Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Privacy Issues: Facebook vs. User

by J. ButlerApplecore Content Development Specialist

They say bad things come in threes. In that case, Internet privacy is still waiting for the other shoe to drop.

Earlier this month, Facebook users were appalled to discover that the website’s Terms of Use had altered, basically giving Zuckerberg et al. more freedom in the legal rights they held over their users’ uploaded data, photos and videos.

The missing provision outlined the user’s right to remove their uploaded content at any time, which would also eliminate Facebook’s license to it. Left in its place was new language that gave Facebook full rights to any content uploaded by its users—even if the account it was uploaded to was terminated. The Consumerist, an online blog, was one of the first to point out the change, which superficially amounted to Facebook claiming that they can do whatever they want with your content. Forever.

It took three days and a lot of protest (to the tune of about 100,000 users), but Facebook eventually replaced the original Terms of Service, citing the need to rewrite to clarify exactly what the changes meant. Though the move calmed many critics, some consider that it even happened in the first place a warning sign. Says Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center in the New York Times:

 “This was a digital rights grab…Facebook was transferring control of user-generated content from the user to Facebook, and that was really alarming.”

Scary stuff, considering that according to their own Terms of Service, Facebook is under no obligation to notify changes to their terms—even when existing users are not asked to agree to the new terms.

Then, this past Thursday, the "Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act of 2009," or SAFETY Act, was floated in both the House and Senate. It’s the second time this particular Act has surfaced (the first time being back in 2007). While its goal to protect children online is nothing short of admirable, some of the Act’s provisions have Internet privacy advocates concerned.

An excerpt: "A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service shall retain for a period of at least two years all records or other information pertaining to the identity of a user of a temporarily assigned network address the service assigns to that user."

The basic idea is that any Starbucks, university campus, or employer would be required to keep a log of all data related to the IP addresses assigned to its individual users. Everything from email logins to search queries to site history would be retained. For two years.

What’s the current ruling look like? The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 set the precedent that ISPs based in the United States retain relevant data from a given IP address for at least 90 days—but only upon the formal request of law enforcement. 

Though its aim is admirable, the Act inevitably opens a whole can of issues related to privacy laws and the internet. Since it’s grown so fast and so big, drawing the line between public data and private data is blurry at best. This is especially true on a site like Facebook, where individual privacy settings vary considerably from user to user. Case in point—I don’t have my birthday, email address or even my relationship status on my Facebook profile, which is only viewable by people who are already my friends. But I know plenty of people who will not only publish all that data without thinking twice—they even add phone numbers, street addresses and employment locations. So what’s clearly private data for me is loosely-defined public data for someone else.

  

Want to know more? Here are some great links for further reading:

10 Privacy Settings Every Facebook User Should Know (Allfacebook.com)

Canadian Privacy Law Blog

Internet Privacy Laws in Canada (a brief rundown of current Canadian privacy rights)

Dissecting Facebook's Terms of Use (a detailed and jargon-free rundown of Facebook’s Terms of Use—it’s pretty eye-opening.) 

Monday, February 16, 2009

The New York Times—No More?


by J. Butler, Applecore Content Development Specialist

The big news this past month was the possibility that within five to ten years, heavyweight the New York Times could either be gone or drastically altered.

Way back in the 20th century, that announcement would have been unthinkable—since 1896, the Times has been a sonic force in modern journalism. In 2002, the publication won seven Pulitzer Prizes, largely for their superhuman coverage of the September 11th attacks (the standing record had been four). But these days, suggesting the New York Times’ eventual absence from newsstands is no longer an outrageous statement—in fact, it comes off as pretty tuned in.

Back in 2008, the paper had announced plans to borrow up to $225 million against its new Manhattan offices. Then, amid reports of faltering ad revenue and circulation, January 2009 saw a 48% plunge in the Times fourth quarter earnings, blamed on the natural decrease of advertising in a weak economy.

The Times is treading waters dotted with several scandals (see Jayson Blair, a Times writer who had faked at least 36 of his stories) and controversies—like the costly 2006 re-design, which decreased page size by half an inch and slashed content, hoping to make the paper more “reader friendly.”

The paper has slowly been shifting focus to its online division, and the numbers aren't lying: there are 1.1 million daily subscribers to the print edition - and 1.5 million readers online. Arthur Sulzberger, chairman of the New York Times, has made his priorities clear: "I really don't know whether we'll be printing the Times in five years...Internet is a wonderful place to be and we're leading there."

The New York Times is a high-profile example of a shift in print media which, depending on who you ask, means one of two things: reinvention or extinction.

Worried parties turn to the Internet for the real scoop—in particular, to voices like The Media is Dying. As a Twitter feed, it’s fairly straightforward: it reports industry lay-offs, big name agency moves and closing publications. And it does all this without adding an ounce of commentary or bias, relaying only the facts.

It’s created a lot of buzz in a relatively short amount of time—over 10,000 unique subscribers since its November 2008 inception—and has spawned a sister site meant to help the recently jobless (@themediaishiring).

On paper, things certainly don’t look good for traditional print media. But as the anonymous contributors to @themediaisdying will tell you, this looming change isn’t necessarily a bad thing:


Old media is not doomed but it certainly is changing, and fast. [New] generations are growing up with a myriad of technologies and options to get their news. . . social media [allows people to] get their news faster, easier and more personalized than ever before.


After the initial growing pains, while the economy is shaky and new media finds firm footing, this change will bring positive results. As the @TheMediaisDying creators suggest, it’s a demand that traditional media step up to meet modern technology, and enter a world where the gap between consumer and producer is smaller than ever before.


Tuesday, February 10, 2009

The Sides of a Golden Triangle

by J. Butler, Applecore Content Development Specialist


According to a Google-commissioned study performed by Enquiro Search Solutions, Inc, this is roughly how the human eye absorbs the information based on a first-time visit to a unique search query page. What follows is a heat map tracking a user's first viewing-- the darker the hue, the more time the eye spent on that area:




Notice that shape. It's what led to christening this pattern the Golden Triangle--a term that covers the area and order in which the eye reads and processes information. In the early days before this innovation, a big percentage of optimization was done on educated guesswork. But when the Golden Triangle was introduced at the Search Engine Strategies conference in 2005, it changed the way many designers, search engine marketers and users looked at how people use search engines.


The Golden Triangle doesn't just apply to Google—similar eye-tracking tests run against several other search engines, such as Yahoo or MSN, showed the same results:



So the big question: what does the Golden Triangle really mean? Well, it means that if your listing doesn’t fall inside that triangle, your chances of being clicked are drastically reduced, if not totally diminished. The top-three results draws 100 percent visibility, while result four gets 85 percent, and so on. Anything from result six onward has to fight for the remaining visibility of 50 percent .



Research like this gives real depth to the importance of search engine marketing, and how using Search Engine Optimization properly is key to any solid marketing plan.




Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Social Awareness Goes Viral

by J. Butler, Applecore Content Development Specialist

Ask anyone who didn't even know what a "Facebook" was two years ago: the social nature of the internet has exploded, turning the web into a collaborative, transparent place to share ideas, spread your message and reach a globe-spanning audience with the click of a button.

So it’s no wonder that spreading awareness – be it political, environmental or charitable – has been biten by the social networking bug. Here’s a handful of sites that do it best, courting innovation while they spread their message.

Political/Current events

Daily Kos – a collaborative political news blog that often recruits its readers to submit their own ‘diary’ entries—albeit under the safety of their screen names. Administrators and ‘power’ users have the ability to edit, delete, or otherwise prohibit diaries and replies (comments) posted by those who don’t have such privileges. [Daily Kos]

Digg—A site where users vote stories into the top spot (called ‘digging’) or ignore them in favor of others (called ‘burying’). Users have an exceptional degree of control over what stories see the front page. [Digg]

Citizen’s Briefing BookA project of the official White House webpage. American citizens were invited to submit their concerns and suggestions in anticipation of Obama’s administration, with the compiled comments presented to President Obama. The Briefing Book only recently closed submission, and has given an amazing number of ordinary citizens the chance to participate in their government. [Citizen's Briefing Book]

Environmental

Cool People Care—Whether you have five minutes or five hours to spare, this website is full of countless little lifestyle changes for the better of the whole world. From alternatives to wrapping paper to taking four minute showers, this website is full of little gestures that add up to a big whole. [Cool People Care]

Make Me Sustainable—A website that offers you the chance to trace your carbon footprint with just a few clicks of a button—because awareness is the first step to change. Join a network of other users dedicated to improving their own impact on the world, and have an army of like-minded people behind your efforts. [Make Me Sustainable]

Recycle Now—the name says it all: tips and suggestions for integrating a recycling regime into your daily routine. Bright, simply designed and no-nonsense, this website offers so much easy to use advice that you’ll find using it no problem. [Recycle Now]

Charity

Your Luminosity—an online platform for setting up your own charity. It guides you through the process of creating your profile, setting up a donations page, and even provides a guide to filing tax receipts. [Your Luminosity]

Kiva - In this collective fundraising project, a single project of modest size (say, an Ecuadorian bread maker requesting $525) can be funded collectively through donors from around the world. The maximum bid is $25 on any one project, and when the money is repaid, the donor can either keep the money—or use it to fund another project. [KIVA]

TOMS Shoes- “For every pair you purchase, TOMS Shoes will match it with shoes for a child in need. One for one.” So says the motto on their homepage, and browsing their selection finds a variety of simple, well-made shoes that give so much more than you get. [TOMS Shoes]

Heard of any other sites using the internet to connect like-minded people in this way? Share!

Monday, February 2, 2009

The Mad Men Meet Twitter

by J. ButlerApplecore Content Development Specialist

Mad Men: it’s been called the reason for the recent pop culture fascination with (and glamorization of) the advertising business. For AMC’s critical darling Mad Men, success was slow-going, but once it came, it came fast. The show, based on the in and outs of an ad agency in the early 1960s, has been the centre of media mentions, high fashion photo spreads and near-compulsory appearances on year-end top ten lists. So it’s little surprise that that Mad Men, a smart, well-written character piece, also collected a number of devoted, very creative fans, who also happen to be very vocal.

A few die-hard fans began to create Twitter profiles (as well as advice columns) for characters on the show and assumed their identities, sending out “tweets” that closely followed the ongoing plot of the show proper. The trend took off quickly, until nearly every major (@dondraper, the office alpha male) and some very minor (@Xerox914, the office copy machine) characters had their own voice on Twitter. The tweets were all collected under one feed-aggregator, We Are Sterling Cooper (the name of the fictitious ad agency). All in all, a fairly tame way for fans to express their love of a show, and certainly not unusual in an online world where fans often have the final say.

But the really interesting part came when AMC (and their lawyers) intervened. AMC, in a knee-jerk copyright-minded reaction, moved to shut the Twitterings down, and within days, nearly all the fictitious Sterling Cooper accounts were disabled. The remaining few scrambled around the Twittersphere, sending out frantic tweets about their co-workers being "fired" and wondering how long they had left. 

Though later reports suggest that AMC had only wanted to discuss the accounts with Twitter for copyright reasons, not shut them down entirely, the effect was the same: AMC looked like the big, mean network trying to pull the plug on what had just been harmless fun.

To temper the outcry of angry fans, AMC moved to have the Twitter accounts reinstated and quickly issued a statement endorsing the trend, calling the tweets “…a great expression of the passionate fan base of Mad Men.” They even interviewed one of the original account holders (@BudMelman) for the show's official blog. The tweets gradually picked up their former activity, and built up a little community of insider interactions and conversations. 

What’s the lesson in all this? Well, if a fan/customer is engaging in your show/brand on their own time -- of their own free will -- then you should be counting your lucky stars, not rushing to stop the conversation. You’d put a halt to the kind of free, organic advertising that most marketers dream about. And worst of all, you’d end up looking the Big Bad Corporation who doesn’t understand social media or even the basic idea of fun. 

Social media isn’t a formula; it’s a flow. AMC had to learn that the hard way. 


Curious what all the fuss is about? Check out Applecore's Twitter feed.