My last post pointed to some pretty bad behaviors by some companies for playing in the murky waters of the scammy ad ecosystem of social network games wonderfully outlined here by Michael Arrington at TechCrunch and contained in a prior post.

Sitting on the high end of the scale in terms of scam offers published and inexcusable behaviors from a CEO (see video here) is Offerpal.  Guess the Offerpal board must have agreed so the newly appointed CEO, George Garrick offered an apology (here). 

Public apologies are rare so this would have been a good one – except for one little thing.  Smack in the middle of his apology he makes this comment (below) about direct marketing that just gets my ire.  I know.  With all the fodder that the Scamville drama provides, why blog about this one little comment?  Maybe because I root for the underdog.  And maybe because it’s something that’s been bothering me for a while.

“Direct marketing, in particular lead-gen, has always been full of questionable, misleading, and outright fraudulent marketers and offers. We all get these daily via snail mail, email, phone, and late-night TV. Unfortunately, this is the nature of the Direct Marketing beast.”

Excuse me?

Like this is some sort of excuse for propagating consumer fraud?  Nothing like making a blatantly ignorant statement that blankets an entire industry based on a few bad apples.  Sort of like saying that all ad serving networks are negligent and therefore responsible for all online consumer fraud.  Wonderful, George.  I appreciate the apology on behalf of your former CEO’s policies and behaviors but don’t try to disparage and blame the entire direct marketing industry for your woes. 

So, to set the record straight, the Direct Marketing industry – even lead-gen, does NOT provide misleading or fraudulent offers on a daily basis, online or offline.  The DMA (Direct Marketing Association) has been around since 1917 and unlike Offerpal (launched in 2007), the direct marketing industry HAS an established code of ethics found here - a 42 page guide that covers among other things, honesty and clarity of the offer; sweepstakes; marketing to children; and the collection and use of data.

Like anything, there are always a few bad apples that spoil things for the rest (ya listening, George?) but the Direct Marketing industry has always been on the forefront of consumer and corporate responsibility.  Always sitting in the shadow of its much larger Advertising brother, the power of Direct Marketing has been overlooked for years.  But that tide is changing. 

As advertisers move to the internet looking for new eyeballs, they discovered metrics and data – something new to brand advertisers but squarely in the domain of direct marketing experts.  The internet is one of those unique mediums where brand advertising and direct marketing truly converge.   To fully understand internet marketing, direct marketers can and should learn from brand advertisers.  Conversely, brand advertisers can and should learn from direct marketers.  What makes direct marketing a beast is not the daily barrage of fraudulent offers but rather the complexity and magnitude of data (data source, data integrity, data trends…. data, data, data).  And that’s what makes direct marketing seem so foreign to a brand advertiser.  It’s a whole new language and it requires using a different hemisphere of your brain.  And it should be at the core of  your integrated marketing strategy.

More in another post.

I’ve been watching with fascination all the drama that has thankfully unfolded from Michael Arrington’s Scamville posts over at TechCrunch.  It’s been a real wake-up call to the social network gaming industry in particular.  Michael adroitly connects the dots along the whole supply chain - the cycle becoming its own ecosystem.  Money is a very powerful motivator.   Ask Madoff and AIG.  As long as the people who should be monitoring the system financially benefit from the cheating that goes on, then there’s no reason for anyone to stop it (except of course for integrity, honesty, goodwill, and quality customer experiences).  

The drama started here but the seeds may have started way back here when Zynga CEO Mark Pincus tells Startup@Berkeley attendees that he knowingly scammed his customers to drive revenue for his self-funded start-up.  The revenue is what would allow him to control Zynga’s destiny.  As my friend Danielle lamented, “Sort of like being a whore to pay the bills until you can get a respectable job.”   Yeah, well, exactly like that.

The good news is that the Scamville posts have brought a huge spotlight onto these schemes which has finally prompted some much-needed action by e.g. Facebook, the game developers, and the ad servers.  Let’s hope that the attention can be sustained so that we’ll be able to watch and support these companies’ as they transform themselves from revenue whores to respectable businesses. 

And I have every confidence that they will do just that as they are/can be solid businesses without this stuff.  Just do the right thing and eventually, this will become a blip in their history that just fades away.

There are two fascinating and and sharply contrasting posts today that illustrate both the pro’s and con’s of mass media, bloggers and so-called ‘citizen journalism’.

First, from ‘The Secret Diary of Steve Jobs‘ entitled ‘Why the mainstream media is dying’:

Every once in a while you get to see a mainstream outlet cover a story right alongside a blog, so you can put them up against each other and see why one was so much better than the other. This week TechCrunch and the New York Times (photo) provided just such a lesson.

…

On Oct. 31 TechCrunch broke a big story called “Scamville: The Social Gaming Ecosystem of Hell” about how Zynga was making money by selling scam ads.

…

After all this, we woke up Saturday to find a story in the New York Times, also about Zynga (and other Facebook game companies) with the headline, “Virtual Goods Start Bringing Real Paydays.” The Times put two reporters on the knob-polisher, and somehow they managed to interview Pincus, and to quote him — and yet theyincluded not a single word about the scammy ads.

…

Meanwhile, Arrington, still digging, blasted again on Saturday night, reporting that sleazy ads had popped up again on Zynga, despite promises that they would be taken down.

Um, New York Times? If you guys are still wondering why people are dropping their subscriptions and getting their news from blogs instead of you — this is why.

…

And to all those people who go around wringing their hands and saying what are we going to do when the “real newspapers” all die and we have to get our news from Gawker and HuffPo and TechCrunch? Friends, I think we’re going to be just fine.

The videos that illustrate this are fascinating; it’s hard to imagine how print would ever do this justice (note: the first one begins with audio only).

The second video shows Mark Pincus of Zynga fessing up to these tactics, illustrating ‘mutually assured embarrassment‘ (a phrase Paul Saffo was using at least a couple of years ago, and which I came across in a recent Pew Internet Project on the Future of the Internet, not to be confused with Jonathan Zittrain’s skeptical and dystopian vision).

Second, on TechCrunch, Paul Carr lambasted one of the ‘citizen journalists’ for their prurient reporting on the Fort Hood tragedy:

I’d probably feel slightly smug, if I didn’t feel so sick.

Smug that after two weeks of me suggesting that social media might not be an unequivocally Good Thing in terms of privacy and human decency, the news has delivered the perfect example to support my view.

…

And yet, the first news and analysis out of the base didn’t come from the experts. Nor did it come from the 24-hour news media, or even from dedicated military blogs – but rather from the Twitter account of one Tearah Moore, a soldier from Linden, Michigan who is based at Fort Hood, having recently returned from Iraq.

…

That last twitpic link was particularly amazing: it showed a cameraphone image – of a wounded soldier arriving at the hospital on a gurney – taken by Moore from inside the hospital. Unsurprisingly, Moore’s coverage was quickly picked up by bloggers and mainstream media outlets alike, something that she actively encouraged by tweeting to friends that they should pass her phone number to the press so she could tell them the truth, rather than the speculative bullshit that was hitting the wires.

There was just one problem: Moore’s information was bullshit too.

While I laud Paul Carr’s ethical concerns in this particular case, I think that Fake Steve’s point about the power of new media explains one of the reasons why mass media’s business model is doomed. Restraint is not enough in the face of failing to do your core job as well as competing alternatives. And the core job is reporting (at least as much as it’s advertising).

Zynga shuts down Cost Per Action offers across its entire portfolio of social network games. Zynga CEO Mark Pincus vows to make good and declares the following: ” Finally, to reiterate our commitment and seriousness of our intent to adhere to high standards and bring value to the growing virtual currency space, we will be donating ALL revenues derived from this and any future mistakes of this sort to charity.” Full article from TechCrunch (via Washington Post)

OfferPal brings in new blood following the Arrington-Shukla controversy. Articles and analysis by:

Washington Post/TechCrunch

Virtual Worlds News

paidContent.org

San Jose Business Journal

Press Release by Reuters

… Findes der mænd, som i de amerikanske film. Mænd, der er solbrune, veltrænede, uden hår på brystet og med de helt rigtige skægstubbe. Alle er de arbejdende mænd, med et job som naturligvis kræver en uniform – piloten, brandmanden, håndværkeren eller livredderen. Mændene er omsorgsfulde, følsomme, har glimt i øjet og så kan de synge med på Joe Cockers ”Up Where We Belong”.  Det er budskabet som Fleggaard i år, ovenpå sidste års kæmpe succes med halvnøgne/nøgne kvinder i røde bikinier og faldskærme, forsøger at lokke i os kvinder.

Mændene var solgt sidste år og en af reklamefilmene blev en viral succes og kåret som verdens bedste af Michael Arrington, den indflydelsesrige blogger fra Silicon Valley. Læs mere her

Virker reklamen?

Som kvinde sidder jeg tilbage og tænker – jeg har sgu da været lige over grænsen (læs i Tyskland/ Fleggaard) mange gange og de mænd har jeg aldrig set – tværtimod! Det jeg så var nok mere noget a la høj og ranglet eller lille med ølvom og pølse i hånden…

Selv synes jeg, at sidste års reklame var lige i øjet og lige til grænsen. Men årets reklame til kvinderne er i min optik lige under grænsen. Måske bliver jeg bare ikke fanget af knaldtilbuddet: Omo 6,4 kg. Color eller White til 75 kr.? Måske er der for lidt sex i reklamen, i hvert fald i forhold til sidste års reklame? Eller måske er kvinder bare ikke ligeså lette at narre, som mænd?

Det bliver interessant at følge den nye reklame og Fleggaardmændene og deres Facebookprofil. Kommer I til Fleggaard piger?

Dette års reklamefilm:

Sidste års reklamefilm kan ses her 

Well, it seems that the Mike Arrington’s pointed critique of social marketing practices is getting even the very large players to move quickly.

Today, we’re adding a fifth principle that clarifies a specific use case that we feel is particularly damaging to the user experience: promotions that include hidden renewals without specific opt-in will not be permitted. Because it’s our belief opt-out offers are misleading and do not have the best interests of the users in mind, we will be updating our Terms of Use this week to better clarify this for users and developers.

via MySpace Says Zero Tolerance For App Scams, Changes Terms Of Use

There is a simple principle at work here. Visibility is key. There are many shady things quietly going on on the Net today.  Once someone shines a big, bright light it becomes harder to hide. Everything starts with visibility.

Michael Arrington, Tech Crunch, "Don't Be a Featured Loser"

My post “Facebook Trying to Increase Acitivity” was published on Wednesday, a whole two days before before Michael Arrington posted his on the exact same subject. I must admit, his title was a lot catchier and so was his article. It was called “Don’t Be a Featured Loser:  Facebook Helps Out the Unpopular.” Definitely something to learn from his candor and snarkiness which is so appealing to mass audiences everywhere.

That’s probably why his post got so much more play than mine. Oh, and it’s featured on Tech Crunch. Oh, and he’s Michael Arrington.

But, still, I did post it first.

At eSarcasm, The Web Site That Gets It Right ™, we take accuracy very seriously. Toward that end we have employed a crack team of Bulgarian fact checkers who spend each day verifying every single fact in every single story, except during the moments when they’re busy breaking CAPTCHA codes in Facebook.

However, even we occasionally make mistakes. We would like to address some of them now.

First, eSarcasm was not, in point of fact, endorsed by the one true Christian god and holy saviour, Jesus Christ, as was reported on August 20, 2009.

We have subsequently learned that the bearded man with the amazingly tranquil eyes was actually Jesus De Christo, an itinerant restaurant worker. Yet he still managed to pass a impressive battery of tests. For example: That walking-on-water business? Acrylic stilts. We’re still not sure how he pulled off the loaves and fishes trick, but our freezer is still stuffed full of Mrs. Paul’s breaded cod fillets. If anybody wants some, let us know. We’re tired of eating them.

At various times and places in this blog we have implied that Michael Arrington, founder of the popular _____Crunch Web franchise, is a douchebag, a pompous arrogant douchebag, and a pompous arrogant cross-dressing douchebag. We have also suggested that he bears an uncanny resemblence to Leonardo the Ninja Turtle. This was of course all in jest. We have the utmost respect for Mr. Arrington and his phalanx of attorneys and would do nothing to dissuade readers from believing everything he says, even when it makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

In an article published earlier today we implied that Yahoo CEO Carol Bartz performed an exotic dance for Yahoo employees in Taiwan wearing nothing but a G-string. We have subsequently learned that this was in fact a Carol Bartz impersonator.

In a related story published last month titled “Yahoo Has a Big One and Wants Everyone to Know It,” we implied that Ms. Bartz has a special fondness for really big dicks. We continue to stand by this story. Because, hell, who doesn’t?

Finally, Steve Jobs was not, we repeat, NOT arrested for shoplifting a can of baked beans from a convenience store in East Palo Alto on June 8 of this year. We sincerely hope that this official retraction is sufficient to secure the release of our loved ones from their holding pen at Apple’s Cupertino headquarters.

eSarcasm regrets the errors.

I absolutely think that there should be a Bill of Rights for the Social Web.  There are some major difficulties in creating a set of rules for the Internet and Social Media because there are challenges in setting those rules.  I respect Joseph Smarr, Marc Canter, Robert Scoble, and Michael Arrington for taking responsibility for creating these.  The Bill fo Rights gives Social Media users knowledge and power to own their words.

The main points for the Bill of Rights contain:

• Ownership of their own personal information, including:
  • their own profile data
  • the list of people they are connected to
  • the activity stream of content they create;
• Control of whether and how such personal information is shared with others; and
• Freedom to grant persistent access to their personal information to trusted external sites.

I would also recommend adding something about transparency.  It is important that if you want respect as a blogger, you need to fully disclose your information and that you are completely transparent with who you are and what you do.  We have seen problems with this from agencies and big companies who don’t disclose who they work for.

Control is difficult because once you post something on the internet – it doesn’t go away.  That is why it is so important that the first Bill of Rights stresses ownership of all the information that you put on there.

In my opinion, companies need to have a social media policy as well.  Knowing that so many people are using social media, each company/agency/association need to implement a Bill of Rights unique to their organization.  Everyone that is using the sites need to recognize their responsibilities and realize that they are representing themselves and a company.  More than half of employers block Twitter, MySpace and Facebook.  While I don’t think companies should full-on block these sites, I think it is important they recognize people are using the sites and should implement policies based on their rules. 

All in all, I think it is difficult to establish a Social Media Bill of Rights, but this one does a good job in making it general and overarching.  Also, people need to recognize that since new technologies and Web sites are continuing to be developed, the Bill of Rights need to be ever-changing and constantly updated.

Mike Arrington recently posted a glowing testimate to Cash 4 Gold. It seemed as if he did little to no actual investigation into their business practices or the investigation by Consumer Reports. He got a lot of criticism in the comments so many in fact that he felt it was necessary to write a follow up explaining why he’s right and that after researching Cash 4 Gold he finds nothing wrong with their business practices. In fact he thinks that most of the negative comments were from haters essentially jealous of such a wildly profitable business.

Uh huh. Well we tried posting a follow up comment. In it we basically pointed out that according to the report from Consumer Reports C4G doesn’t pay anywhere close to the 50% of spot price that they like to claim. Like in this recent press release. In fact they only offered Consumer Reports 10 to 15% of the spot price for the gold that they sent in. Mike didn’t like that.

Mike claims that he digs deep when preparing a post about a business. We simply pointed out that it didn’t seem like he did. We also pointed out that we morally object to a business claiming to offer top dollar for a persons valuables and then not delivering on that promise.

We also pointed out that Techcrunch seems to be the only (non paid) publication (online or print) that has done a profile of Cash 4 Gold that hasn’t mentioned some of the controversy around them. We like reading TC, we just feel that Mike rushed this article out without any real objectivity and obviously doesn’t like it being pointed out in his publication.We also said that his financial data seemed incorrect based on figures released by C4G and that overall his article seemed to be nothing more than a puffed up PR piece handed over to him by his “inside source” at C4G. Our post was quickly deleted. Well he’s got the right to censor comments that he doesn’t like.

Only time will tell if the other posts will stay put.

Mike Arrington of Techcrunch recently profiled C4G on his influential blog. He stated that according to an inside source;

“It’s more than surprising that the company raked in $90 million in revenue in the first year of operations according to a source close to the company. Profit, even after paying out cash to sellers and a huge marketing spend, was in the $30 million range. Revenues in 2009 are on track to hit $160 million, says our source, with a similar profit margin. That implies $50 million or so in 2009 profits.”

Wow, that’s a lot of smelted gold. In case you’ve been living under a rock, didn’t watch the SuperBowl or aren’t in dire straights financially C4G according to it’s CEO and founder Jeff Aronson is a “disruptive company”. Which essentially gives consumers the ability to sell unwanted jewelry direct from their home. No more traveling to the local pawn shop in that nasty part of town. C4G has been under a lot of scrutiny (although none of which is mentioned in Arrington’s article) for their business practices. There have been many claims from postings by alleged former employees, ripped off consumers and even Consumer Reports.

This is directly from the consumer reports investigation;

Consumer Reports, using its “mystery shopper” team, sent 24 identical gold pendants and chains (purchased for $175 each) to Cash4Gold.com and its competitors. The determined melt value of the jewelry was calculated at around $70 each when gold was above $900 an ounce. In comparison with pawn shop and Jewelry store quotes (which ranged from $25 to $50), Cash4Gold.com quoted between $7.60~$12.72 melt value for the jewelry. Similar low quotes were also given by Cash4Gold.com competitors GoldKit (around $7.81~$20.59) and GoldPaq (around $8.22~$13.11).

Other accounts on the internet only seem to further speculate that consumers will receive the least for their gold when doing business with C4G. There have also been accounts by alleged former employees whom have said that the call center is run in a very boiler room type fashion. The customer service reps receive bonuses based on how little they can get a consumer to agree to accept for their gold.

In Arrington’s profile on Techcrunch he states that 2009 revenue is on track for $160 million. Wikipedia states that C4G is selling 3,000 to 4,000 ounces of gold each week. While Bloomberg media (with information provided by C4G) stated that they “typically sell 6,000 ounces of gold a week”. The current “spot price” for gold is right around $1,000 per ounce. So that means that C4G is pulling in $6 million a week in sales. Based on Techcrunch’s insider information that should net them almost $2 million a week or well over $100 million in profits by years end. Wow.

Hey if you’re a little nervous about sinking money back into the market, Aronson has the gold smelted into 1000 ounce bars (which weigh about 63lbs) which would be easy to bury in the back yard or hide in a secure safe. Just be ready to cut a check for a cool million.

So what’s up with the huge difference in Arrington’s numbers and ours? Why would C4G give him such paltry figures for publication? Especially for a company that just took on VC money from Mangrove Capital Partners. One can only speculate.

It’s pretty easy to calculate that if not for C4G paying out (based on the Consumer Reports data) 10 to 15% of the spot price of the gold they wouldn’t be so profitable. Their overhead employing 350+ people, call center and smelting facilities doesn’t come cheap. However I feel that their marketing costs must take the largest bite out of their operating budget. C4G only advertises on TV, from late night infomercial type spots to SuperBowl ads featuring cash strapped celebrities. There’s some huge advantages in trying to acquire your clients via “infomercial” style ads, statistically those consumers are less likely to purchase items via the internet.

Well so what? Well if one were to see an ad on the internet for C4G you might be inclined to read up on them to see if they’re legit. As of this posting if you Google “Cash 4 Gold” five out of the first ten results essentially call their operation a RIP OFF. The rest of the remaining spots (excluding the #1 spot) are taken by their competitors.  It might be a little more difficult to convert that prospective web based lead into a sale. Having them call the 800 number for their “refiners return pak” is a much better alternative.

An interesting aside C4G has a direct competitor, Cash For Gold (United Jewelry Buyers) which no doubt is reaping the rewards of Cash 4 Gold’s aggressive marketing.

It remains to be seen if this company can withstand the storm of negative PR. There will always be desperate people who fall for good marketing but I think that this company has a limited shelf life, certainly if they don’t begin to “refine” their image. I asked  a dozen people what they know about Cash 4 Gold and all of them essentially said it’s a rip off operation. That kind of bad PR will eventually cut their margins lower and lower. No matter how many television ads you run you won’t be able to outrun your reputation.

If I were Aronson I’d start stocking away some of those gold bars soon, if he hasn’t already.

UPDATE!

We just discovered a press release from C4G in which they’re offering Terry Herbert who discovered 1,500 pieces of gold, weighing a total of 16 lbs $164,000! Wow, that translates to about 62% of market spot price. Hey why not just make 50% of spot price your locked in rate for all transactions. Press Release

Dear TechCrunch,

Thank you for sending some traffic this way.  While I imagine that this is probably the result of some automated system, I still greatly appreciate it.  I admit that I do not really very often read all your posts, mostly because I am not entirely tech savvy or that interested in the whole slew of start-up companies.  However, that which I do read is usually quite pleasing.  Mr. Arrington wrote a nice bit about the impending fight between Google, Apple and the FCC and offered a t-shirt for a certain screen capture (which sadly I cannot provide but would if I could, whether for a t-shirt or not).  All and all I find you an enjoyable entity of news, with an occassional scathing remark or bit of controversy thrown in just to keep things interesting.  Please keep up the good work, and if you’d like to keep sending a bit of traffic my way that would be fine too.

Sincerely,

General Lordisimo, aka Lord, aka Nathaniel

Arrington on The Charlie Rose Show. Image: TechCrunch

“A total lie.” “Untrue.” “Misleading.” “Complete fabrication.” “Way beyond misleading.”

Those are some of the nicer things Michael Arrington had to say about Apple (AAPL) in his analysis of what he calls “Apple’s long rambling letter to the FCC.”

Arrington, for those who don’t have Techmeme on their morning reading list, is the former securities lawyer and serial entrepreneur who runs TechCrunch, arguably Silicon Valley’s most influential tech blog.

The letter he’s referring to is Apple’s formal response to an inquiry by the Federal Communications Commission into the role AT&T (T) played in Apple’s rejection of Google’s (GOOG) powerful Google Voice app. See here.

AT&T’s answer: we played no role. Google’s answer: redacted. Apple’s answer: we never rejected the app; we just haven’t, for various reasons, approved it yet. (link)

Arrington’s response: Apple is lying through its teeth. In particular, he writes:

Apple: “Contrary to published reports, Apple has not rejected the Google Voice application, and continues to study it.”

Reality: One third party Google Voice app developer disclosed to us in July that Apple SVP Phil Schiller told them that Google’s own app would be or already was rejected. Google also confirmed this to us later. There is overwhelming evidence that Apple did in fact reject the application.

Apple: “The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail …”

Reality: This strongly suggests that the Google Voice app replaces much of the core Apple iPhone OS function. This certainly isn’t accurate, and we believe the statement is misleading …

Apple: “… The Google Voice application replaces Apple’s Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail.”

Reality: Not true and misleading. The Google Voice application has its own voicemail function, which also transcribes messages. But it only works for incoming Google Voice calls, not calls to the iPhone. The Google Voice app in no way “replaces” Apple’s voicemail function.

Apple: “Similarly, SMS text messages are managed through the Google hub — replacing the iPhone’s text messaging feature.”

Reality: Not true and misleading. The Google Voice app doesn’t replace or in any way interfere with the iPhone’s text messaging feature. If someone sends a text message to your Google Voice number, the Google Voice app shows it. If it is sent directly to the iPhone phone number, nothing is different.

Apple: “In addition, the iPhone user’s entire Contacts database is transferred to Google’s servers, and we have yet to obtain any assurances from Google that this data will only be used in appropriate ways. These factors present several new issues and questions to us that we are still pondering at this time.”

Reality: Complete fabrication, way beyond misleading. The Google Voice app can access the iPhone’s contacts database, like thousands of other iPhone apps. But the Google Voice app never syncs the contacts database to their own servers. There is no option for users to do this … (link)

Apple has not yet responded to a request for comment.

Arrington it must be said, is not an entirely disinterested party. His company is preparing to market a Web tablet — the CrunchPad — that might compete directly with the tablet Apple is rumored to be building. And after enthusiastically embracing Apple’s iPhone, he announced in July that he was abandoning it for a BlackBerry Curve that will run Google Voice (see here).

Moreover, Arrington’s TechCrunch 50 conference, now in its third year, is scheduled to begin Sept. 14 (tickets cost $2,995 at the door), which gives him even more motivation than usual to make himself the center of attention.

In the end, Arrington believes, Apple will find a face-saving way to accept the Google Voice application. “They have to,” he writes. “Any serious investigation into the app by the FCC will show that the complaints around the app are unfounded and that it does none of the things Apple accuses it of doing.”

Arrington’s colleague Steve Gillmor goes one step further. He writes in TechCrunchIT that the whole Google Voice affair is a Machiavellian plot against — you guessed it — AT&T.

“Strip away the religious fervor of the Arrington plan … and you might glimpse the true reality of what’s going on. Namely, that Apple is conspiring with Google to force the FCC to ‘force’ Apple to, regrettably, open the door to VoIP and the Universal Inbox.”

We won’t hold our breath.

See also:

• The FCC is asking Apple and AT&T all the right questions
• 40 staffers. 2 reviews. 8,500 iPhone apps per week
• AT&T: We didn’t ask Apple to block Google Voice
• Dancing on AT&T’s grave in the Wall Street Journal
• iPhone switchers: Blodget in, Arrington out

I often wonder who calls the shots.  Some how the older I get the more important that is to me. I like leadership. I also believe in followers too. There’s nothing wrong with people following. Thought leadership? I like that term too. People that push the envelope of thinking in marketing, social media and technology are leaders.

I love “what if” questions too.

But in social media, though leadership is needed and is important, except that it’s the crowd that steers the ship.  The mob dictates. Viral determines. On Youtube, sensationalism seems to rule. Humor dominates.  Getting hurt drives traffic. Perez Hilton is a must read. Jason Calacanis and Michael Arrington shift the tide. Why is that?  No longer does big media/ mass media call the shots.  The fourth estate  is and was the dog and yet  it no longer wags its own tail. The user calls the shots. The tail wags the dog.

That isn’t such a bad thing except…

Our thirst and their thirst too,  is now satiated by the envelope that was once here and now is here…

Which begs the question, “Where will this put us in 5 years?” I’m not afraid of the tech aspect of that question.  That is exciting. I’m just wondering where the standards and where our ethics, morals and norms will be in that time. The more that UGC( user generated content) explodes on the scene and continues to permeate every pore of our online being, the more desensitized we become, which means, we’ll want more. Our expectations and our needs become greater. Almost to the extent that even governing bodies might start letting down their guard.

Face it, we’re becoming UGC  users and junkies; and where our fix comes from next (the technology) is not as important as how strong the next fix will need to be just to function or satisfy our demand.

There’s not a thing we can do about it either.

Share this Post

La semana pasada Michael Arrington, CEO de TechCrunch, abandonó su iPhone. Los motivos fueron básicamente las trabas a la innovación que pone Apple. Apple no permite el uso de Google Voice y Michael Arrington, no solo deja su iPhone sino que se ya ha pedido un  Android myTouch 3G (alias HTC Magic). Además la decisión de Apple de banear la aplicación Google Voice ha frustrado tanto a usuarios como desarrolladores.

Michael McDonald el director de WebProNews decidió pedir un Mytouch 3G desde que vio el Ion phone.

Por si fuera poco, el crecimiento de Android y la aparición de Chrome OS ha hecho inevitable que Eric Schmidt CEO de Google tenga que abandonar el consejo de Apple debido al conflicto de intereses.

Datos:

• Android actualmente está en 26 países activos en el mundo, en todos los continentes excepto África. Por lo tanto, proyección mundial.

• Andy Rubin dijo que habrá 18 dispositivos Android a final de 2009, podemos leerlo en NYTimes.

• Eric Schmidt dimite de su puesto de asesor en Apple: “Unfortunately, as Google enters more of Apple’s core businesses, with Android and now Chrome OS , Eric’s effectiveness as an Apple Board member will be significantly diminished, since he will have to recuse himself from even larger portions of our meetings due to potential conflicts of interest. Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple’s Board.”

• Dinamizar la comunidad: El paso a Android por parte de los desarrolladores es fácil, todo el mundo sabe que anteriormente se usaba Java ME, pues bien el paso de esas aplicaciones a Android mediante el SDK, es casi instantánea porque también se programa en Java. Por otra parte iPhone necesitas un MAC y saber Cocoa

• La Open Handset Alliance está formada por muchas empresas de hardware, software, operadoras. Cabe destacar Samsung, LG, HTC los más grandes después de Nokia. Por lo tanto, dominará el mercado ya que empresas como HTC, Samsung, Motorola están totalmente orientados a Android.

Por si fuera poco os pongo los futuribles móviles Android, que casualmente listé la semana pasada.

In een sportieve daad belde de sympathieke Filip Rogiers naar onze redactie, na een tamelijk prikkelige uitzending over zijn ruwe omgang met frêle uitdrukkingen. Rogiers noemde ons aan de telefoon inhoudelijk sterk, toonaangevend en werkelijk belangwekkend. Waar komen zo’n vleiende woorden vandaan? Rogiers is in de war, zoveel is duidelijk. Die vakantie komt er maar net op tijd.

Nu wil het toeval dat wij het goed menen met Filip Rogiers, en overigens ook met de rest van de redactie van De Morgen, of met de rest van wat vroeger de redactie van De Morgen was. Daarom vinden wij dat hij op vakantie eerst en vooral goed moet uitrusten, en zich dan de vraag moet stellen: wil ik nog wel terug naar De Morgen?

Om zijn antwoord op die vraag de goede richting uit te sturen, geven wij deze gedachtenkronkel van Michael Arrington mee. Arrington ziet een kleine krant met een select kransje topjournalisten als een rendabel alternatief voor de verlieslatende gigant die The New York Times nu is. Tegelijk bedenkt hij dat het er wel nooit van zal komen, omdat de beste journalisten van The New York Times daar niet zomaar zullen vertrekken.

De Morgen echter, heeft zelf een paar van haar beste journalisten op straat gegooid. Daarna pakten er enkele kleppers zelf hun boeltje, anderen overwegen alsnog dat voorbeeld te volgen. Het probleem dat zich volgens Arrington met het personeel stelt, heeft De Morgen dus al opgelost. Het probleem dat zich volgens sommigen met de financiering stelt, heeft Arrington al opgelost. Denk er eens over na, op vakantie.

Ja, dat zou nog eens een inhoudelijk sterke, toonaangevende en werkelijk belangwekkende krant zijn. Op voorwaarde dat er een eindredactie werd aangenomen die het juiste gebruik van de juiste uitdrukking belangrijk vond, natuurlijk.

Photo credit to: http://redstaplerchronicles.com/

Editor’s note: forgive me reader for I have not blogged in nearly three weeks… it’s planning season, sorry folks

First, some background on why –

However snobbish or passé (perhaps even condescending) the term Foodie may seem to some, I consider myself one; I’m a foodie with my restaurants, my menu picks, my ingredients, my home cooking, my books, my TV choices… I just am, and not that there is anything wrong with that. Even though I babble about food and restaurants all the time, the one thing I refrain from doing is talk negatively about the service of a restaurant.

To me the food and the chefs are the stars, so why bias people about décor or service if the meal is great… that is until recently when my mom, brother, wife and I were at Fig and Olive (Fifth Avenue location, the ‘new’ one; bottom line: I recommend the uptown location, food is the same) and had one of the worst services. So I decided to enact the age-old marketing perspective: negative experience = 10 people told vs. good experience = 3 people… I went to town, and told all who’d listen about it in addition to those I usually babble about food with.

The next day my frustration was met with an interesting read from the Chicago Sun-Times about a Horizon Group Management LLC lawsuit against a tenant’s ‘slanderous tweets’… then as if on cue, I started catching up on the Sam Sethi/TechCrunch libel suit over published ‘slanderous articles’ (see more TC coverage: here, here and here) this week… hm, I thought “the power of words you say?”

So, a new Tword is born–

The other day I came up with (per search results) a cute term… Negatweeting, seemed to just roll off the tongue, quite self explanatory given the recent occurrences around me.

Now that I work a lot with corporate reputations and though I’m young, I can seriously say (with a straight face) that I remember when people only had to worry about reputations in print and on TV. All of us, my current clients included, aren’t so lucky… we have to counter and encounter the public head on; the virtual soapbox of social networking and social media mandates us. If we don’t engage and define ourselves, someone else will or already is. Oh, if I had a dollar for every time I heard that phrase recently (again, planning season)…

I take the side of Amanda Bonnen (obviously) as well as that of Michael Arrington in these cases, and frankly everyone else that took a stand. It is the power of free speech, if not consumer power through preference and opinion, which is the foundation of American society… hence Michael Arrington wanting his case tried here and not in the UK, as it is now. And that perhaps is the problem with such outrage as my own at the legal system hamstringing free speech online… the internet, though democratization at it’s finest, is not a democracy.

Recent Exhibits:
a)      Google’s power to ban sites
b)      Marines banning social networking
c – e) Iran, China, Russia

And so on… internet is not a democracy, it is a powerful populous tool that is used to spread information and opinion, but there will always be those who control the switch… and yes, there is a switch. Again, do I even need to link to yesterday’s Twitter/Facebook hacker slowdown/deny of service attacks? Seems quite reasonable of an argument to me.

Thus, I decree: onward with your negatweeting my masses, go forth with your opinions and free speech consumerism. Use social networking and social media to bunch up and grow your numbers. Have your cake and eat it too, until they take away the fork.

So go on, exercise the right to express dissatisfaction with things and make yourself heard through tools available… because if we don’t engage and define ourselves, someone else will or already is.

［Steven Paul Jobs by Dylan Roscover］

Michael Arrington の「オレは iPhone をヤメる」宣言が話題になっている。

Google Voice アプリをめぐる不明朗さに Mike が愛想を尽かしたのだ。

ブログや RSS の父といわれる Dave Winer がそれをフォローしているが、iPhone プラットフォームについてなかなか手厳しい発言をしている。

Scripting News: “Hey Mike, I told you so” by Dave Winer: 01 August 2009

　　　　　＊　　　　　＊　　　　　＊

だからいっただろう・・・

2008 年９月、Mike Arrington は TechCrunch で次のようにいった。App Store の仕組みが如何にひどいものであっても私「Winer（そもそも iPhone アプリなんか開発したことがない）が iPhone アプリの開発を継続するだろう」と。まったくのナンセンスだ。iPhone が完全にオープンなプラットフォームだったとしても、iPhone アプリへの投資は考えただけで、自分自身開発技術を習得しようなどとは考えなかっただろう。なぜなら行き着く先は袋小路に思えたからだ。現在のような混乱状態になることは 2008 年９月時点でもう分っていたのだ。最初にいったのはオレだよ。

In Sept 2008 Mike Arrington over on TechCrunch said that no matter how bizarre the setup over at the App Store, I would “keep developing for the iPhone,” even though I had never developed for it. Obvious nonsense. Even if it was a wide-open platform I would have only considered investing in iPhone apps. I wouldn’t have gotten the skill myself because it looked like a dead-end, and by Sept 2008 we knew it was headed toward the mess it has now become. You heard it here first.

　　　　　＊　　　　　＊　　　　　＊

デベロッパに対する復讐

iPhone ではマックと同じソフトが動くべきだった。最初に耳にしたとき、自分のデスクトップと iPhone の両方で動く Frontier スクリプトが書けるものと誤解してしまった。当時私は Blackberry を使っていたので、MacPhone という考えには正直胸躍る思いがした。だがそれからは下り坂で、どんどん悪くなっていった。このプラットフォームはデベロッパに対するアップルの復讐だ。アップルがすべてをコントロールしている。アップルが認めない限り製品を出すことすらできない。濫用されるのは明らかだったし、現にそうなった。とうとう、Mike でさえうまくいかないと分るほどひどい状態になったのだ。

The iPhone should have run the same software as the Macintosh. When I first heard about it, I misunderstood and thought I’d be able to write Frontier scripts that ran both on my desktop and the phone. I was a Blackberry user at the time, and I found the idea of a MacPhone truly inspiring. From there, it went downhill, and downhill and downhill. This platform was Apple’s revenge on developers. Everything under their control. You couldn’t even ship a product that Apple didn’t approve of! Obviously that was going to be abused, and it has been, but finally it’s become so ridiculous that it’s obvious, even to Mike, that it can’t work.

　　　　　＊　　　　　＊　　　　　＊

ベンダーのいないプラットフオーム

この堂々巡りに私は何度も陥った。マイクはこれが初めてなのだ。真の意味でうまくいく唯一のプラットフォームはベンダーのいないプラットフォームであり、それはインターネットなのだ。

I’ve been through this loop many times, this is Mike’s first. The only platform that really works is a platform with no platform vendor, and that’s the Internet. 

　　　　　＊　　　　　＊　　　　　＊

アンチインターネット

Steve Jobs はアンチインターネットだ。インターネットは実用本意でちゃんと役に立つが美しいものではない。Jobs の作るものはとても美しく、その当然の結果として（事実ほぼそうなっているが）目がくらむほど美しく、そのため役立たずだということが見えないのだ。

Steve Jobs is the anti-Internet. The Internet is utilitarian, it works, but it’s ugly. Jobs’s stuff is so beautiful that when taken to its logical conclusion, and he’s almost there now, it’s so dazzling, so beautiful that you fail to see that it is also useless.

　　　　　＊　　　　　＊　　　　　＊

まったくの期待はずれ

マックには Woz みたいに素晴らしいことがまだいっぱいある。これを書いているのはすばらしいユニボディの MacBook Pro だが、これまで使ったコンピュータの中で一番すばらしい。使っているソフトはアップルが承認したものではないし、インターネットからダウンロードできる。その次ぐらいが iPhone だ。iPhone は電話、IM、通信カメラ［？］ぐらいにしか使っていない。電話は最低、IM はまあまあ、カメラは実にすばらしい。だがしかし、プラットフォームとしてはまったくの期待はずれだ。

There’s still a ton of Woz in the Mac, I am typing this on a gorgeous unibody MacBook Pro, which is probably the most lovely computer I’ve ever used. The software I’m using has never been approved by Apple, and can be downloaded from the Internet. Next to it is an iPhone, which I use only as a phone, an IM device and a communicating camera. It sucks as a phone. The IM is okay and the camera is really nice. But as a platform it’s a complete total disappointment. 

　　　　　＊　　　　　＊　　　　　＊

Google Voice アプリ騒動についてはFCC が調査に踏み切っただけでなく、大物ブロガーたちからも多くの批判が噴出している。

マックの場合と違って iPhone の問題点が App Store の閉鎖性にあると考えるひとたちを抑えきれなくなったようだ。

★ →［原文を見る：Original Text］

Technorati Tags: App Store, Dave Winer, iPhone, Michael Arrington

by Freddy J. Nager, Founder & Fusion Director, Atomic Tango LLC

Yeah, try re-bottling that. (illustration by Stuart MacKay-Smith)

It’s tough watching an old friend slowly die. Even tougher knowing that you’re helping to knock him off.

Before you go calling 911, the old friend I’m referring to is my daily newspaper. For decades, I’ve started every day with my morning paper. I score my sports and business fix while downing pure Colombian full-caf. Over the years, the two addictions have chemically intertwined to enhance their combined effects. Consequently, whenever I miss my morning coffee-n-paper jumpstart, I find myself fluttering from activity to activity the rest of the day like a fat pigeon in a hurricane.

And now, to my horror and profound sadness, newspapers are dying, losing readers and advertisers to the Web. As a blogger, I contribute to this lethal migration, not so much by stealing readers from newspapers (if only I had such drawing power), but by validating the Web as the place to go for scoop. I myself drink deeply from this vast sea of instant info. After all, why read papers for business alerts or sports scores when they’re updated every second online?

As an environmentalist, I guess I should encourage the decimation of a business that consumes so many trees. I can always sip my coffee while perched before my MacBook — but it just wouldn’t be the same. With that vast expanse of information spread before me on paper, I’m much more likely to read something I might have ignored if it were just presented to me as a hyperlink. I can also take a paper with me into the bathroom — where MacBooks dare not tread — or roll it up and stuff it into my bag for later perusal in a place without WiFi.

A newspaper is more than just info in print.

As executed by the L.A. Times or the N.Y. Times, a newspaper is an orchestrated performance that you consume at your pace and leisure. These hardened yet savvy wizards known as “editors” critically pick what’s relevant, what’s trivial, what warrants front page emphasis, and what deserves to be relegated to the bottom corner of the inside back page. Do they make mistakes? Sure, they’re human, but they’re better than the alternatives. Yahoo! News is indiscriminate in feeding me headline after headline. Even a filter such as Digg seems less orchestrated than mob-ruled. Some institutions are right for democracy; others, like a sports team, a kindergarten, or a newspaper, call for a benevolent dictator.

What truly separates newspapers from all other journalistic media is in-depth investigative reporting of serious issues. The other media could provide it, but they don’t.

The major network evening newscasts consist of pharmaceutical ads interrupted by sound bites. Go ahead, millionaire anchors, investigate that vast sucking corporate greedhole known as the U.S. pharmaceutical industry. I dare you. We’ll see how long your corporate masters will keep you around at GE/NBC, Disney/ABC, and Viacom/CBS.

The cable news channels are worse. Fox News is a right-wing exercise in character-assassination and willful ignorance. CNN has become People Magazine in HD: “Tonight: what hot chick who used to date Brad Pitt then became a governor’s prostitute is now missing in Aruba? We’ll provide continuous coverage after this quick report on some wars going on.” MSNBC consists of pundit after pundit after pundit after pundit after pundit after pundit speculating and expounding and speculating some more on what someone else has investigated, followed by a prison-reality show. I did have hope when I heard Al Gore was launching a news network, only to find myself numbed by Current TV’s duller variation of MTV News.

And now we bloggers are supposed to be the new face of journalism — may the gods save us all if that’s the truth. While we may cover stories the “mainstream media” missed, people like me are more likely to review shenanigans at Facebook than expose corruption at the Pentagon. And the bigger bloggers, like the execrable Matt Drudge, want to shape the news rather than report it. Bloggers are to journalism what street preachers are to education. Certainly interesting to listen to or read, but not exactly the foundations of a civil society.

The big question we bloggers need to ask ourselves: are we amputating the hand that feeds us?

An editorial in today’s L.A. Times (“The Free Ride That’s Killing The News Business”) argues that bloggers, online news aggregators and other “free riders” are driving real journalists into extinction:

“Usually we all benefit when more efficient competitors enter the market and drive inefficient competitors out of business. But the Internet has not made ‘new media’ publishers more efficient at gathering news than their print counterparts. It has made them more efficient at taking news from their print counterparts and using it to compete while the news is fresh.”

The article notes that, while free rider websites can survive on very little profit, “Newspapers, which bear the hefty labor costs of gathering the news, can’t.” The editorial then proposes tweaking copyright law so that news can’t be borrowed freely by aggregators and bloggers.

Yeah, right.

As a newspaper lover, I appreciate the sentiment, but there’s no way in hell to re-bottle this genie. It’s simply too easy to rehash news online. Indeed, sharing information is the entire raison d’etre of the Internet. Clamping down on sharing news online would be like banning gossip in a junior high. If the music industry can’t protect its songs, how is the news industry going to protect information? Will the Powers That Be read every blog, peruse every Facebook profile, scan every tweet? After all, most news organizations are using social media to drive traffic to their sites, even putting “share” buttons next to their stories.

That said, there still needs to be a solution to save the news business. Just don’t look to the bloggers for it.

New TechCrunch blogger Paul Carr — one of the more brilliant writers in the business — used to write for the Guardian newspaper in the U.K. before getting laid off. From all appearances, he’s the only real journalist at TechCrunch. I read TechCrunch daily, and some of the stories are very good, filled with valuable information. But far too many TechCrunch posts consist of hearsay, speculation and over-the-top editiorializing. You know, just like the articles here on Cool Rules Pronto. The difference is that I would never compare Cool Rules Pronto to real news organizations, least of all claim to be superior to them, as does TechCrunch’s kingpin Michael Arrington.

Carr criticizes that absurd comparison himself. (I quote at length, because it’s totally fair to free ride a free rider.)

“There’s a horribly pompous misconception amongst bloggers that they are somehow ‘taking on the mainstream media’. “Those old losers just don’t get it!” they cry. “We bloggers are on the scene first, asking tough questions before the mainstream media have even put their shoes on”… When it comes to a certain type of highly visible breaking news, no-one can argue that social media kicks the mainstream media’s ass. At any given disaster, there’s possibly a 0.01% chance that a professional journalist or photographer will already be on the scene, compared to 100% odds that there’ll be some dude with a camera-phone there…. And yet… after camera phone dude helps us establish that the plane has crashed, who can we trust to tell us why it happened? While bloggers can own the first five minutes of any breaking story – a plane crash, a fire, a burglary – it’s always going to be the professional reporters who own the next five days, or five weeks. They walk the streets, work their contacts and – yes – trawl the blogosphere for eye-witness reports, and then take all of that information, analyse it, follow it up and ultimately provide an account of events that readers can trust… a superstar hack takes days – or weeks – of legwork to get to the bottom of a single story. Without content from workaday photographers or wire-feed-re-writers, the New New York Times would be three pages long and published weekly. Good journalism is a slow, labour-intensive business. And what about unglamourous local stories? Let’s not forget that the two most famous reporters of all time – Woodward and Bernstein – were junior reporters when the broke their most famous story: Watergate. A story, let’s also not forget, that began life as a dull local burglary.”

Unfortunately, Carr then remembers where his current paycheck is coming from and reverses himself a few paragraphs later, arguing that most newspapers have devolved into tabloids, and, hey, will you look at all the great journalistic practices taking place at TechCrunch?!

So What Is The Salvation?

Perhaps the model for real journalism is a non-profit news organization like NPR. After all, as some of Walter Cronkite’s obituaries noted, even in the heyday of journalism, news reporting was often a loss leader performed as a civic duty by the major media corporations. A great news report also created a halo effect for the entire organization.

Conversely, many of today’s so-called news organizations pander to sensationalism (“all Michael Jackson, all the time”) in order to draw the audience numbers that mollify advertisers, investors and creditors. The result is a 24/7 abuse of the word “news.” That’s why I’d love to see the L.A. Times or N.Y. Times launch its own cable news network with the standards it sets for its paper.

In the meantime, I’ll proudly pay for a subscription to the L.A. Times as long as it exists. (And if you also believe professional news organizations are worth saving, please at least click the link to that article in the L.A. Times.) Real professional news organizations do the heavy lifting that makes what I do possible.

Just imagine a world in which all the news reporting and analysis came from bloggers, tweeters, and corporate-issued press releases… That would make the neo-fascist freak show Fox News look like a paragon of journalistic excellence. It would make the seditious and anti-intellectual Bush years look like the Enlightenment.

In short, free news might sound like a great deal now, but it ultimately comes with a very high price.

Ron Schenone at Lockergnome writes an article explaining Techcrunch founder Michael Arrington decision to drop Iphone towards a mobile supporting Google Voice (full article at http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2009/07/31/google-why-it-remains-the-most-trusted-company/).

I agree on the fact that is a problem of relevance of position for carriers, because being used as empty data tubes doesn’t bring money and power, of course.

It’s a matter of fact that we, as professionals and technologically evoluted people, cannot be set as a benchmark: people world wide use (mostly), mobiles to talk/taking photos/sms/mms and not to have something “innovative” like Google Phone.

And in many cases IPhone is intended as cool not practical or innvovative.

That’s why I think that both (Iphone without Google Voice and everything elese with Google voice) will survive, they only target different kind of users.

This post as a comment at http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2009/07/31/google-why-it-remains-the-most-trusted-company/#comment-187489