Social Media Bill of Rights - Do You feel Covered?

By Jason Carmel | Jun 21, 2010 5:42:23 PM

At last week's 20th annual Computers, Freedom & Privacy (CFP) summit in San Jose, participants and practitioners debated and proposed a Social Network Users' Bill of Rights, designed to represent the denizens of the social ecosystem out there (in here?). Facebook, Google Whatever, Twitter, this is mostly about you guys. You can tell that these principles weren't written by politicians or (exclusively) lawyers, since they are clear, intelligible, and brief enough to be included in their entirety below:

We the users expect social-network sites to provide us the following rights in their Terms of Service, Privacy Policies and implementations of their system:

1. Honesty: Honor your privacy policy and terms of service.
2. Clarity: Make sure that policies, terms of service and settings are easy to find and understand.
3. Freedom of speech: Do not delete or modify my data without a clear policy and justification.
4. Empowerment: Support assistive technologies and universal accessibility.
5. Self-protection: Support privacy-enhancing technologies.
6. Data minimization: Minimize the information I am required to provide and share with others.
7. Control: Let me control my data and don"t facilitate sharing it unless I agree first.
8. Predictability: Obtain my prior consent before significantly changing who can see my data.
9. Data portability: Make it easy for me to obtain a copy of my data.
10. Protection: Treat my data as securely as your own confidential data unless I choose to share it, and notify me if it is compromised.
11. Right to know: Show me how you are using my data and allow me to see who and what has access to it.
12. Right to self-define: Let me create more than one identity and use pseudonyms. Do not link them without my permission.
13. Right to appeal: Allow me to appeal punitive actions.
14. Right to withdraw: Allow me to delete my account and remove my data

Many of these are spot on and so obviously RIGHT, that it makes me a little sad we have to actually tell these business that we expect them. Specifically, Honesty, Freedom of Speech, Predictability, Empowerment, and Protection are complete no-brainers. Clarity is another pet peeve of mine that is well placed on this list- putting your privacy policy in 8 point font and using language indigenous to the British House of Lords circa 1740 is a cheap-ass way of protecting yourself for any skeezy behavior you do after the fact. Any company that fails repeatedly on the above doesn't deserve our attention, let alone our engagement or dollars.

Some principles, thought, are admittedly less clear to me. Data Minimization is an example here, where the intent seems to be something like "Listen, stop asking me for my birth date for a service that doesn't require that data." I get that, and support it. But the flip side is that everyone has a different understanding of what is "necessary," which I kind of also get (does Facebook need your birthday to work? No, but I would guess a lot of people like getting wall posts on their birthdays with well wishes). My take on Data Minimization is that so long as the other principles are adhered to, businesses should feel free to ask anything they want: if their registration form is bloated with irrelevant, overly personal questions, then registrations will suffer as a result. The market will reward the most optimal form with the least friction between click-to-form and registration.

Some principles may actually contradict each other, as well. I look at the Right to self-define as particularly tricky here. If a customer chooses to have 16 unlinked accounts, it arguably puts a significant burden on the business to insure that portability is manageable. If all those accounts are anonymous, does it render the Right to appeal meaningless? (why do I need to appeal a punitive ruling if I can just open up another 16 anonymous accounts)

Still, any critiques of the Bill of Rights are minor, and should be viewed in proper perspective. This is an effective (though certainly not the first) barometer of customer expectations in a digital world where data is aggregated 24/7.

What happens next is always the really interesting question. Will these (or other) principles be legislated? Or will businesses understand which way the wind blows and self-regulate?

Google Encrypted Search: Curious George or War Games?

By Rich Devine | May 26, 2010 4:48:45 PM

If you are a search marketer, and you haven’t been locked in your basement playing Dungeons & Dragons while your ranking reports run, you’ve probably heard -- and either shrugged or freaked out – about Google’s announced launch of 'encrypted search'.

In a nut-shell, this secure version (https) of Google is supposed to allow users to freely search without fear of their search behavior being ‘observed’. Google’s own Search-Spam-Czar (not an official Obama administration post), Matt Cutts, issued a congratulatory blog post extolling the ‘inspiration’ of encrypted search. Cutts cites an example of working from your laptop on public Wi-Fi at the coffee shop – he celebrates the option of using Google’s encrypted search so that the coffee shop can’t oversee what you are searching.

Seriously? Unless you are Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer, do you really think the pimpled-teenager serving your venti mocha caffe latte con panna gives a decaf about your searches for the latest Chuck Norris jokes?

 

Is this a big deal?

Let’s talk about what this means for search and digital marketers. All respect to Matt Cutts (who is deservedly loved and revered -- especially by ZAAZ’s own Ryan Jones, our resident Matt Cutts serial tweet-stalker), but this is not about coffee shop Googling. Matt's blog didn't include an example of the poor search marketing manager trying to optimize her site only to find that Google’s encrypted search won’t pass the search referral data that is so central to her efforts.

And that’s the crux of the issue for us as search marketers: whether we will or won’t get that lovely referral data. For a rather fatalistic treatment on referral data implications, check out this blog by the equally revered Danny Sullivan.

Clearly, there’s a wide range of opinion and speculation over what this may or may not mean. Where do you fall? Let’s go back to business school and break out the trusty-rusty 2x2 box matrix to plot the wide range of sentiment on the topic. If you’re a search marketer, you should fall into one of the following quadrants. We’ll call this the Google Encrypted Search Freak-Out Matrix (GESFOM):

How freaked out we should or shouldn’t be is based on two big unknowns as reflected by the variables in our GESFOM (rolls off the tongue doesn't it?). First, how widely will Google scale its encrypted version of search? Will it truly remain as an opt-in only feature for the paranoid and cautious who are adept enough to add an ‘s’ to http://google.com? Or will Google scale this much more widely, either offering opt-out or no ‘opt’ at all?

Second variable is the impact to your search marketing efforts. How will you perform keyword research? How will you analyze the impact of referred keyword searches to your site? How will you attribute success to your search marketing efforts?

For now, I’m somewhere in the lower right quadrant of the Matrix. I’m Curious George. This is interesting enough for me to take notice and wonder about the monkey-mischief that could result – but as of now, this simply isn’t scaled widely enough to affect referral data to the point where I can’t take effective optimization action as a search marketer.

However, what happens if Google does widen the scale of encrypted search? What if they go bananas and just make this the default search experience? Well friends, then my GESFOM status goes to DEFCON-5 status, I go Matthew Broderick-crazy, and I start playing tic-tac-toe with a chimpanzee named Virgil.

 

Why is Google doing this?

On its face, this really is all about privacy for Google. But as we discussed above, this is not about protecting your Chuck Norris searches from the Starbucks dude. This is about Google more than it is about you. Google is proactively (or reactively) addressing potential legal and regulative vulnerability and ultimately trying to protect its own business interests and maintain shareholder value. Nothing wrong with that -- its what businesses do.

Ironically Google, for all the  not-so-veiled enmity they’ve had for Microsoft – is Microsoft in 2010. They are a dominant force in a relatively un-trodden and un-regulated industry. And dominant businesses are prime targets for stone throwing governments and lawyers.

This may be as simple as Google being mindful of the prolonged mess that Microsoft was mired in with the Department of Justice, the even more ridiculous battle Microsoft fought with the European Union, and the recent trouble Facebook has ‘Faced’ with privacy. Google has enjoyed a long run with relatively minimal trouble on the regulatory or legal side -- considering how dominant they really are. Providing encrypted search, could be nothing more than a bases-covering business decision.

 

Moving forward

As noted, there are just too many unknowns that need to become knowns before we can determine where we’ll end up with this, or how truly impactful this will be to long-term search marketing efforts, especially as related to referral data. Hopefully Google will be mindful of our small, humble community of search marketers who rely on sources of referral traffic data to do our job -- data which we use in ways that do not infringe upon individual privacy.

Google may limit the scale of encrypted search, or pass data in a more formal way to marketers and analytics vendors. Too soon to tell just yet – but let’s have some faith that Google avoids anything that would drive us into GESFOM/DEFCON/Matthew Broderick/Chimpanzee insanity.

Creating Compelling iPad Apps

By Anders Rosenquist | May 7, 2010 4:06:16 PM

Apple's iPad has only been on the market for two months, but already it is changing how we engage with content. The iPad is poised to change the landscape of magazine publishing—both in how readers consume their favorite editorial content, and in how magazines, struggling with the decline of print readership and advertising, can grow their revenue streams in new and immersive ways. 

After Steve Jobs announced the coming of the iPad in January 2010, the editors and publishers of Entertainment Weekly magazine wanted to create an iPad app to coincide with the launch of the new product. We positioned the opportunity for Entertainment Weekly as compelling, easily consumable editorial content tied to e-commerce—the magazine’s first step toward- redefining its future and creating a new business paradigm.

The app takes a simple and very popular feature of the magazine, "The Must List"— featuring the Top 10 pop culture phenomena of the moment—and presents it in a playful, interactive set of panels that makes excellent use of the iPad’s scale, touch interface and visual punch. (free download from iTunes)

I recently sat down with ZAAZ's Jon McVey, Executive Creative Director, and Tim Klauda, Creative Director, to talk about their strategic and creative work on EW's ipad app.. 

This is the first iPad app for Entertainment Weekly magazine. Why was EW interested in creating an iPad app?

Jon: I'd say their motivation was similar to what we are seeing across the publishing world: The iPad is a second chance. Publishers first tried to bring their print content to the Web, but they didn't do it right. You don't have to look far to find examples of high-profile failures in the magazine world. Established publications like Gourmet magazine are gone.   Publishers are seeing the iPad as a do-over, another opportunity at doing digital right. It’s a godsend to them. So it goes beyond the business drivers for Entertainment Weekly—it is the future of the industry. And if you look at it from the financial side, there is no revenue share in the print version. But on the iPad, not only can you go deeper on the editorial content, you can also read a review, and then buy the soundtrack, watch the trailer, buy movie tickets, etc. 

What excites you most about creating experiences on the iPad?

Tim: It's simply awesome to design for a touch screen of this size. It’s the closest connection between the consumer and the content that we've seen. There’s no mouse or cursor–you just touch the content to interact with it. Another exciting angle is the way people approach mobile now, and how it fits into their lives. People expect more from technology than they ever have before. The iPad isn’t mobile in the same way that the iPhone is, but it’s perfect for curling up with on a sofa, cooking with in the kitchen, flying cross country…things where the bulk of a laptop is intrusive and the size of a phone is annoying. You have the opportunity to be intimate with the content or easily pass it around a room to share.

Jon: It represents a whole new way of thinking about things. I'm a big magazine lover, and with an iPad app, I’m able to check articles out, have them on hand, with no big piles of print magazines.  Now I can read an article, get more information and buy related items, all in one intimate experience.  It allows for richer storytelling.

The iPad is more of a lifestyle object, and the apps are mainly about your lifestyle. Because you can choose them, they’re an extension of you. A laptop represents work, but it’s fun time when you are on the iPad. 

What was different about creating for Web vs. for the iPad?  What can you do for the iPad that you couldn't do when creating a website?

Jon: The Web is clunky. But the iPad is fast and responsive. You get to the content pretty quick.  You don't have to put as much on a page. 

Tim:  You don't have Web conventions. … You don't need a site map for an app.  It’s refreshing to design for something very specific. It allows you to hone in on the relationship between the content and the person engaging with it. 

How did you decide on what features to include in the app?

Tim: We didn't really talk about it in terms of features. We talked about the content that makes up the Must List, and how we'd enhance it.     For some sites, you focus on functionality—scope, features—and then roll content into it.   You make a shell, then someone will write the content and the site displays it.

For an app, the content is the feature. You start with how the content can be relevant to someone and how it affects that persons lifestyle, then we extended that experience. For the Must List, we have 10 things. Some are books, some are movies—and then we help the user act on them.

Will you adapt the iPad app for mobile phones? 

Tim: The Entertainment Weekly app will come out on the iPhone as well. It will have the same content and a similar experience, but we had to rethink the UI a little bit.  For example, it’s easier to use on the go with one thumb.  The experience needs to fits the device. The iPhone is about lists and getting there, rather than interacting with the list before getting there.  The iPad requires more of an investment in the experience.

What recommendations do you have for brands interested in developing an iPad app?

Tim: They need to look at all the mobile devices – iPad, iPhone, Windows, Android. They need to see where their audience is, and look at what their brand has to offer each device.  The iPad has a particular type of engagement and interface. What can they add to someone passing around an iPad in a home or office vs. walking down street with iPhone? You can’t just import straight Web or magazine content and expect it to work. You need to pick a core piece of your brand and focus on that.

How is the app doing in the Apple App Store?

Tim: The EW app was featured in the New and Noteworthy section in the app store, and that brought it up into the store’s Top 20 free apps.   

Thanks to Jon and Tim for sharing their insight on creating for the iPad!

The iPad is just a big iPhone. Isn’t it?

By Anders Rosenquist | Apr 1, 2010 9:28:41 PM

  When Apple officially introduced the iPad in January after months (years?) of speculation of a tablet-based computer, I heard and read more complaints about what it couldn't do than what it could.   "Where is the file system?" "I can't have multiple windows open at once?"  "It doesn't multitask?" Clearly Apple blew it by not providing a standard operating system on this new device.  A laptop replacement seemed to have been assumed.  And most of the arguments about the limitations of the iPad are true - it doesn't run a full OS, and it's not a replacement for your laptop. So isn't the iPad just a big iPhone?

In January it was. At its unveiling we only had glimpses into what the iPad could do, including demonstrations of a handful of new apps and the ability to run all your favorite iPhone apps. But it didn't seem to do anything really new, anything different from what the iPhone could already do.  And it was bigger and more expensive, and it couldn't even make calls. Even the shape of the device looked like an iPhone. But when the iPad is released in two days, it will stop being compared to an iPhone or a tablet computer or a laptop - it will stand on its own. Here's why:

Over the holidays my dad said he wanted to buy his wife a netbook so she could browse the web and share pictures with her friends and listen to music. He saw an inexpensive one at Costco -  a cheap option for the handful of tasks she needed to do. "Don't worry," my dad reassured me, "I have a friend at the office that will help install software and help with any issues."  And last month my wife's dad, a farmer in Central Oregon, recently decided it was finally time to dust off the used mac we gave him a few years back and give it another go. He was looking into taking a class at the local JC so he could learn (as he calls it) the "basics", and then teach his wife how to use it.  These are not uncommon scenarios I've encountered over the years as the family IT guy. In many cases what they often needed was something that could do what they needed simply and easily, without the overhead, the viruses, or the steep learning curve.

I think the iPad ushers in a new way for us to think about computing, pushing us past the mental model of the file system, window and memory management, and other administrative elements. A recent post by Steven Frank sums this up well. For the majority of us that have grown up with computers, how we think about a computer now seems hardwired. But what about the new generation - the kids under say 7 or 8 -  that have played with a touch-based device like the iPhone and simply "got it".  What is a computer to them? What is their model of how it works?  Similarly, how about the many people, my dad's wife and father-in-law included, that have never taken an interest in computers or have decided the effort to learn and maintain them is often too great - what is a computer to them?

I'd argue that Apple's big statement with the iPad, aside from it being lightweight and multitouch, it that they've pushed the OS further into the background and brought the content front and center.  In many ways they established this with the iPhone, but now they are taking it to a much bigger device, one that falls somewhere between a phone and a laptop. They have effectively hidden much of the OS from the user - users interact directly with the content - so that the majority of people that use it will never think about what is missing.

At ZAAZ, as we've been building for the iPhone and iPad, content as the interface has been a guiding principle.  When the iPhone came out, Tufte underscored the importance of removing administrative debris from the screen. On a mobile device, you don't have the freedom to include multiple persistent navigation elements, controls, and menus. You focus on the content and you act on the content as directly as possible. This holds true for larger-screen touch devices like the iPad.

A recent Computerworld article speculates on the high interest in the iPad by the under-12 demographic.  The post was written more from a "will you get your kids one?" angle, but I think it points to a much larger fact - kids are going to grow up using more and more of these types of devices.  They already gravitate to the iPhone and it's touch interface.  They are naturally going to jump to the iPad and other similar interfaces. Again, kids don't care about multitasking or file systems.  What they care about is content.  And ultimately, that's what we all care about too.

[Cross posted at mobileux.net]

Social Media Teams: Different on the Agency Side than Internal

By Ryan Turner | Aug 10, 2009 7:27:51 PM

[Cross-posted from Web Social Architecture.]

One of the things I've been saying a lot lately is that over the next couple years, we can expect to see corporations adding dedicated internal social media teams. Does this sound like a statement of the obvious? Then maybe the corollary is more interesting: I think agencies should do the opposite.

I've seen a similar pattern in a dozen or more corporations in the past year: Responsibility for social media falls to the person or people who get interested and raise their hands. They come from PR, customer service, marketing--and sometimes just out of the woodwork. Good!

In other words, responsibility for social media tends to happen in an ad hoc way--and I actually suspect ad hoc is a perfect way to staff an emerging discipline. And staff it you must.

Social media requires a new combination of skill sets, traversing all the disciplines I just mentioned, but also including strong writing skills, a thick skin, and the social savvy to interact with customers through online media in ways that are on-brand, authentic, human, and bounded by corporate guidelines, policy, and politics. It's hard, but for the right people it's super fun.

For the corporate social media team, representing the brand is a full-time job, with its own discrete challenges and rewards. They need to focus on developing the skills and experience to do it well.

But on the agency side, the whole thing is different. Agencies need to bring to bear their full range of capabilities to support clients' social media efforts, and that includes all the "traditional" digital disciplines--at the agency where I work, we have a 10-person social media team that includes people from development, analytics, search, optimization, user experience, creative, and client services. It's a witchy brew. Our goal is to implode the whole idea of "social media" in the next 2 years.

So my message to agencies is: Adapt, or specialize yourself into an oblivion-vortex!

To be sure, social media specialty agencies (I have friends at several of them) provide a tremendously valuable service with their depth of expertise in social media. But my prediction is, as web marketing evolves further, the breath of expertise brought to bear by "traditional digital" agencies will pose a grave threat to the specialists. They simply won't match digital agencies' capabilities in development, analytics, creative, usability, planning, and optimization.

Seven years ago, we were explaining the idea of online community. Three years ago, we were selling the importance of Web 2.0. Today, we're answering ubiquitous demand from clients that "social media" be included as a component in all our web work. Give it another 2 years and clients will see "web" and "social" as synonymous--data, content, service, identity, content objects, and relationships as integral to a holistic web strategy.

So on the agency side, there should ultimately be no such thing as a "Social Media Team," only a company made of web-savvy, passion-driven professionals who can support all aspects of corporate social media efforts--from concept through implementation.

The nuts and bolts, and rubber meeting the road, and the delivery of the service belong on the client side; and the vision, concept, and creative / conceptual infrastructure are where agencies can help. All in all, I have to admit, it ends up looking a lot like Mad Men, which my 90 year old Grandmother, true story, described as "the most realistic show yet about the '50's."

"It shows," she says, "exactly how we lived."