives new meaning to the phrase "freedom of information" since anyone with an Internet connection anywhere in the world has access to information, which is another point Friedman makes, and the very importance of how to organize and re-structure that information for the consumer as well as the business.
The other thing I just noticed is that the authoer of the post on Google's Literacy Project is not affiliate with Google. How interesting, and what a leap of faith we all take in believe that it is really a person not affiliated with Google.
What a leap of faith we all take every time we read a blog, even this one, that the person posting is who that person claims to be. That got me thinking of an article I saw online in the Economist yesterday about Second Life which is a very advanced online community. Actually, it's a virtual community, a virtual economy, a virtual society.
Are we looking at the next generation of living?
Makes me think of the book I'm reading, The Lexus and the Olive Tree: Understanding Globalization, by Thomas L. Friedman. In it, he gives quite a few examples and a good deal of background on the development of globalization and how technology is driving force. By technology, Mr. Friedman really means the Internet.
So, in that sense, it only seems logical that an Internet company like Google would bring literacy to the world. The Internet gives new meaning to the phrase "freedom of information" since anyone with an Internet connection anywhere in the world has access to information, which is another point Friedman makes, and the very importance of how to organize and re-structure that information for the consumer as well as the business.
The other thing I just noticed is that the authoer of the post on Google's Literacy Project is not affiliate with Google. How interesting, and what a leap of faith we all take in believe that it is really a person not affiliated with Google.
What a leap of faith we all take every time we read a blog, even this one, that the person posting is who that person claims to be. That got me thinking of an article I saw online in the Economist yesterday about Second Life which is a very advanced online community. Actually, it's a virtual community, a virtual economy, a virtual society.
Are we looking at the next generation of living?
Monday, October 2, 2006
$40,000 Annual Salary at the age of 17
I was browsing the Chicago Tribune this morning and came across this story about a 17-year-old girl who is now making a $40,000 annual salary. She and a gentleman she met while posting on a message board about Web hosting, partnered up and created Switchpod. Switchpod lets users upload audio and video programs, like podcasts. There have a free service, and a pay service. Switchpod has been bought by Wizzard Software Corp., a company that specializes in speech recognition technology.
Aside from the fact that a highschooler is making more money than people I know with a college degree, the thing that caught my attention about this article was that ominous force we call Globalization. I've been deep in reading about globalization for the past month, and how the democratization of technology has made globaization possible and a force with which to be reckoned. Globalization destroys as much as it builds and develops, and technology is the driving force.
Technology has brought globaization to the computer screen of a 17-year-old high schooler in Florida. Globalization has made it possible for a 17-year-old entrepreneur to have an annual salary higher than those who have just graduated from college. Undergrads, mind you, not graduates.
Technology-driven globalization has spawned a generation of entrepreneurs who start Web businesses in the basement of their parents' homes inbetween homework, soccer practice and the school play. And this is normal to them. It's the American Dream fulfilled.
How can one argue with that?
Aside from the fact that a highschooler is making more money than people I know with a college degree, the thing that caught my attention about this article was that ominous force we call Globalization. I've been deep in reading about globalization for the past month, and how the democratization of technology has made globaization possible and a force with which to be reckoned. Globalization destroys as much as it builds and develops, and technology is the driving force.
Technology has brought globaization to the computer screen of a 17-year-old high schooler in Florida. Globalization has made it possible for a 17-year-old entrepreneur to have an annual salary higher than those who have just graduated from college. Undergrads, mind you, not graduates.
Technology-driven globalization has spawned a generation of entrepreneurs who start Web businesses in the basement of their parents' homes inbetween homework, soccer practice and the school play. And this is normal to them. It's the American Dream fulfilled.
How can one argue with that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)