Isabel Walcott Hilborn

What a difference 21 years makes

Back in 1988, our commander in chief Ronald Reagan championed and signed the Convention Against Torture, which states that torture is never acceptable even with war as an excuse, and which requires participating countries to prosecute their torturers (thanks Glenn Greenwald on Salon for this, and for the pointer to the Krauthammer column).

Today in the Washington Post, Charles Krauthammer describes the circumstances under which he thinks torture is permissible and says anyone who never sees any justification in torture should not be entrusted with military decisions.

The other day in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman said Obama was right not to prosecute, because it would "tear America apart" and we have a "unique" enemy.

A Pew poll published the other day revealed that "the more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists" (CNN).

What on earth is going on, when the people who mourn Christ's crucifixion, with a faith built upon mercy, suddenly condone torture?  When a one conservative icon's recommendations nobody took issue with 20 years ago are suddenly considered nigh treasonous by their own party?  When the human-rights-loving, law-expert President we just elected refuses to hold anyone accountable for breaking international and US law?  When a writer and columnist we respect and admire says it's okay to trade human rights for political harmony, like some kind of warlord dictator (fascist or communist, take your pick)?

What on earth is going on?  This is America.  Can people not simply open their eyes and say, "looks like someone's being accused of criminal acts, let's give him a trial"?  Is that so darn hard?

Looking forward to mobile alternatives

Milk is the same price per gallon at your grocery store no matter who drinks it.  And there's gotta be a law against charging some people in a neighborhood more than others for their kilowatt-hours.  Has someone started a cell phone carrier yet that just charges everyone the same hourly rate based on how much time they use?  That works with every phone?  Because that would make sense, wouldn't it?

I switched to T-Mobile in December, explained to the guy at the counter how many minutes I used based on my past history, and he got me set up on what looked like it was the right plan for me with the right amount of minutes plus unlimited data and text.  I didn't ask for a document containing proof of the name of which plan I chose with his help, as it didn't occur to me that there would be a discrepancy later (my first mistake). I set up an automatic payment (my second mistake) and trusted T-Mobile (my real mistake).  By trusted, I mean, I didn't check the next month to make sure they were charging me the rate they were supposed to.  I'm not a paranoid person, or at least I wasn't in December. I'm busy, and I reviewed the guy's recommendation, and thought it was all fine.

NOT!

Had a look at my bill the other night and WHOA!  I've been going hundreds of minutes over the monthly allotment every month since I had the new phone!  Wasn't on the right plan at all.

So I called T-Mobile to tell them there must have been some mistake.  They told me the mistake was mine - not checking up on them sooner.  If I had called within 60 days, they could have helped me, but at 90 days, it was my own fault.

Seems so reasonable, right?  Let's think about it. We cheat you, and if you notice right away, we'll say, "OK, we're so busted", and we'll make you whole.  If you don't notice right away though, we'll keep your money.  It's perfectly easy for us to see that there was a mistake - you signed up for a new plan and you're using double the minutes the plan gives you.  We have your phone number and it would be so easy to call you and tell you that there's been a mistake.  But we don't!  We cross our fingers and hope we can just get past the 60 day mark, and then we're home free.  No such thing as satisfaction guaranteed with us!

I asked them then, what it would cost to get unlimited calling.  Well, it turns out that they have a plan where for the same price I was paying for 500 minutes, I can get unlimited minutes.  "We want to save you money", said the call center representative.

Huh!  Is that why you were charging me $.40/minute for hundreds of minutes each month, which obviously should have been coming to me for free (since I now am on a plan that gives me unlimited calls for the same price?)  Do you have ANY costs-of-goods-sold rationale for why my minutes should cost .$40 each?

What a bunch of scammers these cell phone carrier companies are, with their hundreds of complicated different plans and their hidden deadlines and their different prices for minutes depending who's using them and whether you already used some or not.  The pricing's all completely fake anyway.  I'm tired of being jerked around, and everyone else is too. 

What a great opportunity for someone to start a carrier business where a minute is a minute is a minute.  Your real savings would be in the call center staff and billing departments.  Just use an open-source program and have all customer service done over email, which would be ok since there wouldn't be much since your billing is so simple and clean.

Grr.  Really just wanted to make a public statement saying how much T-Mobile sucks.  Telling me it's my own fault for not checking their work - though certainly true - is just proof that they're happy to screw their own customers every chance they get.  There should be a better way.

Just a little shout-out to my peeps:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOY9bg3kUAw&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTogqJbUSos
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eREN9IadtNk&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZWpBnYz35A&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zujZk2CHBA&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACXIgD8s78U&NR=1

Amazon's big announcement

Got an email from the Amazon Associates Program today announcing a that they are no longer going to pay referral fees to associates who use paid keyword search (i.e. Google Adwords et al.) to drive traffic to Amazon.

Amazon is good at research.  They've clearly determined that the amount of purchases they generate through these channels are not worth it.  Since keyword buys are priced based on demand, associates' use of these keywords is driving up Amazon's own paid search advertising costs.  So Amazon has decided that it costs them more to pay the referral fees and higher ad prices, than they earn from this incremental traffic.

It's quite obvious that, as an e-commerce company, if you can figure out on your own every case where you can make money getting your customers via paid search, there's no reason to share that revenue with anyone - just do it yourself.  With handy companies like Marin Software (my brother's company) to help organize your paid search campaigns, you no longer need to rely on your Associates to figure out these sweet spots for you.

Amazon may also have noticed that they were funding Google's revenue growth with a share of their profits -- perhaps that factored into their decision as well.  I wonder how much of Google's Adwords revenue comes from Associates-type referrers, and how much of a hit Google will take if the idea of cutting off payments to referrals that come via paid search takes off.

Many other e-commerce sites have referral programs as well.  If their programs are working, they're probably thrilled to have the extra revenue, and perhaps haven't considered that referrer buyers are bidding up their search prices or that they could do this advertising by themselves and skip the referral fees.  Now every company in this position will need to take a look at their situation and see whether they couldn't do better on their own.

Another interesting question is how angry will the Associates be who have come to depend on a revenue stream from buying search keywords and referring customers to Amazon - and how hard will they bite the hand that no longer feeds?

Here's the text of the email:

Dear Amazon Associate:

We’re writing to let you know about a change to the Amazon Associates Program. After careful review of how we are investing our advertising resources, we have made the decision to no longer pay referral fees to Associates who send users to www.amazon.com, www.amazon.ca, or www.endless.com through keyword bidding and other paid search on Google, Yahoo, MSN, and other search engines, and their extended search networks. If you're not sure if this change affects you, please visit this page for FAQs.

As of May 1, 2009, Associates will not be paid referral fees for paid search traffic. Also, in connection with this change, as of May 1, 2009, Amazon will no longer make data feeds available to Associates for the purpose of sending users to the Amazon websites in the US or Canada via paid search.

This change applies only to the Associates programs in North America. If you are conducting paid search activities in connection with one of Amazon’s Associates Programs outside of the US and Canada, please refer to the applicable country’s Associates Program Operating Agreement for relevant terms and conditions.

We appreciate your continued support and participation in this advertising Program. If you have questions or concerns, please write to us by using the Contact Us form available on Associates Central.

Sincerely,

The Amazon Associates Program

Advertising world thinks Google isn't leveraging enough user data

"Advertisers have also been looking for Google to leverage its dominance in data into a full-feature behavioral-targeting ad offering. Google announced what it calls "interest-based targeting" last week, but Mr.[Michael] Hayes [of IPG] said, "given the breadth of their data, we haven't seen it yet." " Ad Age article (by Abbey Klaassen and Michael Learmonth)

And I hope we never do.

Here's a serviceable description of Google's new initiative.  They've made more than a passing effort to put control in the hands of the viewer.  If you like ads, you can manage preferences so you don't see the wrong categories.  If you don't like the idea of having your search patterns trigger what people try to sell you, you can delete the cookie.

OMMA Behavioral Marketing Conference

A friend comments, "It was great actually, in the 'I knew you guys didn't care about users, but now I REALLY know' kind of way".

http://www.mediapost.com/events/?/showID/OMMABehavioral.11-14-08

Tropicana

Ah, thank god. I hated that new packaging.  What were they thinking?  http://consumerist.com/5158732/loyal-customer-backlash-forces-tropicana-to-abandon-new-packaging

Customer outcry to the rescue!  "it was a fraction of a percent of the people who buy the product." said their spokesman.

But it really makes me wonder... they attribute the fact that they're reverting to their old packaging to a "backlash from their loyal customers".  Companies don't spend millions on a change and then switch because of a few complaints.  I am curious to know the truth about how much their sales plummeted. It must have been huge.  Reverting had a rationale measurable in major dollars, I'm sure of it.  Customers voted with their pocketbooks, not just their voices.

Who Profited?

Why isn't anyone talking about how the 2002 United Airlines Bankruptcy article got into the "Most Popular Stories" bin in the first place?  Couldn't someone easily have "put it there" by emailing it to themselves over and over again, or by linking to it in some cheesy SEO ploy?

How easy would it be to manipulate the market to your advantage in this way... all you do is note which newspapers don't include dates on their bylines (bad, bad Sentinel! the fault lies with you not Google!) and you are off to the races.

The SEC should be checking into who profited from this massive sell-off, getting a warrant, and checking their web tracks.  And newspapers should change the algorithms so that "most popular" stories are limited to current stories, and permanently date their news.  Until that's fixed this is gonna be like taking candy from a baby.

By the way, this is a great occasion for trusted news sources like the New York Times to crow a little about the importance of professionally written, human-edited content.  It's easy to pick up and propagate a false story - just look at Swift Boat Veterans, or this near miss from Larry Ellison.  Just kidding about Larry but that's his style, isn't it?

Profiting from Insecurity

I've been reminded several times lately about a particular sickness in our marketing culture and figured it was time for a post.

Ad Age recently picked up on a study of college-age women that showed that ads showing skinny models gave them "more negative feelings about their sexual attractiveness, weight and physical condition than before". Nevertheless the participants said they were more likely to buy the products advertised with the  thin models than products advertised with more realistic-looking women.

It's clear that making someone feel bad about themselves, and then implying that they will feel better about themselves if they simply purchase this item, is an effective way to sell.  But it's gross, isn't it?

Research has shown that more than half of teenage girls think they should be on a diet, and "more than ten percent of adolescent girls and three percent of boys binge eat or purge at least once a week, according to a study published in Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine. (June 2008)" (http://www.anred.com/stats.html).

As more companies market clothing and bodycare products to men, body insecurities aren't limited to women anymore. Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System showed that eating disorders among high school boys increased dramatically from 1995 to 2005 (http://www.revolutionhealth.com/articles/teen-boys-at-growing-risk-for-eating-disorders/hd-610226).

Our media's messages are unbelievably messed up about this topic.  At a relative's house over the weekend, I saw a so-called "women's" magazine cover displaying a close-up shot of a tantalizing dessert for a feature story on summer recipes.  The largest print on the cover, though, was the classic headline, "lose weight without dieting."  With mixed messages like that in our faces, we wonder why women binge and purge?

At the end of the weekend, I was thumbing through a hand-me down copy of Vogue and discovered that the only actual "article" in the magazine was a story about one woman's dissatisfaction with the skin in front of her armpits, and her search for a plastic surgeon who would either operate or prescribe firming lotions to fix her "problem".

I guess I just wish we could figure out a better way to earn and spend our money.  The talented Claire Mysko, former SmartGirl star editor in chief, director of the American Anorexia/Bulimia Association, and founder of Inside Beauty, certainly has.  She just published "You're Amazing! A No-Pressure Guide to Being Your Best Self", a book to help girls navigate adolescence.  Check out her book reading at Books of Wonder, 18 w. 18th St. in NYC, 6 pm on 8/6.

How to Choose a Social Media Marketer

Here is a 10-point checklist for choosing a social media marketer. 

1.    Has the person built an online community before?  How many people participated and how did they interact with each other? 

2.    How long has the person been working with user-generated content?  What kind of content and how much have they worked with, and how intimately?

3.    Small, independent, highly interactive web communities offer marketers excellent learning experiences.  Check the marketer’s client list for attributes like connecting community members with each other, helping members find content online, helping members build a repository of quality content (not junk content), and viral success.

4.    Be on the lookout for buzzwords used to make a marketer sound more social-media savvy than s/he really is.  Rather than listening for keywords like tagging, Facebook, WOMM, Digg, blogging, and Twitter, listen for concepts like fostering community interaction, facilitating discovery, relinquishing control, open culture, application platforms, and reputation building.

5.    Being a participant in a user-generated content community is not the same as building or running one.  Does the marketer have community management experience?

6.    Some social-media savvy folks don’t have commensurate experience working with corporate clients.  Make sure your marketer can understand your needs as well as the social media scene.

7.    Web design or online publishing experience is not equivalent to social media experience.  Social media is people communicating amongst themselves, not just visiting a site that’s made by professionals.

8.    Corporate messaging experience is not a selling point for social media expertise.  The more corporate messaging experience your marketer has, the worse they may be at social media advice.

9.    Don’t be fooled by a blue-chip client list.  Big-name clients are still less likely to have cutting edge social media strategies, so this isn’t a case where “Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM” applies. 

10.    Work directly with the expert, as opposed to with someone who works for the expert.

Or, you can just hire me!

Dreams in High Fidelity at 3 Legged Dog

Last Friday was the closing night of my client Scott Draves' exhibition at the 3 Legged Dog Art and Technology Center in downtown Manhattan.  His artwork, which is a high-fidelity rendering of the electric sheep, was projected on the white cylindrical foyer of the gallery. Pretty awesome. 

Dreams in High Fidelity is for sale in a limited edition; more at http://www.hifidreams.com.

Spot's photos of the installation: http://draves.org/pix/2008-07-12-3LD-show/

My snapshots at Flickr: a guest, and two views of the tube.

Video of the tube:

Supernova Interview with Scott Draves

I work with the artist Scott Draves (AKA Spot), who makes art using the network as a medium.  I also work with Kevin Werbach and Jeannie Logozzo (captured by Renee Blodgett) of the Supernova conference, and 2008's theme is Challenges for the Network Age. 

So when the time came to post interesting interviews to Supernova's Conversation Hub blog, it seemed like a no-brainer to pick Scott as my first interview (Esther Dyson is next week).

The interview, "Scott Draves on the Electric Sheep Network" is now up on the Supernova Conversation Hub blog. 

My favorites from the points Scott raised in the interview: 

• that working with a network has its challenges but the reward is beyond compare
• that art and open-source technology, being built upon the concepts that preceded them, are part of a "web of ideas" which is itself a network
• that he is basing his career as an artist on the symbiotic relationship between free products for the crowd and limited-edition fine art for collectors

Scott Draves illustrates what happens when an open-source programmer becomes an artist.  He has brought open-source business models and open-source creative methodology to art, and the combination has stunning results.  (And I'm not saying that because I work with him; I work with him because I think that.  So does Siggraph, apparently, as they chose Draves' artwork as the brand identity for their 2008 conference, "Evolve").

Google: Evil OK, in China

Cross-posted at the Supernova Conversation Hub:

Google is bringing the issue of protecting human rights at the cost of the company's market share to a shareholder vote - as reported by Joseph Hunkins at WebGuild.  The two proposals up for a vote are that Google would strictly control censorship and data sharing to protect human rights, and that Google would establish a Human Rights Committee to monitor these issues.  Google recommends no to both proposals, and they'll be able to point to the fact that their shareholders voted these proposals down as an excuse for not doing them.

The approach is an attempt to justify Google's capitulation to anti-democratic policy from countries like China - behavior that they've been called to task for engaging in because of their "do no evil" mantra.  The sad thing, to me, is that giving a question like this to shareholders: "Should we do the right thing even though it means making less money?" is giving it to the wrong party to decide.  Shareholders don't say no to profits. 

It's the users who should be asked, and the users who can decide to abandon the Google ship if they see objectionable, hypocritical behavior.  Insofar as a choice to deny human rights may alienate Google users, the stock prices could fall on a "no" vote -- but most of the time issues like human rights in far-away countries can't compete with great technology and brand.  An effective boycott is unlikely, a yes vote is unlikely.  Perhaps "do no evil" and "make money in China" are fundamentally incompatible.  Perhaps a mantra change to "do no evil except in countries led by repressive dictators" is in order?

Best Revenge Song Ever?

I was in the post office yesterday and heard Carly Simon's wonderful "You're So Vain" (Pity about the shoulder pads in this video - I think her big smile is really cute at the end). 

It struck me what a great classic relationship revenge song this is, and made me wonder about other revenge songs.  "I had some dreams they were clouds in my coffee" is a particularly poignant commentary on love gone wrong.  And "you're with some underworld spy or the wife of a close friend" is so harsh!  I love how the bitterness contrasts with the happy-go-lucky upbeat tune.

So then I got to thinking about the totally rocking "Song for the Dumped", the first Ben Folds song I heard at Brownie's in the early 90's when he was still playing to small crowds and jumping all over the piano (Mark Bonasera where are you now?).  A completely different style but it is also a potential winner.

When I surfed YouTube this morning to find a fitting tribute for a friend's 50th birthday, I knew I was on a roll and would have to blog about revenge songs. I found this song this guy wrote "for" his ex-wife on the occasion of her 50th and laughed until I cried.  Not at his lyrics but at his performance (sorry dude).  Listening to it again I am already giggling.  It only takes about 30 seconds to get the picture, but there is a nice bonus lyric at the very end if you have the stamina.

I'm sure all three of these targets have heard the song that was written for them and had that feeling that we all know they should have had.

Send in your favorites and I'll make a top ten list.

I'm blogging for Supernova

I've been doing some posting at Supernova's Conversation Hub lately, and I'll be doing some more over time.  I'll try to post reminders here but you might want to subscribe to that RSS if you don't want to miss a beat.

The Supernova conference, June 16-18 in San Francisco, has been one of my personal favorites for years, and this year I'm working with them.  I highly recommend you register now, before the prices go up.

My Conversation Hub posts so far this year:

http://conversationhub.com/2008/03/11/will-aggregated-social-graph-mean-privacy-violations/

http://conversationhub.com/2008/03/10/more-apres-mixer-posts/

http://conversationhub.com/2008/03/09/last-weeks-mixer-an-inspiring-conversation-starter/

http://conversationhub.com/2008/03/06/supernova-mixer-tonight-in-san-francisco/

Disillusionment

This is so sad.  If you can't trust Eliot Spitzer to be an honest politician, I don't think you can really trust anyone anymore.  He did so much for Wall Street, and for New York.

I don't really get why prostitution is illegal, and I don't think public figures should lose their careers over their consensual sexual behavior.  However, in this particular case, like in the recent Larry Craig scandal, the unforgiveable hypocrisy is the problem, not the action itself.

I've always thought of Spitzer as the king of clean.  I guess it is always the ones who protest the most who have the most to hide.  Sigh.

Two Different Viewpoints

I really liked Chris Carfi's post yesterday.  David Cushman is in the market for a car and has used his blog to invite someone to sell him one.  Chris picked up on this and used it to write a little lesson about how businesses should think about marketing.

Chris' point: while companies are focusing on their viewpoint, customers are focused on theirs, and the two aren't really meshing.

My take on this is that in the past, customers probably had to flex a little bit and see things from the vendor's point of view, and vendors got spoiled and started, foolishly, to insist on this.  I relayed a story about a case like this, also involving a car sale, a few months ago.

These days, the balance has shifted to put the power into the hands of the customer.  This is what Cluetrain is all about.  So companies are focused on Selling; they Market because they have discovered it helps with sales; and they Support because they have to, it helps with sales, and it's an extra revenue stream.  End of story, right?

Wrong.  As Chris points out, these three functions are the flip side of what the customer is doing:
- Search (Marketing is supposed to reach the customer during this stage)
- Shop (Sales supposed to kick in here)
- Help (Support supposed to address this need)

Chris' view is that the vendors are in a "transactional mindset", and if they had a "relationship" with the customer they'd have David's business already.  The reason this is true is because if more companies saw the need to maintain a connection with their customers even when their customers weren't in the process of buying something, they'd have a good way to ask their customers for referrals. 

In particular, referrals could be incentivized - and although many businesses do this, many more that could do not.  If I could make $1K by reading David's blog and telling my auto dealer about him, I'd be on the phone to my dealer right now.  Or even if I weren't compensated - if I just had a friendship, or if I'd gotten a referral from that auto dealer for my business and owed him one.  There are lots of ways to build a relationship.

High-end, high-touch businesses do this as a matter of course, but thanks to the Internet (and no so incidentally tools like Chris Carfi's cerado, now everybody can do it.

Why I love Russ Nelson

Ever seen a corporate environment that praises the concept of "outside the box" thinking, but punishes the practice of "outside the box" thinking?

I have seen lots of this, and I'm convinced it's because most people don't think outside the box, and most people like to hang out with people who think like they think.  It can be so annoying to try to smooth over those rough spots caused by our differences, can't it?

I was reading danah boyd's blog today (yeah, it happens) which includes a brief and passionate analysis of why she has settled on Obama instead of Clinton, based on who would be the better president.  The comment section includes praise from fans of both camps.  And then Russ Nelson weighs in.  Russ says,

"The issue here is not getting the right person in office -- it's making it less crucial to have the right person in office."

Russ is a Libertarian and he recommends less concentration of power in Washington and more distribution of power to the states.

I used to work with someone who once complained that I brought up topics that were "orthogonal" to the discussion.  "Orthogonal" literally means "at right angles to" and figuratively means "not pertinent to the matter under consideration" (WordNet).  Russ' comment was orthogonal to the conversation who makes a better president, Barack or Hillary (he backs Ron Paul). 

Orthogonal comments are literally "impertinent".  They can be annoying.  They are also the hallmark of the "outside the box" thinker, and so much more interesting than the same old debate.  I love that Russ thinks like this.  I think there are lots more who do, and who keep their mouths shut in the corporate environment.  They keep their mouths shut because they've suffered unpleasant consequences from opening them.  As have I, as has Russ.

Russ, thanks for sharing your orthogonal opinions.  I don't find them impertinent at all.

Someone Sent Soap

So I got a little present in the mail a couple of days ago, a small forest green box, and inside nestled in purple tissue were four pretty bars of handmade soap from Voda (via eBay) -- the Laksmi box set, named for the Hindu goddess of abundance (Thanks!).  Five travel-size soaps were included as well; they have names like "Eastern Beauty" (Ok, I can see that, and thank you again!) and "Moroccan Love" (Less obvious how that fits in).  No "from" name was enclosed.  A mystery gift.

My first thought, since I am well-brought-up, was that I needed to blog this because I had to send a thank you note and didn't know who to send it to.  Perhaps the vendor simply forgot to include the sender's name, in error.  Then I would be on the hook for never sending the thank you note! Thanks for the nice gift, Anonymous!  Phew, got that out of the way.

My second thought was - what a clever way to get a bunch of people to blog about you.  Just find the addresses of some people who blog and send them something anonymously.  The chances that they wouldn't blog about it must be close to zero - I mean, we don't get anonymous gifts every day!  Is this one of the most innovating word of mouth marketing schemes yet?  Will the marketers follow up with a mysterious valentine in two weeks, and then reveal themselves dramatically in March?

Then I had a horrible thought.  Is someone trying to tell me that I am stinky, and that I need fragrant soaps to clean me up?  I have never been much for wearing special scents.  Either the person who sent these soaps didn't know that, or that's exactly what they did know, and they took issue with it. What better way to say, in the gentlest most friendly way, that your friend needs to boost her AQ (aromatic quotient) than by sending some fragrant handmade soaps?

This is the down side of sending an anonymous present.  The recipient may read into it something unintended.  I find myself wondering if the person who sent these soaps is the same person who sent, about 5-6 years ago, a large columnar floor lamp with a motorized spinning disk that changed the ambient light in the room from green to red to blue to yellow in cycles.  I wracked my brains.  Was someone trying to tell me something about my chameleon nature?   Accusing me of featuring a too-traditional decor in my apartment?  Complimenting my fun-loving psychedelic personality?

I figure now is a good time to let eager anonymous gift-givers know about my Amazon wish list.  Yes, my birthday is coming up in 3 weeks.  Nothing on there really excites me, but at least I won't wonder about motive.

Nobody ever claimed responsibility for sending the lamp.  It didn't match my lifestyle and I gave it away.  I'm going to use the soaps though.  They're a much smaller commitment, and I like them.  If the next time you see me I smell like "Nurture", you'll know why.

Measuring Social Media Success - an Interview

Yesterday, I conducted an interview and conversation as part of our Facebook Marketing 2.0 Group.  Although the interview was originally scheduled to be with Katie Paine of KDPaine & Partners, we ended up speaking with a methodologist from her team, Peter Kowalski, as Katie was pulled unexpectedly into moderating a meeting of her own at the last minute.

The audio from the 55-minute call is located here and can also be found (along with some comments from conference call participants) on the Facebook event listing.  The conference call - which was extremely well-attended - just begins to scratch the surface of the rich topic of how to measure the success of your social network or social media campaign.  This is a topic that I hope I will be able to come back to again and again, because I know there is a lot of interest.

Among other things, KDPaine and Partners looks at the placement of where and how people are talking about a company, before and after a social media campaign. Peter's tips included

1) Setting clear objectives prior to the campaign
2) Being precise about your definitions - saying you want more "engagement" is not enough; what does "engagement" mean?
3) Trying to integrate your measurement work with other research work done within the company, including integrating with other marketing and media metrics. 

He stressed that simply counting eyeballs or clicks -- the basic measurement that most folks do -- is just not good enough.  Proper measurement of social media means measuring connections and relationships. 
Social Media maven Howard Greenstein was kind enough to take notes on the call and summarize the content for us at the end.  He's also threatened to blog about the conversation at http://howardgreenstein.com/blog/.

Don't Give Up on Vista

On the front page of the New York Times website this morning was a banner ad that I just had to click: "Don't Give Up on Vista", it said.  Could Microsoft actually have resorted to begging?

Of course not.  Clicking on the ad sends you straight to Apple's site for Mac OS X Leopard Guided Tour.

I think this is the funniest banner ad I have seen in a long time.  Go Apple!