You Are What You Retweet: Twitter Presents New Targeting Method for Advertisers

You are the key to you. And to others you know.

This is the essence of the new targeting capability Twitter is providing advertisers. Whether by interest or device or a host of other factors, advertisers, whether commercial or political, can target the audience most likely to be susceptible to their message.

The targeting is based on the preferences of the individual user and those in his or her network. Those preferences may also permit the advertiser to know whether Android, iPhone or Blackberry users are more or less likely to vote or buy what's being sold.

No consent is required - yet. Privacy advocates are, once again, raising concerns about the implications for misuse or abuse of the data. But consumers have steadfastly ignored all previous entreaties in this regard. Given the choice between a discounted latte and protecting personal information, that'll be half-caff soy milk, thanks.

Twitter is rather late to this party. Google, Facebook and others have already taken the leap, with mixed results. But it is clear that the trade of information for service is considered a fair one by consumers, so far. And that both the targeting and the sale of that information will only escalate. JL

Steve Friess reports in Politico:

Twitter is finally joining its competitors in making money off of what it knows about its users.

The booming microblog quietly rolled out to advertisers earlier this month a new targeting method, one that helps campaigns and companies reach people based on what users they follow and what they retweet

Is Your Workplace Industrialized or Humanized?

The soul-deadening nature of traditional management practices is an easy target.

In fact, it has become a cliche. Insensitive bosses with anger-management problems, inflexible rules, calcified procedures and an overarching culture ripped right out of 'Father Knows Best.'

It is hard to know to what extent that ethos has survived the past 20 years of technological innovation, globalized competition and tsunamis of downsizing that have left a few stunned survivors to complete with the help of a random laptops the tasks that dozens used to accomplish. Certainly the selfishness of senior executive compensation in the face of almost universal economic suffering suggests that the mindset exists even if the practices have been papered over by facile references to team work.

But those who work now, even in the hip, open, collaborative workplaces personified, at least theoretically by Google et al, also risk a different kind of threat. It's root is that very technology and the flexibility it offers. 24-7 can be an opportunity to manage one's own time - or it can mean always on, always tethered.

The notion that Apple products somehow represent freedom of thought and action is more than somewhat diminished by the knowledge of incandescent Jobs-ian verbal abuse of underlings and his demand for total control of the business' every aspect.

The stories coming out of Zynga about megalomaniacal founders and the equally searing management horror stories from a host of other allegedly 'new economy' avatars suggest that the twists of human personality and emotion can transcend even the coolest, most bleeding edge atmosphere.

Technology can set us free. But it can also enslave us. Whether it humanizes or industrializes a workplace has less to do with the devices than with the mindset of those who use them. JL

Jody Thompson comments in the Cali & Jody Blog (hat tip Greg Satell):

Are you a PC or a Mac?

You remember those commercials, right? Talk about the ultimate way of "humanizing" your company. Apple personified it's product as a hip young person you could relate to (at least, who their target market would relate to), and personified their competitor as a stiff, boring spreadsheet geek who didn't "get it."

FBI's Nationwide Biometric Facial Recognition System Ends Anonymity As We Knew It

Not that we are convinced anyone will really care until they or a close relative runs afoul of the system, but the FBI is deploying a bleeding-edge facial recognition software tracking capability across the US.

According to reports, once the FBI has your faceprint, they can match against their data base and begin tracking. And just in case you are thinking that cosmetic surgery is the answer, the next stages involve DNA analysis and voice identification.

For those who think, oh, it's the government they'll never get it right, there will be cost overruns and the whole thing will be scrapped: newsflash; it is on budget and already 60% deployed.

Privacy advocates are, of course, alarmed. But then they have been in a constant state of alarm for years. And that is not a put-down. It is just a reflection of the relative lack of concern the average citizen has demonstrated for the actual or potential loss of privacy they have experienced. The reason is probably that it is not always apparent this tracking is happening, there is no obvious loss of freedom of movement or action - and it is not costing them anything explicitly.

The announcement is unlikely to spark massive protests from a population more concerned about putting food on the table than whether someone is watching them. Especially as so many invite that attention every day via social networks, YouTube, Twitter, et al. You dont know what you've lost till it's gone, indeed. JL

Michael Kelley reports in Business Insider:

The FBI has begun installing state-of-the-art facial recognition technology across the country as part of an update to the national fingerprint database,

How Digital Is Changing the Nature of Movies

The history of movie-making is contemporaneous with the history of technology. Silent to sound. Black and white to color. Mechanical to digital.

But this latest application of technological advancement is also changing the experience of movie-going which, given the co-evolutionary nature of the medium and the emotional response to it, may affect the way movies are made, felt, acted, directed, heard, viewed and appreciated.

Movies have been, first and foremost, a primarily shared experience. We have gone to the theater to escape and to partake with others we know - and many we do not. Even when the shift to big screen TVs and home theaters emerged, the notion was that the audience became more select, but it was still an audience of more than one. That may be changing.

As in so many other aspects of entertainment, news, literature, art and the rest of the visual arts, watching by oneself - on a plane, in bed, at the gym - wherever - may increasingly be a solitary pursuit. This is probably neither good nor bad, it just is, as convenience increasingly dictates our choices. But it is a profound change from the context in which filmed entertainment has traditionally been experienced. And since film-makers are acutely conscious of the competition for eyeballs and for appreciative ones, at that, this may cause them to rethink the meaning of audience and how it responds.

Technologically, the impact of digital effects enables the creation of fantasy worlds that were previously unattainable. But experts also worry that the use of digital 'washes out' the texture of actual film, often presenting a flimsier image. We suspect that technology will eventually be able to recreate whatever feel the auteur wants but the concern that having too much license may initially cheapen the effect - as it has done in almost all of the other arts where it has been applied.

Ultimately film-makers will find their audience and audiences will continue to find their films. It is too much a part of our common cultural heritage to die away entirely. But the nature of the stories told may well change as the society which they both reflect and challenge is doing so as well. JL

Manohla Dargis and AO Scott comment in the New York Times:

IN the beginning there was light that hit a strip of flexible film mechanically running through a camera. For most of movie history this is how moving pictures were created: light reflected off people and things would filter through a camera and physically transform emulsion. After processing, that light-kissed emulsion would reveal Humphrey Bogart chasing the Maltese Falcon in shimmering black and white.

More and more, though, movies are either partly or entirely digital constructions that are created with computers

The Social Media Paradox

Social media is such a ripe target.

The breathless hype. The overeager advocates. The self- promotional ethos. And the under-performance personified by the disappointment in Facebook, Groupon, Zynga and a host of other new-age avatars.

The critics are legion and occasionally number this blog among them. But they are characterized by a paradoxical conflict. Which is that their success as critics is dependent upon - and one might fairly claim - created by the very medium they so enthusiastically scourge.

There appear to be elements of discomfort and self-doubt in all this. Taking advantage of something one professes to despise will do that. But there is also some honest reflection on the false claims and misdirection so conspicuously prominent in the medium's essence.

The following essay, by Bob Hoffman, eloquently captures that paradox. He is an veteran advertising guy who has created an online persona called The Ad Contrarian and he has benefited mightily from his critique of social media myopia in his industry. He articulates why it can work for some, but probably wont work for most. And his honesty is as valuable as his clarity. JL

Bob Hoffman comments in his blog, The Ad Contrarian (hat tip Greg Satell):

I was invited to speak at a social media conference. The hen was in the fox house. My presentation was billed as a "fireside chat" between the organizer of the event (a guy I like and respect, Jason Falls) and myself.

The first question Jason asked me went something like this... "You have been critical of the social media marketing world from the get-go, yet you use it… quite well I might say. What's your point of contention and how can you reconcile that with your prolific use of the medium?"

How Apple's and Google's Digital Mapping May Be Mapping Us

Privacy is no longer the issue.

We conceded on that one eons ago - or whatever measure is relevant in digital time.

But questions are being raised about whether the ubiquity of mapping technology and our dependence on it is changing the way we view the world economically, politically, militarily, diplomatically and, well, personally. In other words, are the assumptions that go into presenting maps and the data included with them - or left out - somehow altering how we think about the world around us?

It is probably too soon to answer the question. And this is not to suggest that either Apple or Google or any of their competitors (with the possible exception of Amazon...) have a conspiratorial master plan for global domination. But it is not clear that we want their assumptions to be our assumptions. Especially for those who live outside the United States and work outside the world of large corporations. Because the concern is that that is precisely the world view being communicated, however subtle and understated the presentation may be.

Whether this rises to the level of generalized, popular and, eventually, organized expressions of discontent remains to be seen. The likelihood is not great, given society's acquiescence to most other trends that enhance convenience. But it will be interesting to see whether the questions being raised are being heard - and that companies involved, given their focus on solving problems in order to expand market opportunities - may actually pay attention. JL

Oliver Burkeman reports in the Guardian:

Digital maps on smartphones are brilliantly useful tools, but what sort of information do they gather about us – and how do they shape the way we look at the world?

Can Electronics Stores Survive?

Labor Day has evolved over the years from a day of rest to a day of sales. Back to school, end of summer clearance, pre-Christmas.

Humans love to shop and they love gadgets. It is - or was - a match made for marketing. Some of the earliest innovations in consumer hard goods marketing came out of this industry. EJ Korvette, Kresge and Sears. Then came the major discounters like Crazy Eddie. His prices were insane, as the ads screamed, but so was the business. And it soon demonstrated just how much, by going bankrupt.

The ease of ecommerce - comparing, buying, returning when dissatisfied - has taken the rest of the pizzazz out of going to the store. So the retail industry - with its penchant for strip malls as well as the jobs and state and local tax payments that go with them - is powering down.

The initial counter-strategy was large screen TVs. Too bad virtually everyone had the same idea, prices plummeted, margins evaporated and everyone who wanted one, got one. Plan B? Mobile phones. And, what a surprise, everyone glommed on to that notion as well. Mere humans generally need only one, prices are consistent with a band of options, packages likewise and so much for that.

There may, eventually, be a market for used devices but Amazon is already on top of that one. GameStop grabbed first mover advantage with its iPhone resale concept, but the same dynamics apply: how many of the things do we really need, or where need is not part of the equation, want?

We suspect humans will always want to shop with other humans around. The concept of the market is as ancient as civilization. Surveys continue to report that shopping is the most popular form of entertainment in many societies. But the evolution must continue. Costs must come down. Real estate prices and taxes must moderate. Reliance on the auto must be supplemented. We love to look - but we also love convenience. There's a market opportunity in there for someone. JL

Ann Zimmerman reports in the Wall Street Journal:

Is there a future for electronics specialty stores? Not long ago, retailers such as Best Buy Co., GameStop Corp. and RadioShack Corp. were outmuscling competitors across America by offering one-stop shopping for the latest televisions, computers, videogames and gadgets.

Now all three are fighting to survive. The rise of online competitors like Amazon.com Inc. that offer low prices and downloadable products have siphoned customers and sales from these once-powerful retailers

Content Is No Longer King? The Rise of Visual Social Media

Content was supposed to be king.

But then a funny thing happened on the way to our love affair with literacy. Or, more accurately, our fling.

Actually, two funny things happened: Steve Jobs reminded us that design and visual presentation can sell; while mobile phones changed the way we look at the world.

Smaller screens, on which we have begun to view everything, made it harder to read both the fine print as well as the large. How things looked, how they grabbed our attention and communicated their essential being, became more important than what was said about them. And in our ADHD world, Twitter, Facebook, Pinterest and even Instagram reminded us that the unique essence of any message could be condensed with a bit of effort, a camera and a smattering of creativity.

Will it last? Whatever does? It's here now and businesses have to respond. Marketing and communications companies - and their clients - have begun to register that simply making an add small enough to fit on the screen of an Android or iPhone does not make it effectively mobile. In fact, it may be the opposite of what is required.

Fortunately, we homo sapiens have gotten pretty good over the centuries at figuring out how to communicate representative messages using illustrations rather than vocabulary. The combination works even better, if that can be managed, but we've had a lot of practice what with war, religion, family, emotion, work and entertainment to stimulate demand. Iconography R Us.

Businesses that adapt will probably flourish. Those that remain wedded to the beauty of their own verbosity may be in for an unpleasant surprise. JL

Ekaterina Walter reports in Fast Company:

Social media sites like Facebook, Instagram, and Pinterest have ushered in visual marketing as the breakout trend for 2012. When it comes to their products, businesses are learning to show, not tell, and visual content sites are fueling our desire for beautiful photography and sensational design.

Two years ago, marketers were spreading the maxim that "content is king," but now, it seems, "a picture really is worth a thousand words."

Amazon's Next Disruptive Competition: Cloud-Based Web Services

Publishing's eviscerated. Retailing's devastated.

Lots of smug tech analysts are chuckling and saying 'we told you so.' Disintermediation. The web changes everything. Traditional markets and the companies that depend on them are history. We're smarter than you are - and we're richer, too.

Our advice to the brogramming brotherhood and their cheerleaders:look over your shoulder. Amazon's now coming for you.

On the way to dominating those markets, the company had to use a lot of data storage and computer server space. So it figured out how to reduce its own costs. And in the process a business was born. If was doing it for itself, why not sell that expertise - and those services to others? Defray costs, maybe make a few bucks. Only it turned out to be a bigger idea than that. Way bigger.

In the same way that Amazon reduced the expense and increased the convenience of shopping - and even reading - it has now fixed its sights on web services. Which puts it into direct competition with Oracle, Microsoft, IBM, Google and a host of other companies whose business acumen has generally been validated over the years. About which it has no fear. With good reason.

Because it has redefined markets before by lowering costs and raising convenience. So the betting is, based on its record, it will do so again. JL

Quentin Hardy reports in the New York Times:

Within a few years, Amazon.com’s creative destruction of both traditional book publishing and retailing may be footnotes to the company’s larger and more secretive goal: giving anyone on the planet access to an almost unimaginable amount of computing power.

Waste Not, Want Not: Why Targeted Internet Ads Aren't Working Like They're Supposed To

Knowing just enough to be dangerous.

How many times does the average person hear that about someone who is supposed to be an expert? Or receives it as a kind of false self-deprecation from a colleague trying to play down how much he or she believes they really do know?

We can not help with office anthropology, but that criticism may capture the problem with the current generation of targeted internet ads. Sharing propositions allegedly designed for you but containing a fatal marketing flaw has become a source of cult humor. Yes, I live in an affluent zip code. But no, I am not personally wealthy enough to be in the market for a butler. Or a chilled wine cooler. Or a BMW that costs more than my rent.

The problem seems to be just enough information to appear interesting but not quite enough to ensure accuracy. There is a debate about whether there is enough information available yet or whether marketers are just too lazy and/or cheap to really dig into it.

Defenders of the first proposition (mostly marketers) - insist that there is not yet enough information - claim that privacy rules and public sensitivities prevent them - as yet - from developing the sort of precise targeting that would accomplish the goal. Supporters of the second proposition (mostly tech and data geeks)are certain its just that the first crew either doesnt know how or doesnt want to be bothered spending the time and money to get the results they want.

We throw our lot in with the latter group. The public has proven time and again that matters of privacy and sensitivity are somewhat interesting to talk about if you have nothing else to do, but utterly irrelevant if they can scarf up a 10% discount at their favorite merchant in return for a few pieces of 'harmless' information. In other words, the data are there. And more is coming. Government regulators are supine in the current political environment and consumers just do not care enough, despite the efforts of civil libertarians to warn them of the dangers.

The issue may be that we have not yet developed sophisticated enough methods, especially given the budget constraints in a recessionary economy in which senior executives are demanding certainty before releasing funds. So marketers do the best they can with what they have, meaning the results are disappointing - and the 'production quality' is too often somewhere between cheesy and embarrassing. The executives may well be short-sighted and the marketers may be struggling to put it all together, but the future is clear. Targeting will work eventually. And we may all be shocked by what appears to be how much the 'they' know about us.

We may forget that we have provided them with all the information they need. But if past is prologue, our complaints will be about the size of the inducements, not the data that got them to us. JL

Farhad Manjoo comments in Slate:

Targeted Web ads are too dumb to be useful and just smart enough to make you queasy.

Selecting Solitude: The Global Trend In Single Living

It's a choice. It's global. And it has become a surprisingly powerful trend.

The image of lonely, bitter, desperate people alone because they must be has been overtaken by events. The rise in careers for women has delayed marriage for many. The decline in traditional mores and conventional attitudes, especially involving religion, appears twinned, in the affluent European and North American continents with a concomitant increase in single living.

Even in Asia, Africa and South America the trend is clear, if not quite as pronounced - yet. The belief that no marriage is better than bad marriage has overcome previously held notions about the betrothed embodying the ideal human state.

Though economics suggest that married couples, at least in the west, make more over a lifetime than do singles, such measurements no longer reflect the array of choices available to a civilization that increasingly seeks satisfaction online. These elements are buttressed by the urbanization mega-trend. People living in urban areas, often far from home and its traditions, feel freer to experiment with the lifestyle they find most comfortable -and affordable. Judgments are easier to ignore if everyone around you has made a similar choice.

Evolution suggests that species, writ large, make the best choices they can under the circumstances in which they find themselves. Hand-wringing about the potential impact on population seems misplaced in a society only a few years removed from serious popular initiatives with titles like Zero Population Growth.

In the very long run, these movements are cyclical. What makes sense today may not do so tomorrow. But the implications can be felt now. Products and services will need to be redesigned and even rethought. The inducements to buy them will have to be re-conceived and produced. It is not unlike the mobile trend of which it is both an effect and an input: the primary issue is not mobile, but mobility. Similarly, the primary factor in this demographic development may not be single-ness, but singularity. JL

The Economist reports:

THE Prada-toting protagonists of “Sex and the City”, a once-popular American television show about single thirty-somethings in New York, are unlikely role models for Middle Eastern women. The second movie spin-off was partially set in Abu Dhabi, but the authorities stopped it from being filmed or even screened there.

Yet the single lifestyle appears to be catching on even in the Gulf

There Goes the Neighborhood: Artists, Organic Groceries and Real Estate Values

Life follows art. Literally.

As earnest politicians call for cuts in anything that does not have science, technology, engineering and math as its purpose, actual people around the world are following artists into derelict industrial neighborhoods once thought notable only for their aged brick and copper wiring.

Whether in London, Rio, New York, Paris, Shanghai or dozens of other cities around the world, the arrival of artists, organic grocery stores and chic cafes signals the start of urban revival. In fact, we may have become too clever by half in anticipating these movements. As in so many other facets of life, computer algorithms assist businesses in identifying the potential elements essential to reclamation and naming them before the first coffee shop even hoists its marquee.

The public policy implication is that people may work on serious math-based tasks to pay the bills, but universal education, communication and travel have enhanced appreciation of a more diverse lifestyle. Auto registrations are down from Beijing to Brooklyn. Big companies are moving back downtown from their leafy enclaves in the suburbs because that is where the talent they seek wants to live. Urbanization is the mega-trend on which every demographer and economist agrees.

But one has to enjoy the irony that this massive readjustment is being led by people whose value to society is dismissed by those who ostensibly are elected to lead us into the future. JL

Will Doig reports in Salon:

Trendy enclaves get discovered right away. Artists leave, Starbucks arrives!

Is Marketing Dead?

Home phones. Mail. Television. Billboards. Flyers. Uh, computers.

The eternal verities. Except when they no longer were.

But even those old school methods may be beside the point. Even if you are online, connected, networked, channelled, mobile, global, 24-7-365, it is conceivable, even likely that no one is paying attention.

And not necessarily because no one cares. We are just not very good right now at figuring out how to get the message across in a compelling manner that consumers can actually do something about.

We get that mobile matters, but we have been slow to accept that shrinking the size of an ad may not be all that it takes to make it effective. We understand that everyone is online all the time and in constant communication with friends and family. We have even funded their ability to live that way. We just havent cracked the code of selling through personal networks.

We are also having trouble admitting that we honestly are not sure how this whole new technologically driven monster really works. We can push buttons here and occasionally see responses there, but the trees are definitely still dwarfing our view of the forest.

And as business people, managers, executives, frontline spear carriers in the war to make the world safe for even more consumerism, we are still having trouble accepting that supporting policies enriching a minority of senior people may be impoverishing the great mass who fork over the cash to keep the machine running.

We are in a time of transition. We have been running so hard that we havent had, nay havent MADE time to let it sink in. So everyone is frustrated. Everyone: sellers, buyers, managers, investors. Because we can count the inputs but we are not yet seeing the outcomes that justify them.

The issue may be that our ability to analyze has outpaced our capacity to interpret what we are seeing. It will come. But possibly not at the speed - and with the clarity - that we think we need. JL

Bill Lee comments in Harvard Business Review:

Traditional marketing — including advertising, public relations, branding and corporate communications — is dead. Many people in traditional marketing roles and organizations may not realize they're operating within a dead paradigm. But they are. The evidence is clear.

Miss Manners Regrets: The Storm Over Cell Phone Use While Dining

Six million.

No matter what you are counting, it's a lot.

In this case, that is the number of photos on flickr tagged as 'food.' This year.

Can we all agree this has gotten just a tad out of control? People sitting down to eat at restaurants fine or funky. And instead of unfolding their napkins or holding a glass of wine up to the light or even smiling at their dinner companions, they whip out their phones and take a picture.

Of the bread basket. The butter dish. The table setting. The centerpiece. The amuse bouche. The appetizer. The waitstaff. The main course. Whatever.

It is curious. Do people actually care what someone they know is eating miles or yards or even feet away? We guess they must or so many people wouldnt bother.

And it is, to be fair, a form of sharing. A way of saying to those not present that the sender is thinking of them and, perhaps, of memorable meals shared. A friendly reminder of bonds strengthened as bread is broken.

So, ok. No harm intended or done. But it does seem just a touch self-involved (Hey! Look at me!). And it does take one out of the moment which is, usually, supposed to be special or at least focused on those present. It can also be distracting to others. Some restaurants are starting to offer small discounts to those who check their phones at the door. And lots of people are taking them up on it.

The libertarian ethos that hovers over our social interactions (no judgments of others, please) dictates that we note this trend without imposing our own values on others. But maybe everyone would benefit from being as conscious of those around them physically as those around them electronically. JL

Sheila Shayon reports in Brand Channel:

The escalating battle over digital displays in public has reached new heights…or lows…depending on your position on personal freedom versus a modicum of civility.

Between texting, tweeting and Instagram-ing restaurant meal photos, "distracted dining" is the latest scourge on the most basic of manners, the art of face-to-face conversation

The Engagement Economy: Gamification's Impact on Business

First, you have to get their attention.

Then, you have to keep it.

Increasingly, the best way to do that in the ADHD economy to which we have willingly submitted, is through engagement. Passivity is so Ozzie and Harriet. Even late night TV talk show avatar Jay Leno has had to take a salary cut and cut 25 jobs from his staff.

Competition and measurement appear to capture interest like few other mechanisms. Games have fueled that trend so businesses are adopting 'gamification' to build the kind of commitment that stimulates time spent and repeat customers.

The challenge is averting - or subverting - trendiness and boredom. The 'what's-everyone-else-doing?' factor is high. Trends come and go - just like they did for previous generations' favorite TV shows. People want to feel connected and in the flow. Part of the larger conversation. It's tricky - and not every service or product is an ideal candidate.

The opportunity lies in turning what can often be an otherwise mundane experience into something exciting and rewarding. There will inevitably be a certain amount of burn-out, but given the tidal wave of attention-grabbing graphics, visuals and auditory assaults on our attention, seems a reasonable price to for the larger outcome. JL

Doug Palmer, Steve Lunceford and Aaron Patton report in the Deloitte Review:

Wayne Lin points at the onscreen scoreboard for his new application that allows friends to compare and discuss their household electricity use. “Energy consumption is not something people usually talk about,” he says.

But on this app people are talking—a lot. Users are leaving tips, providing support, sharing successes and having fun as they challenge each other to reduce their energy usage. One user jokingly laments that he has cut back on his television viewing to help his ranking and is now woefully unprepared to talk about the latest reality TV gossip. Conversations are cross posted on Facebook where people not directly using the application can jump into the discussion. Lin is the director of Product Management at Opower, a company that has built a customer engagement platform to help deliver energy efficiency programs to the electric utility industry.

How the Switch in Mobile Usage from Voice to Data Is Changing Inputs, Outcomes - and the Designs That Influence Them

Form follows function.

That hoary old chestnut has been around so long and seems so obvious that one would think its application to design of virtually everything has morphed from automatic to genetic. Think again.

As the tidal wave of mobile data usage swamps voice, every entity in the mobile food chain is rethinking the ways in which their particular application - from handsets to content - is applied, perceived, used and evaluated.

The results of this self-evaluation are not often laudatory. Among notable examples, it is being whispered that part of Facebook's monetization problem is the network's inability to successfully transfer and present advertising from computer to mobile. And they are not alone.

Retailers with online ambitions and web-based merchants both are finding that everything from screen size to the 'back-office' electronics driving the technology need to be rethought and re-created in order to optimize the potential that the medium offers.

It would be easy to say, in exasperation, 'what were they thinking?' but it is worth noting that perspective and context are difficult to achieve in the midst of a secular shift from one mode of operation to another. The proverbial bon mot about changing tires on a moving car comes to mind.

It is also fair to point out that this happened in the wake of a cataclysmic financial crisis which led to the worst recession in 80 years. In other words, budgets have been tight, fear of the future is rampant and caution about how to invest scarce resources has been manifest.

That said, it should now be apparent that inexpensive short-cuts to catch the wave are not going to work. Design, if done properly, takes research, testing and time. Impatience is the corporate norm these days and fear of missing the opportunity trumps the desire to get it right. All of which makes design - and harvesting the moment that much harder. Knowledge appears to be catching up with aspiration - but that wisdom may not have arrived quickly enough to save all who have grasped the lesson. Maybe they'll get it the next time. Or the next time after that. JL

Kevin Fitchard reports in GigaOm:

The switch from voice to data isn’t just affecting carriers. The new mobile data reality is driving device makers to change the way handsets are designed, Internet companies to deal with the smaller screen, and infrastructure makers to re-architect the fundamental topologies of their networks.

Religion, Reputation and the Rule of Law: The Implications of Russia's 'Pussy Riot' Trial

By traditional Russian standards, the outcome was lenient: the defendants, a three-woman political rock band collective known as Pussy Riot who had performed without permission in an Orthodox cathedral, were not beaten, shot or sent to Siberia - yet.

But to those who dwell in the civilized world, even those parts where repression is common, the event had all the staged markings of a Stalinist show trial. The guilty verdict was preordained and only the severity of the sentence was in question. Two years in prison was the outcome. There will be legal appeals (fat chance) and even Kremlin supporters are suggesting (with more hope than knowledge, one surmises)that President Putin will urge/decree a shorter term.

The larger issue lies is the global context. Times of change are disorienting and frightening. In Russia, the US, China, Europe - and almost everywhere else on the planet, the verities of the post WWII era are crumbling in the face of faster and freer communications. Try as they might, authorities simply can not keep up with the power of the technologies driving this trend. Ethnicity, gender, race - and religion have all been affected by the tumultuous stirrings.

Religious leaders feel especially vulnerable - and empowered. Islam and evangelical Christianity have both seized on the uncertainty of their believers to demand political changes consistent with their ambitions. The Russian Orthodox church, having been suppressed for most of the 20th century has enjoyed its new-found position as a favored ally of the political class. The Kremlin has used it to legitimize its continued grip on power in the face of Communism's fall. And the Church has reciprocated.

So the protests against President Putin in 2011 were something of a shock to the system. Who would dare do such a thing under the Tsars or the Communist hegemons? The Pussy Riot protest event in 2012, held purposely in a cathedral, was a direct challenge to the political role of the country's historic religion - and a new attack on the alliance. As such, the Kremlin evidently believed the protesters had to be made an example of.

But in so doing they erred. Because they elevated what was otherwise an obscure act of political theater that would hardly have earned a press mention in most western societies into a global cause celebre. And they have raised questions about the proper places and uses of religion both in Russia and in the world at large.

When embraced voluntarily, religion's role is secure. But when used as an agent of repression - either overtly as in the Pussy Riot case - or less obviously as in attempts to thwart freedom of speech and other civil liberties in the US - negative reactions eventually outweigh the potential short term power gained.

Research has demonstrated that economic success is strongly correlated with the rule of law. In a competitive global society, Russia and other countries must compete for investment. As in any competition, when those considering the odds believe them to be uneven, they will take their chances elsewhere. JL

Miriam Elder reports in The Guardian:

A storm of criticism broke in Russia following the harsh two-year prison sentences given to three members of the feminist punk band Pussy Riot for protesting against the government in a Moscow cathedral. Those openly critical of the jail terms included some who are close to Vladimir Putin and others with strong links to the church, increasing pressure on the authorities to treat the trio more leniently.

Online Advertising...Matures?

They're figuring it out.

Not, as you might have expected, the question of how effective online advertising is, or might be (the industry has a ways to go on that one yet). But they are homing in on what might constitute an accurate measure of whether someone has actually viewed an online ad for a sufficient period of time to be influenced by it - at least theoretically.

This is progress, people. It may not be the invention of the light bulb or the cure for cancer, but given the amount of time consumers are spending on the web, figuring out what they are actually seeing is no small feat.

It has taken a while. The dotcom bust is already celebrating its tenth reunion. But before you critics become too scornful, remember that there have been some pretty significant evolutions along the way: desktop to laptop, social and mobile. The world has not stood still.

The issue is complicated by the fact that our understanding of what constitutes impact has become more sophisticated. This is not 1962. There is more than one medium, it is in as many colors as you want, and there are far more than three channels. That said, part of the problem is the one that has plagued business measurement since medieval Italian monks began trying to count stuff in an organized way: managers want measures that make them and their products and their bosses and their clients and their investors to look good. So they will fight for the metrics that do that and fight against those that do not. Needless to say, what side of the transaction you are on may influence which metrics you support - or not.

So the problem is not just mathematical or statistical or scientific. It is personal and political. Which is another way of saying to those seeking a solution, dont hold your breath. JL

Ashlee Vance reports in Bloomberg Business Week:

The online advertising industry—with all its data on who people are and what they like to buy—is a sophisticated animal … sometimes. At other times, it looks an awful lot like a gangly adolescent trying to figure out its place in the world.

Not on Facebook? Employers and Psychologists Fear You May Be a Psychopath

Employers and psychologists are advising that Facebook is so pervasive a force in contemporary society that not having an account on the social network may be a sign of such significant personal dysfunction that it renders non-members unemployable, un-datable and potentially psychopathic.

Talk about competitive advantage!

This may actually reverse Facebook's stock price decline. Forcing members to have email accounts with telling them or sharing personal data with advertisers without permission were forceful statements of strategic business intent (if somewhat ham-handed public relations moves and, for the nit-picky, possibly illegal). But having your service become a certified proxy for sanity or normality? Priceless.

Of course, there will be naysayers who point out that giving a commercial enterprise that much control over citizens' rights and liberties probably violates a host of constitutional principles - to say nothing of myriad laws - but sheesh, some people will complain about anything, won't they?

Seriously, this does raise some fascinating questions about the role of democracy and the rule of law. If societal majorities choose to waive their rights and obligations for greater convenience, what grounds of challenge exist? Employers will easily claim that other factors led to their decision to reject an applicant or terminate a staff member.

Others will point out that society has a right to protect itself. However, the fact that several recent mass-murderers did not have Facebook accounts may be indicative of a deeper psychosis, but there is not yet any scientific evidence to support that conclusion.

The implication is that society may be, once again, surrendering rights it takes for granted - and obligations to be fair and just that it finds inconvenient - in order to get on with life as comfortably as possible. As the saying goes, 'you dont know what you've lost till its gone.' JL

The Daily Mail reports:

Facebook has become such a pervasive force in modern society that increasing numbers of employers, and even some psychologists, believe people who aren't on social networking sites are 'suspicious.'

Where Free Speech Goes to Die: The Workplace

Say what you will...and it could cost you your job.

Most Americans believe that their right to free speech is unfettered. And, by and large, it is. You can make truly hateful, hurtful statements; advocate radical and even bizarre theories; express how you really feel about almost anything and anyone. All without legal consequences.

The only downside is that employers are not required to continue your employment if they disagree with or disapprove of what you say. And they have the right to terminate your job if they want to do so.

This knowledge frequently comes as a shock, especially when the person affected has just been informed that his or her services are no longer required. Without wandering too deeply into the thickets of constitutional law, the basic theory is that speech is protected, but unless contractually protected, the right to employment is not. This will be particularly interesting in a Presidential election year in which much of the business establishment has lined up in support of one candidate over the other. The degree to which employees may feel that their right to say what they want, however valuable, is simply not worth losing a job in a lousy economy.

The broader question is whether companies suffer from such intolerance. Not so much for political speech, but because outspoken staff members often have good ideas about productivity, cost saving and sales opportunities. Be that as it may, the reality is that many, if not most, employees are retained 'at will,' which means the boss has the right to hire and fire without legal consequences. The market may ultimately dispose of those who are consistently immune to good advice or the loss of talented, if in-artfully vocal staff. But in the interim, free speech, like so many other 'free' assets, may actually have a price. JL

Michael Dolgow reports in Bloomberg BusinessWeek:

In America you can say pretty much whatever you want, wherever you want to say it. Unless, that is, you’re at work. Simply put, there is no First Amendment right to “free speech” in the workplace