Andy Beal's Marketing Pilgrim

Are you using a location based service?

What about the iPad?

Or how about Posterous?

All of these things have at one time been labeled overrated. For example, I think foursquare is a complete waste of time. Why the heck would I want to tell the world where I am! I mean that’s really nobody’s business! It’s not like Twitter where I actually have meaningful dialogue. I find value in Twitter for numerous reasons. I can’t imagine finding that same value with foursquare.

But, that’s just me.

Everything I mentioned above could make me miss out on new opportunities.  My own subjectivity is getting in the way of learning new networks and how to exploit them for my clients and myself. This dangerous attitude isn’t unique to just myself. Many folks in the tech space, that don’t find value in new things, are quick to label them “pointless”. The truth is they are right. At least for themselves that is.

You see every user uses a device or service in a different way, for different things. Many times what we find useless and unproductive, actually can provide good value to some. So then the question becomes when should we put stock in ideas and products that we aren’t personally invested in? I mean there’s no way I have time to test out every new thing on the market!

Most successful projects have two characteristics that are worth a look at. Successful projects provide real value to its core user base, and they make money.

Providing real value to your core user base is important. Without real value then, yes, your project might be a waste of time. How do you know you are providing real value? Well, first make sure you are asking and talking to the right people. For example you wouldn’t ask me if I find value in FriendFeed because the day after I first signed up for it, I left and never came back. I am not a FriendFeed core user. Just because some users haven’t found value in a project doesn’t mean that value isn’t there.

This sounds incredibility obvious to most in the real world, but if you were to say this around a group of venture capital addicts they might not let you have anymore free granola. But, the truth is, a project isn’t successful if it isn’t making a profit. This is an important point to understand as a marketer because there is absolutely no point in investing research and your client’s money into services that eventually fail. If a service or product isn’t providing real value to its core users or making any money, then you won’t either by using it.

So the next time that new social media toy hits the scene, take off the cynic hat and give it a try. Otherwise you might miss out on something that your audience would love.

[photo credit]

With cable nearly obliterating all signs of local programming on TV, one news outlet is taking it online with an interesting marketing plan to boot. In an interview with HyperlocalBlogger, James Macpherson details his plans to air 16-hours a week of original programming on his local news site Pasadena Now. The programming will include a daily morning show with news and interviews and live streaming of community events.

In order to pay for the programming, Macpherson is looking for sponsors who are willing to fiance the shows, not with cash, but with promotion.

“Our objective is to create specialty audiences. For example, to work with the Pasadena Humane Society to produce a weekly ‘Pasadena Pet Channel.’ We won’t charge the PHSSPCA, but we will require that they must promote each show with an email blast to their 5,000 members. We will then sell commercials to local pet stores and vets who can be guaranteed that the show’s audience will perfectly match their target audience.”

This looks like a win-win all around. The sponsor does the advertising leg work and the businesses get their names put in front of a tightly targeted audience. The key here is finding local entities with a mailing list that makes the production cost worthwhile. I could see a local mommy group sponsoring a parenting show with ads from local baby stores, beauty pageants and daycare centers. How about a high school sports show that includes all of the parents in the district in a mailing?

With phone books languishing on the front stoop and local newspapers going the way of the 8-Track, it’s tougher than ever for a mom and pop business to find advertising space at a reasonable cost. Says Macpherson:

“I am extremely optimistic. Our prices will be reasonable, our costs low, and let’s face it, most people love the idea of being on TV.”

Even if the “TV” is actually a computer monitor or iPhone.

What do you think of the idea of trading production for promotion?

I’m not going to add any context to this quote from a Google employee–it would totally ruin the buzz you’ll feel for the rest of the day!

I can assure you that the last thing we want is for the business who hires the best SEO to win a better slot. But, the SEOs are, unfortunately, pretty good at what they do, and so sometimes they out smart us.

And that, my friend, is something you should send to the next prospective client that asks, “can you really figure out Google’s algorithm?”

P.S. If you want context, head here.

Divas drive the dollars.

That’s according to a new report from ComScore called Women on the Web: How Women are Shaping the Internet. The study shows that women spend 20% more time on retail websites overall than men. Not surprisingly, they lead in sales in every category except Computer Hardware/Software, Electronics, Sports/Outdoor and Music to a smaller extent. Movies is near even but when it comes to shopping for clothing online it’s women by a large margin.

Though women have been known to enjoy window shopping, in most cases they are actually spending. The ComScore report states:

“In February 2010, [women] accounted for 49.8 percent of the U.S. online population, but made up 57.9 percent of all non-travel buyers, made 61.1 percent of online purchases and accounted for 58.2 percent of online dollars.”

So shopping is popular, but that’s not all women are doing on the web. They’re managing their money online, they’re playing games and they’re dominating social media. The report goes on to say that many advertisers wrongly assume that women’s magazines, celebrity and baby sites are the top online hang-outs for women. But women are also the primary visitors to pet care, health and spiritualism sites. If you have something edgy to sell, the numbers also indicate that women are only slightly behind the men on gambling sites and there’s less of a gap than you would think when it comes to adult entertainment.

Speaking of entertainment, women find gaming online highly engaging particularly when it comes to puzzles, card and social network games. Men only dominate in the action and sports game arenas.

If you’re thinking of hitching your ad to an online video star, note that about the same number of US men and women watch videos, but men spend more time watching by a large margin. Women preferred short YouTube videos but that could be because we’re too busy shopping and networking online to sit for a whole movie.

When it comes to the future of online shopping, the ComScore report noted a huge increase in interest in group buying and “flash sales” sites which they attribute to the fact that they’re a mix of shopping and social networking.

“The rise of social networking has prompted women of all ages to engage in a host of associated online activities, such as photo-sharing, gaming, video viewing and instant messaging. All of these activities have benefited from their linkage with Social Networking sites in terms of their ability to attract new female users. Social retail, especially since it combines two activities that are already firmly in the mainstream of women’s Web activity, may be the next frontier in this evolution.”

If you go with that theory, then Twitter’s new Early Bird program should be a sure winner.

Does gender play a role in your marketing plan? We’d like to hear about it.

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

If Google were to put itself in to the geo-location game right now there may be some real howling about Google and world domination. Well, leave it to Google not to be completely out of any game. In the case of the check-in craze that is being pioneered by foursquare, Gowalla, Loopt and others, Google has found a way in without having their own ‘product’. How you ask? Google tells us at the Geo Developers blog

We have been delighted with the enthusiasm we have seen for the Places API, and the innovative ways in which developers would like to use it. We have seen applications that offer check-in to places and need to identify an individual place at which a user is currently located, applications looking to show a user Places around them, and applications looking to offer a search and browse experience for Places similar to that offered on Google Maps.

We are going to focus initially on check-in applications. These are the applications that we feel the API currently caters to well, and we are excited to work with developers building these applications to understand their requirements, and ensure that we are offering them the best possible experience.

When we previewed the Places API back in May we indicated that we planned to begin processing applications in July. I’m happy to say that we have now begun reaching out to developers who have expressed an interest in building check-in applications using the API, including those working on client applications for the Buzz API.

So Google is in the game without being in the game, so to speak. Let’s face it, there is nowhere online where Google will not be in some way manner shape or form. Maybe Google is going to let the developer community work out the kinks and make the mistakes while Google gets to sit right next to them as they do it. Who knows?

With all the talk of Google looking to get into the social networking game it only makes sense that geo-location functionality wouldn’t be far behind. What do you think this might all look like one day? Will Google be a real player in more than just search when it comes to the social check-in world?

It’s Friday Pilgrims. Check-in with your thoughts before you check out for the weekend.

While Google struggles with a lot of issues because of their high profile involvement in just about everything, they are still the king of the search mountain by a country mile. This is obviously not news but how that domination extends into the mobile search world is still a bit stunning. According to Pingdom, based on global stats with the help of Stat Counter, Google currently owns 98% of the mobile search market. Yup ……. 98%. The picture below will add to the ‘wow factor’ of that number.

So what does this all mean? It could mean plenty of things. The biggest question is around the age old tech question of what is more important, the hardware / device or the application? With Apple and Google fighting tooth and nail over the burgeoning mobile market, who has the edge? Android devices are making strides but the iPhone and the iOS are the standard for now. To be sure Google would like to own the entire experience from the device through the conversion but if it can’t beat the iPhone at least all of those iPhone users will be searching on Google. The result will still be filling Google’s pockets with mobile paid search money and more. Not a bad position to be in if you are Google.

It has to make Steve Jobs’ blood boil that while the iPhone and its associated apps are a license to print money, Google is still going to make a lot of money through the iPhone marketplace. The fact is that iPhone fanatics are as dependent on Google as they are on Apple.

So the question is, is there anyone out there that could possibly slow Google down in this market of the future? I don’t see anyone, do you?

Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

While most sources are predicting a rise in ad dollars for the rest of this year, Barclays analyst Anthony DiClemente is lowering his estimate from 5.5% to only a 5% growth. That may not sound like much but these days, even .5% really counts.

In an article at MediaMemo, Peter Kafka says that it’s print (including phone book advertising) and radio that are skewing the numbers as they continue to have poor ad sales. The web and TV networks are seeing an uptick but when you average it together it’s not a pretty picture.

Kafka goes a step further, noting that things were so bad last year that even a 5% hike isn’t bringing ad dollars back to what they once were. He says we’ll know more when the big media companies turn in their Q2 reports next week but he’s not hopeful.

“Even if you assume that those guys report healthy-looking numbers, it’s important to remember that they are based on very weak comps from the previous year. Which means that industries that are still posting declines are really, really, down.”

Back in in 2008, my good friend Lee Odden asked:

What’s a better term: “social media monitoring” or “social media measurement”?

As someone that provides social media monitoring/measurement tools, I wanted to get a check on whether our feelings have changed towards the use of social media monitoring versus social media measurement.

To me, it means the same thing. After all, why would you monitor social media, if you don’t plan to actually measure social media in some way? Still, I can tell you that, based on Google Analytics, social media monitoring is by far and away the most commonly searched-for keyword.

That’s backed up by Google’s Insights for Search too! As you can see, social media monitoring is far more searched for than social media measurement. Here’s the chart to prove it!

So, I’ve asked on Twitter:

What would you search for: “social media monitoring” or “social media measurement”?

Notice that I’ve not asked, which is better, but, which would you search for? Here are some of the responses:

@etrevallion social media monitoring
@mollermarketing monitoring would be the one i choose over those two options
@schachin monitoring… social sounds like it needs monitoring not measurement like ROI or CTR
@aristobhupal ‘Social Media Monitoring’ for me
@tonicarr I think I would be more apt to search “social media analytics”, then I would vote for your “social media measurement”
@SurjGish Depends, monitoring & measurement are 2 different things
@JoshuaTitsworth I’d search for social media measurement.
@Cord monitoring
@Matt_Siltala if those are my only two choices “social media monitoring” is the one …
@adorosario “how to monitor the social media” [ps: you are over estimating the grammatical and linguistics abilities of Internet users]
@TurtleSEO social media measurement because its about numbers these days…even while we look at invoices
@SharmeeMavadia social media monitoring
@emha705 Social Media Monitoring
@oilman social media monitoring
@1000cigarettes would depend on my intentions. measurement if i were looking for my own results, monitoring if looking to see cumulative mentions
@janetdmiller social media monitoring
@netmeg monitoring
@jimmyrey Social Media Monitoring is what I search for when looking for people who want to buy it
@dvdsmpsn SM monitoring
@joshspickler monitoring. Definitely
@mark_barrera Social media monitoring
@chriskovac I’d search for “”social media monitoring” — “measurement” seems to vague, especially to people that are just now experimenting
@EvanKRob social media monitoring. Seems to project a proactive philosophy where measurement suggests reactive.
@Jlee350 monitoring
@KidQuick my vote goes to social media monitoring. But, my 1st search query on that topic would be something else “social media analytics”

Of course, not everyone is on Twitter, so please chime in in the comments below with your vote:

Social media monitoring or social media measurement?

Thanks!

What are the latest trends in mobile marketing?

Millennial Media just released their SMART (Scorecard for Mobile Advertising Reach and Targeting) report for June and it provides insight on the habits of mobile advertisers.

First, we learn that Retail and Restaurants are making a move to attract more mobile customers–with location based coupons and seasonal campaigns.

Next, we discover that mobile marketers are not just getting cell phone users to click through to a web site. They’re actually getting them to engage when they get there!

35% submitted a form, 26% downloaded an application and 29% where even convinced to use their smart phone to…wait for it…place a call!

The last chart demonstrates that mobile marketers are moving away from broad, generic campaigns. 41% targeted their mobile audience in some way, with more than half doing so by using GEO targeted campaigns.

How does all this combine? Well, let me tell you why I finally caved in and joined Foursquare, shall I? I check-in to one of my favorite restaurants and I’m told their’s a special offer for Ben & Jerry’s ice cream–just 20 yards away. I just need to check-in there and show them my screen.

Restaurant + action + GEO targeting = success….oh, and free ice cream!

How are you enjoying that free Android software that powers your iPhone-competing smart phone?

I hope you like it enough to reimburse Google $10 a year, because that’s what Google CEO Eric Schmidt is hoping to get out of each Android user:

“If we have a billion people using Android, you think we can’t make money from that?” Schmidt asked rhetorically. All it would take, he said, is $10 per user per year.

Did you just feel a small pain in your wallet?

OK, relax.

Google doesn’t want you to actually hand over ten bucks a year to use Android, but that’s the nominal amount it says it needs to earn from each user, in order to add a nice supplement to its search engine revenue. That could come from any kind of distribution deal or premium apps that you might pay for.

And any amount it can earn from Android would certainly help it to finally cast off that “one trick pony” tag that appears to be relentlessly applied to the search giant. And, based on the number of people that tweet to me about their love of their Android phone, I suspect that Google has a good shot at getting the income from Android it so dearly craves.

Back in 2008, we reported on the atonishing revenue Google was generating per employee: $210,000 per year!

It appears that revenue has turned into a nice little stockpile of cash for the search giant. If you were to divide up all the cash Google has in its coffers, each employee would walk away with $1.4 million!

Frank Capra’s famous movie from 1939 “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” is described in IMDb as “A naive man is appointed to fill a vacancy in the US Senate. His plans promptly collide with political corruption, but he doesn’t back down.”

Yesterday, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg went to Washington as well. It appears though that he wasn’t site seeing. Politico reports

Facebook spokesman Andrew Noyes confirmed Zuckerberg’s visit was his first to Washington in an official capacity.

“He looks forward to sharing our company’s unique perspectives” on a variety of issues related to technology and the economy, Noyes said.

Now, whether you think that Zuckerberg is like Capra’s Mr. Smith or not is up to you but I doubt that naïve is a descriptor used for Zuckerberg these days.

So what was the trip about?

Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg made his first visit to Washington Wednesday, meeting privately with members of Congress about online privacy and other technology issues.

During his short, stealthy visit this week, Zuckerberg met with Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and other members of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force. He did not meet with press or attend any public events.

Hatch and others questioned Zuckerberg about social media, the tech industry’s opportunities for economic growth and legislative priorities needed to create more jobs in the tech sector, according to a task force press release.

He was not alone in Washington this week as another Facebook higher up, CTO Bret Taylor was busy doing his own thing to keep Facebook in the fray.

Both the House and Senate are considering legislation that would place sweeping new rules around how Internet companies are allowed to collect, share and store sensitive information for advertising purposes. Bret Taylor, Facebook’s chief technology officer, warned senators Tuesday that imposing vague technological regulations would stifle online innovation

.

Isn’t it ironic how the company that set online privacy back to the digital stone age with its bone-headed arrogance is now the protector of all things innovative?

Facebook’s profile in Washington has been expanding and it will be hard for them to keep this kind of activity private no matter what the settings they have on it. Zuckerberg himself is now being ‘exposed’ to more of a celebrity treatment with a movie on tap for the fall and the paparazzi treatment that he got from Gawker over this past weekend.

There is no denying that Facebook has some work to do in the nation’s capital considering the attention it received earlier in the year as grandstanding senators drafted a letter to the FTC calling for policies to ensure privacy for users on social networks like Facebook. Because Facebook has been established as the poster child for online privacy issues they will have no choice but to step up the presence in DC much like Google has in the recent past.

I think we will all need to get used to this kind of news in the Internet world. It is not likely that Washington and the free market are going to play well together without some mediation. How that plays out will impact the rest of us and we’ll just have to sit back and wait to see what happens.

So what do you think will happen? Will Washington be able to keep companies like Google and Facebook in check? Should they? To what degree? So many questions.

Amazon began beta testing a new application this week that claims to be a simple gift suggestion engine for your family and friends. It all begins on the Amazon recommendation page. From there, you give Amazon permission to talk to Facebook and from there you get a page full of people matched with products.

At the top of the page is a list of everyone on your friends list who has a birthday coming up. Good thing I decided to try this because I totally forgot that my sister has a birthday in 4 days. It even tells me “4 days” because simply saying August 1 isn’t urgent sounding enough.

Below that is a list of products that my friends like, so I should own them, too. Under each item is a tiny Facebook icon for the people who like that item. The first item on my list, a Sundance Film Festival DVD was linked to three friends of mine who are indie filmmakers, so the system does seem to work.

Or not.

The choices appear to be based on the items you list in your favorites section of Facebook. My sister doesn’t have any favorites listed, yet Amazon was bold enough to choose a selection of books she might like for her birthday based on. . . I have no idea what.

My sister-in-law has a variety of items on her Facebook profile and it resulted in an interesting recommendation list that included both Terminator and Disney’s Cinderella. I actually own both of those movies, so all I can say is that she has odd, but good taste. Or maybe it’s Amazon’s taste that I’m sampling.

Overall, I found this new application to be both voyeuristic and creepy. I got a certain perverse joy out of peeking into the book, music and video tastes of people on my Facebook whom I hardly know. On the other hand, I didn’t want to see what would show up for my best friend’s teenaged daughter, lest it be too much information.

The saving grace here is that despite what it looks like at first glance, Amazon isn’t revealing purchase history, just a propensity to “like” something based on information left behind on Facebook. It’s no secret that I like the singer Steve Carlson, so it doesn’t matter that my Facebook friends will see my picture under his CDs, but where does it end?

The only thing I find more disturbing than Amazon’s belief that I’ll automatically want what my friends want, is their instance that I should buy presents for every one of my Facebook friends. Go ahead, make me feel bad with those birthday countdowns and “most wished for” suggestions. I’m still not going to spend my money buying a gift for the guy I met once on a movie but haven’t seen in ten years, Facebook friend or not.

I’m going to disconnect from the service because I feel it’s a terrible invasion of privacy. I am. . .but I have no idea what to get my sister for her birthday and it’s only 4 days from now. Those books they’re suggesting do look interesting. . . .but after that, I’m disconnecting. I am.

People ask a lot of questions. It’s natural and it makes sense. It’s the only way we can acquire information that we don’t currently have. The biggest problem with any question is finding the best source to ask. We have friends and family but they can only go so far in many cases. We have search engines but sometimes you need something else, right?

Enter Facebook Questions which was announced yesterday in the Facebook blog and is being slow rolled out to the Facebook community at large.

Today we’re introducing Facebook Questions, a beta product that lets you pose questions like these to the Facebook community. With this new application, you can get a broader set of answers and learn valuable information from people knowledgeable on a range of topics.

Since we like to develop products carefully over time with your help, Facebook Questions is available to a limited number of people right now, and we’ll be developing it rapidly based on their feedback. We’re aiming to bring this product to all of you as quickly as we can.

Here is the box you will see when you are included in the effort

It’s an idea that can certainly be of interest if you feel that you can trust someone that you have never met before and have no idea if they are real or not. In other words, there will be value here but how it fits for you will depend on your willingness to trust. Here are some examples given in the blog

Facebook Questions helps you tap into the collective knowledge of the more than 500 million people on Facebook. For example, if you’re vacationing in Costa Rica and want to know the best places to surf, you can use Facebook Questions to get answers from nearby surfing enthusiasts. Because questions will also appear to your friends and their friends, you’ll receive answers that are more personalized to you.

It appears as if the whole privacy thing has certainly impacted everything Facebook does since this is stated in the post as well.

Keep in mind that all questions and answers posted using the Questions application are public and visible to everyone on the Internet. If you only want to ask a question to your friends or a specific group of people, you can still pose it as a status update on your profile targeted to those people.

You will be able to set up polls and post photos of things that you are asking questions of as well.

Sounds interesting but it is something that should be used with caution considering that you are asking the entire community a question thus opening yourself up to everything else that can come along with that kind of exposure.

So my question to you is, do you think that you would use Facebook Questions to find your answers to the things you are curious about? What kinds of questions would you ask to everyone and what others might you not be so public with? For me, I’ll stick to a status update to my friends only for now. However, some people find that even family recommendations need more verification.

In this new world order, it is important to weigh the risks of of jumping into the ‘personal crowdsourcing’ waters. You never know what sharks may be lurking.

Your thoughts?

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Sometimes an ad for a product is so clever that you remember the ad but not the product. Not so with Old Spice’s new “Smell Like a Man, Man,” campaign which went viral earlier this year. According to a Nielsen report which was noted in Brandweek, sales of Old Spice Body Wash have jumped 55% in the past three months and 107% this past month.

“Gary Stibel, CEO and founder of The New England Consulting Group, said his data also shows a lift for Old Spice. “We think that Old Spice is up. We don’t think it’s up in the double digits, but it’s up meaningfully, and we think it’s driven 100 percent by marketing.”

What’s not measurable is how much help the campaign had from the news coverage it received. Type “Old Spice” into Google news and you’ll find more than 2,000 articles have been written by everyone from Business Week to MTV to. . . us. If P&G had bought ad space on all of these publications, the cost would have been astronomical, but now they’re a part of advertising history and that is, to quote another ad genius, priceless.

The “Old Spice Guy”, Isaiah Mustafa, is now on his way to becoming a movie star with a role in Jennifer Aniston’s new movie. Now that’s how you breath new life into an old brand.

I have good news and bad news.

First the bad news: Search Engine Strategies San Jose is no more.

Sucka!

That’s cos the good news is that the event has been renamed SES and the location changed to San Francisco! I so got you with that one, didn’t I?

Well, there’s more. SES is now part of the broader Connected Marketing Week which runs from August 16-20 at the Moscone Center in San Fran. Connected Marketing Week features five full days of themed subjects on search marketing, micro-blogging, social media, international online marketing, ad networks and exchanges, and much more. Each day will include panels, events, and networking opportunities for all involved.

In addition to SES, the week also includes a half day ClickZ BlogworkZ forum featuring discussion panels on the latest trends in blogging and a specific panel on how bloggers are impacting the reputation of multi-million dollar businesses.

You’ll find me hanging out at Connected Marketing Week. On Monday, I’m on a ClickZ panel will Robert Scoble–the first time I believe we’ve been on the same panel together. And, later in the week, you’ll find me at SES–teaching you how to manage your Google reputation.

So, are you coming?

The early bird discount ends on July 30th and Marketing Pilgrim readers can get another 20% discount by using the code SPGSF20

See you there!

Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

A new survey by Cone says that four-out-of-five consumers will go online for a recommendation when they’re interested in buying something–even after it’s been recommended to them by a friend or family member. Looks like blood isn’t thicker than water these days. Not when it comes to parting with hard earned cash. And it doesn’t have to be a lot of cash, either.

The survey found that cost wasn’t a big factor in the decision to verify product claims. 82% said they would do research online before buying a car, but 72% said they’d check the reviews on movies and restaurants before heading out. Once they find what they’re looking for online, 80% of those polled said that a positive recommendation would reinforce their intent to buy. It’s interesting to note that only 68% said a negative review would stop them from buying a product or service. That may be the result of our tendency to want validation for our own ideas. Dad likes it, the guy online likes it and so do you, equals, you’re a smart decision maker.

The oddest thing about the study is the portion that talks about who you trust. 63% said they trust recommendations from family members, 31% said friends and only 2% said strangers. Yet a huge portion of the 98% who said they didn’t trust strangers admit to going online to look for confirmation of recommendations by family members. So you won’t trust a stranger on the street but you’ll trust one who writes a review at Amazon. Interesting.

If you believe what the Cone study is saying, then a lot marketing agencies are going about this all wrong. Bzzagent, for example, is a program that is built on the concept that word-of-mouth marketing between friends and family members is the best marketing. Bzzagents are given samples of a product along with talking points and coupons designed to spread the buzz. Going with what the Cone study says, there needs to be an additional step, which is pointing the buzz-ee to a website where they can read positive reviews to back up the bzzagent’s claims.

A combined one-two punch, word of mouth followed by online reviews, is a near perfect winner, particularly if you’re going after the 25-34 crowd. According to the study, 91% of those people go online to verify recommendations and 90% said they were likely to buy after finding support for the claims online.

If want to know more about this survey, the best place to visit is Cone Inc but since I know you’re not going to take my word for it, you can check with Glenn Zaccara, Sr. Manager, Corporate Social Responsibility,  T-Mobile USA, he says, “The agency continues to be the rock behind the program we’ve built.”

Good enough for you?

Whenever research is brought forward that merits one of those “Is that right?!” responses it’s worth looking into. I guess it’s the Internet’s equivalent of riding by a car wreck, you know you shouldn’t look but you do anyway.

Well, a study by USC’s Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism shows that despite the immense popularity of Twitter there are 0% of people surveyed who would pay to use the service. Yup, zero percent. It’s certainly the kind of statistic that turns head but can it be true?

The study was brought to my attention by a post on the HubSpot blog so I decided to look a little deeper. Since I am a sports fan, my first reaction was the hope that USC’s journalism school is more reputable than its athletic department but I got past that pretty quickly .

“Such an extreme finding that produced a zero response underscores the difficulty of getting Internet users to pay for anything that they already receive for free,” said Jeffrey I. Cole, director of the Center for the Digital Future at USC’s Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism.

“Twitter has no plans to charge its users, but this result illustrates, beyond any doubt, the tremendous problem of transforming free users into paying users,” said Cole. “Online providers face major challenges to get customers to pay for services they now receive for free.”

Not earth shattering because I think that the vast majority of people would at least have to really think about whether they would pay to be on services like Facebook and Twitter. I doubt this will ever be a real concern hence the push to find revenue under every other rock that can be overturned from premium services to advertising and more.

Another finding of the study, however, should concern Internet marketers and advertisers. It states

The responses about Twitter are reinforced by other findings in the Digital Future Study that explore Internet users’ opinions about online advertising. The current study found that half of Internet users never click on Web advertising, and 70 percent said that Internet advertising is “annoying. ”

Yet 55 percent of users said they would rather see Web advertising than pay for content.

“Internet users can obtain content in three ways: they can steal it, or pay for it, or accept advertising on the Web pages they view,” said Cole. “Users express strong negative views about online advertising, but they still prefer seeing ads as an alternative to paying for content.

Consumers really want free content without advertising, but ultimately they understand that content has to be paid for — one way or another.”

It looks like Internet users are confused and they are just like the rest of us. They want their cake and they want to eat it too. This is the great divide that the publishing industry has allowed to become so great that it may not be closed – ever. Free only lasts for so long and then there are things like payroll and offices etc which are not, and never will be, free.

The trouble is that those are business problems and consumers don’t want to hear about them. They want their content and since they expect it to be free they will rebel (at least in the short term) if there is any attempt to require payment for something they feel they have a ‘right’ to. It’s the old entitlement mentality that is part of the culture whether we like it or not.

Check out the highlights of the report for more information about the Internet in general including the continued decline or newspapers, the public’s general distrust of online information and other interesting ‘facts’ like this one:

The percentage of users age 16 and older who said that communication technology makes the world a better place has declined to 56 percent of users from its peak of 66 percent in 2002.

That’s an interesting ‘trend’ if you really think about it, isn’t it?

So what are you wiling to pay for online? Is there anything that you simply cannot do without that would merit a payment to get it? Where do you draw the line?

Let us know in an informal Pilgrim’s Poll. I bet there are some interesting takes on this out there among our readers.

Do you wear a tin foil hat whenever you browse the web?

Are you worried that Google knows more about you than any fictional “big brother” ever could?

Well, there’s a browser plugin that you will love–and will likely tip you from slightly paranoid to full-blown insane!

Basically, once installed, Google Alarm notifies you–visually and with some annoying horns–whenever you visit a page that has some kind of Google fingerprint on it. Google Analytics, DoubleClick ads, YouTube videos–you name it!

Of course, half the web has been touched by Google in some way, so install at your own peril.

(Via)

Don’t think that just because Facebook has managed to not completely trample people’s privacy as of late that there is not more activity around the subject. In fact, forces in Washington, this time the FTC (Federal Trade Commission), are speaking at ‘hearings’ that are looking into this issue right now with talk of a “do not track” list. This is not the first time the subject has been raised (2007 it got some attention) but in light of recent online privacy ‘dust-ups’, this idea may have a real chance to develop.

MediaPost reports

The Federal Trade Commission is considering proposing a do-not-track mechanism that would allow consumers to easily opt out of all behavioral targeting, chairman Jon Leibowitz told lawmakers on Tuesday.

Testifying at a hearing about online privacy, Leibowitz said the FTC is exploring the feasibility of a browser plug-in that would store users’ targeting preferences. He added that either the FTC or a private group could run the system.

I have to admit that “do not call” list for telemarketers has made life better for me at least, although I am seeing more and more attempts to ‘get around’ that mechanism as of late. I am not sure what would happen as a result of a “do not track” list but many consumers may find it interesting just because of their experience with its offline cousin.

This is not the kind of talk that the advertising industry wants to hear though, so expect a fight especially if the oversight of any kind of list is left up to the FTC. In fact, the advertising industry is starting to show plenty of signs of the need to ‘self-police’ to keep these kinds of talks and options out of the public forum.

The FTC chairman also noted that he was in favor of an opt-in mentality rather than the existing opt-out and that idea has considerable support from others in power.

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) both expressed concern that privacy policies weren’t giving Web users enough useful information about online ad practices.

Rockefeller proposed that some companies were burying too much information in lengthy documents that consumers don’t read. “Some would say the fine print is there and it’s not our fault you didn’t read it,” he said, adding, “I say, that’s a 19th-century mentality.”

Kerry added that he didn’t know that consumers understood how companies use data. “I’m not sure that there’s knowledge in the caveat emptor component of this,” he said.

Wow, Sen. Rockefeller just tossed the advertising business so far into the past regarding their practices that the 20th century was ignored. I guess he made his point.

So where do you stand on the possibility of a “do not track” list? Is this something that could hurt the online advertising industry or is it just a way for politicians to say that they are doing something about online privacy?