US Presidential Election with 11 weeks to go and Obama is well ahead on Social Media.

The first real "new media" TV debate was on Television in 1960 between JFK and Nixon. It wasn't about the content, it was about the way Nixon appeared visually that decided it, (sweaty and uneasy because he wasn't used to TV - earning the nickname "Tricky Dicky"). It is long, but well worth the watch when you've time.

The current Presidential race will also be about "new media" but this time it's Social and Obama has outpaced Romney in Social Media.

He has 10m Twitter followers compared to Romney's 895,000 on @barackobama and @obama2012. Obamas campaign tweets 29 times a day compared to Romney's one. On Facebook Obama has 7 times more fans at 28m Versus 4m - 7 times. On YouTube it's the same story at 839,000 versus 399,000. Obama is winning the Social Media debate by a mile.

Yet, he's only ahead in the polls by 3%.

However, both candidates tend not to use Social in an "engaging" way, using it simply to push messages out - rather than engage with voters and comments. In a way, using Social Media as almost an old fashioned media buy. It's not a two-way street.


"Campaigns are using technology to push out their own message rather than engaging in the social aspect," says Amy Mitchell, deputy director of the Pew Research Centre's Project for Excellence in Journalism as quoted by BBC.

"Social can be hugely effective at relationship building. But when you're Romney and Obama, if they did treat social as a two-way channel I think they'd be so inundated," says Paul Ten Haken, president at Click Rain, a multimedia firm.

So there's a balance between pushing out stuff and engaging....whilst we all know that engagement wins every time, it takes up a lot of time and especially for candidates "on the road".

"Both candidates' digital campaigns have focused on the economy more than any other issue; 24% of all Romney posts and 19% of Obama posts were about the economy. However, the campaigns differed in the angle they stressed. The Romney campaign devoted nearly twice the attention to jobs in its posts- 14% of posts compared to 8% of posts from the Obama campaign. Obama's economic messages were almost equally divided between jobs and broader economic issues, such as the importance of the middle class" according to their new survey at The Pew Research Centre.

So whilst Obama's campaign has used Social better in numbers, and whilst neither are using it in an engaging way, messages about the economy seem to be the most used.

The 57th Presidential Election will be held on November 6th.


The Republican National Convention takes place August 27-30 and The Democratic Party are on September 3-6. October then becomes the real hectic month with the first Presidential debate on October 3rd.

December 17th the President is declared formally elected and inauguration day is Jan 20th.

This will be an election driven by Social Media and with relatively little time to go (two months in reality) and Obama so far ahead, it will be interesting to see if he wins. Does the man with more Social Media become President?

I would think so.

You think your brand is safe on Social Media? You have to watch this. Just too funny.

Great piece of Youtube getting back at a company with a reputation for poor customer service and it's gone viral. Absolutely magnificent.

Groupon, the pioneer of coupons online shares tank -72%. Is this Deal fatigue?

That's Andrew Mason. CEO Groupon.

It seems like Daily deal sites are taking a knock if Chicago-based Groupon is anything to go by. Groupon pioneered the online coupon business for small business owners and at the time, really created a stir. It replaced the traditional paper coupon with online advantage.

Perhaps now, consumers have deal fatigue. it was once billed as "the fastest growing company ever!" by Forbes....and it was....in reaching 1 billion in sales incredibly fast - well, not anymore.

Groupon, the onetime darling of the markets and online, floated in November at 20 usd a share. Today it's tanked down 72% at 5.55 usd with the nosedive starting on Tuesday and continuing. Analysts are slashing their share price forecasts. 

Its billings in the second quarter have fallen, its earnings are below forecast, active customers only growing by 3% at 38m, really little good news.

True, it's now profitable, turning a 100 m loss into a 28m profit. But it's a 4 billion business and a return of 28m on 4bn is considered to be barely generating a profit. 

And Groupon has itself to blame for creating a myriad of lookalikes like LivingSocial. Selling discount coupons to local businesses has become so competitive, margins are being reduced by the deal site from what was, an average of 50%.

CEO Andrew Mason played the Internet fool at the much hyped IPO last November, being photographed with a cat on his head, chugging beer at meetings - you know what I mean. Too cool for school. Forbes ran a story today titled, 'Groupon needs a new CEO now!'. And looking at his video, you know where they're coming from.

Of course, it and gamer Zynga, are suffering from a loss of market confidence following the Facebook debacle, but this seems to be more fundamental. 

Maybe, it's being suggested, people are just getting tired of deals giving 50% off your hair loss treatment, to ultimately find that it only applies if your birthday coincides with a full moon. In the Orion of Sagittarius. Or something.

Although I do know that some deal Irish sites, such as Grab One, are doing well.


Groupon also settled in April, an 8.5m usd lawsuit with people who claimed the expiry date on coupons were illegal. In October last, they had negative controversy over an accounting issue about the manner in which they dealt with their revenues.

Its valuation today is circa 3.6 billion usd, about half what it was offered by Google in 2010 and which it turned down. Yep, turned down 6 billion dollars.

What will happen here is that the online coupon business will consolidate and pretenders to the crown will evaporate - leaving a handful of good professional players.

One wonders if the pioneer of the business, will be one of them.

Olympic online data just in from BBC. 34 million unique viewers on their site alone. Astonishing numbers.

You don't think the world has changed? Have a look at the video highlights of the London games 1908. Don't you love the Ladies tennis?

I know were all finished with, what was to be fair, excellent Olympic games. And this is the last time I'll mention them.

However, the BBC have just released social data about how well their online business performed and it's not unreasonable to use it as a typical benchmark.

It covers 2 weeks when 34 million unique users, saw BBC coverage online. 34 million online visitors. Astonishing.

On their busiest day it delivered one quadrillion bytes of data (yeah, it's a lot) and that busiest day was when Brit, Bradley Wiggins (Tour de France winner and secret smoker) won gold on August 1st.

After the opening and closing ceremonies, the men's 100m final was most watched (Usain Bolt) both on and offline globally.

They keep referring to these Games as "the digital games" and these results show that's exactly what they were.

In one 24 hour period, the online BBC traffic was higher for them than the total hours online for the 2010 World Cup! They also looked at device usage and saw it was generally, PC's during the day, Mobile usage from 6pm and then Tablets took over from circa 9pm.

The other benefit of this of course, is that they introduced BBC online to a new audience whom might very well comeback. It's really a superb performance but clearly shows consumers preferring to watch/follow online. It's further proof of the domination of Social and all things digital.

According to NBC (whom you might remember really messed up and if not, go here http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/nbc-olympics-and-way-brands-can-easily.html), these games were the most watched TV event in history as well. So online got its share too or you might say, online viewers made it the most watched TV event. 

According to Nielsen, 219 million people watched some part of the games in the US alone (a viewer they consider as someone who watches 6 minutes or more). The Superbowl by contrast, gets circa 100 million viewers.

The closing ceremony had 31m viewers.

Irish broadcaster RTE, hasn't got data yet but indicated, based on data usage, it had 3,500 online at one time to watch an event. Which seems to me incredibly low? Katie Taylor? Oh sorry, that's right, their server went down just before broadcast.

In Canada, each Canadian watched 21 hours on average. 

Of course all Press titles saw increases and generally an uplift in advertising.
But all in all, this was the watershed event for online viewing and for Social Media. There's no doubt about it that it made online an intuitive place to go and almost "normal".

It shows how well planned media can generate new traffic and sell more ads by using online effectively. People are prepared to go online and watch something if it's good and will do so in huge numbers.

Extraordinary numbers that will pale by the time we get to Rio.

Google starts Ad Campaign to promote its advertising being better than traditional media. And what does it use? Press. Irony of ironies.

Excuse this for being short but then, I can't make it any longer. It is what it is - 
Ironic.

Google takes out a press campaign to promote, advertising on Google - under the concept that they will deliver more targeted audiences. 

Who needs a haircut? People searching for one. Absolutely. Clever line.

Simply, the ad suggests, that with Google you reach only the people you want to reach as distinct from say, Press Advertising, which reaches everyone. In other words, Press advertising is a bit of a eh, waste of time they say.

Really?

But then they've just taken out a Press Ad to prove it? Oh dear. Proving the power of press.

But this is going to feature in Conference powerpoint presentations from newspaper publishers for years to come and I'm with them. Irony of ironies.

(And you'd wonder, why is Google advertising at all?)
I can hear my press friends laughing now.
So am I.

Huffington post Live launches. A revolution in online broadcasting and an earthquake for traditional broadcasters.

Huffington Post Live (owned by AOL), a news broadcasting service of online publisher The Huffington Post, went live today. And it did so without fanfare but caused an earthquake amongst broadcasters. That's a video of Arianna Huffington's vision from 2010 which today she achieved.

"People want to be part of a story...not just consuming".

Promising 12 hours of video a day, 5 days a week initially, it intends to open us news by allowing Social Media comment and webcam interactivity. in other words, getting your views on the news. It's not just a video platform but a platform for engagement.

Rather than run pre-roll advertising or indeed banners, it asked founding sponsors to pay between 3-5 million usd for a guaranteed mention once every 2 hours and Cadillac and Verizon took up the offer. It's unlikely too that normal "ad breaks" will apply as they intend to "disrupt" traditional broadcasting models. And who'd doubt them.

Using Google hangouts for live chats, the whole sense is very engaging and with 100 professionals on their crew, it's a substantial attempt at online broadcasting.

Jonah Peretti, the co-founder of The Huffington Post was quoted as saying:

A couple years ago, we were trying unsuccessfully to sell social advertising to a market that only wanted to buy banners but things have changed dramatically since then. Now many agencies and brands are refusing to buy banners, companies that rely on traditional display units are suffering, and budgets are shifting rapidly to social advertising. One of our board members, who was initially sceptical of our decision to not run banners, recently said that “social advertising will be the biggest media business since cable television.” 

The feed (streaming) is perfect as is the overall look and feel. Have a look at the future here http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/live

It's a sensational breakthrough for news and publishing, never mind online publishing. You've possibly seen the birth today, of the world's biggest TV station although it's much much more than that. It's the world's biggest Social Media site too.

This has the potential to kill off traditional TV broadcasters as the audience migrates online and yet again, big broadcasters show no response. It is social Media Television (Twitter with moving pictures) exactly what a new generation want.

Time and time again we see large businesses who had it their own way for so long, ignore the web and just get eaten. What is this going to do to the TV audience? It's going to take their viewers globally, just like a Facebook.

Live video on demand.
It's here, it's extensive and it's a winner.

Facebook Shares fall and worse to come on the 16th. But do you know, they can use your photos if they wish? For free?

 

Facebook share price closed Friday at just under 22 usd, losing about half its market value since May (currently 47 billion valuation usd down from 104 billion).

It has been lower at 19.82 usd and it has been a lot higher, at 45 usd.

Far more worrying and what's not really well-known, is that there are a lot more shares to come onto the market, starting this week. Three pre-IPO Facebook shareholders will be "unlocked" and can trade their 6 billion usd (yes, 6 billion) worth of shares. 

It's the end of the first "lock in" period on August 16th and it's hard to see it doing anything except add further downward pressure on a share that's been besieged since May.

Over the next 4 months, 2 billion of Facebook shares (about 70% of their outstanding shares) will become saleable.They will also have to face a tax bill of up to 4 billion usd in the next few months for witholding tax.

Unlike what many expected (yours truly included), this has been a disastrous time for Facebook. Share price imploding, publicity about "fake" Facebook accounts, NASDAQ getting sued by disgruntled brokers, automated bots running on Facebook's PPC (pay per click) advertising, Twitter withdrawing from Facebook's Instagram...it goes on and on. The Facebook search function remains truly appalling by the way.

Facebook is beginning to look vulnerable and a lot of people who were hurt through losing money, have their claws out for them. This will continue to reflect itself in share price pressure. So I would expect serious damage coming soon from the markets.

However one worrying story that I picked up on Friday, and which seems to be doing the rounds, which I believe is not well known (although I'm told it is) is the photo posting permissions.

In other words, when you post a photo to Facebook, that photo belongs to Facebook to use at will. Here's what Facebook conditions say;

By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sub license) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof, to prepare derivative works of, or incorporate into other works, such User Content, and to grant and authorise sub licenses of the foregoing.

Or as an online Solicitor translates as;

In plain English, this means you’re giving up copyright control of your material. If you upload a photo to Facebook, they can sell copies of it without paying you a cent. If you write lengthy notes (or import your blog posts!), Facebook can turn them into a book, sell a million copies, and pay you nothing. This deserves careful consideration!

On legal site mycounsel.com;

You may be shocked to find out that once you post on these sites, that although you still “own” the photograph, you grant the social media sites a license to use your photograph any way they see fit for free AND you grant them the right to let others use your picture as well! This means that not only can Twitter, Twitpic and Facebook make money from the photograph or video (otherwise, a copyright violation), but these sites are making commercial gain by licensing these images, which contains the likeness of the person in the photo or video (otherwise, a violation of their “rights of publicity”).

Facebook

Under Facebook’s current terms (which can change at anytime), by posting your pictures and videos, you grant Facebook “a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any [IP] content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (“IP License”). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.”  Beware of the words “transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license.”  This means that Facebook can license your content to others for free without obtaining any other approval from you!  You should be aware that once your photos or videos are shared on Facebook, it could be impossible to delete them from Facebook, even if you delete the content or cancel your account (the content still remains on Facebook servers and they can keep backups)!  So, although you may be able to withdraw your consent to the use of photos on Facebook, you should also keep in mind that if you share your photos and videos with Facebook applications, those applications may have their own terms and conditions of how they use your creation!  You should read the fine print to make sure you are not agreeing to something that you don’t want to have happen.

So let's just say you're out for a night and meet a celebrity and take a pic, then post it (as you do). It seems they can use that. Or you're at The Zoo and take a picture of a three humped camel. They can use that. Or on holidays you shoot The Eiffel Tower? They can use that.

It looks like they can use any or all of your photos at will. Say for advertising (given that it's an industry that buys a lot of library photos) you see your baby daughter in an Ad without your permission. Happy?

Ad Agencies spend their lives searching for pics such as these as does every media organisation in the world and every corporate to illustrate brochures, annual reports, websites etc. What Facebook has done is to build the biggest picture library in the world using your pics - and you don't know it.

So your pics can now be used in advertising material and there's nothing you can do about it. Or so it would seem.

By the way, I looked at Twitters T&C's and they look the same to me....

Shocking?

Outrageous?

Facebook needs to clarify this position as the Social Media comments increases.
And soon.

Microsoft's first hardware venture, The Surface, launches October 26th. Already it's causing problems.

On October 26th, Microsoft will launch its new "Surface" tablet and on the same day, Windows 8 and Surface will run on Windows 8. It's their first venture really into hardware.

In reality, this is Microsoft's attempt to take on the Apple IPAD and head-on. A ridiculous thing to do and as you'll see from the video above, shows no innovation, no creativity. Although the tablet market is in growth, there's plenty of other spaces where Microsoft could have gone - Book readers for example against The Kindle - but oh no, Microsoft want to take on Apple.

Its introduction was announced in June by CEO Ballmer and now we have an official launch date, which has also upset its hardware partners. Acer said it was "negative for the whole industry" and it's assumed there's an underlying threat that Acer (and others) might abandon the Windows platform. If I was them I would, so would you.

After all, Microsoft were their partners, now they are their competitors.

One of the potential propositions of Surface, is that it will also replace your laptop. With an innovative keypad, multiple data ports, a kickstand and with an effort to draw in developers to produce Apps, it does move towards laptop replacement. Techcrunch have their hands on the device and actually were quite impressed with it. But that's not the point, it's the problems a venture into hardware manufacturing causes.

Another big issue is that it would seem Microsoft have adopted a closed selling distribution (not unlike Apple who sell through Apple stores only) forcing resellers to order directly from Microsoft. The lack of stores will prove a problem never mind the actions of upset retailers.

So it has caused major issue with hardware manufacturers who were also Microsoft partners and now channel resellers. 

It would seem they have a good product and possibly a switchover product for laptops therefore, with an opportunity to target business users.

However, the loss of retail support and the irritation of manufacturers (whom Microsoft need for Windows sales) seems a less-than-thought-out strategy. In a brazen attempt to take the Apple Ipad head-on, they've left gaps because hardware production, is not something they know. Apple do.

And that's the problem that I've seen many times.

If you're good at something, stay with it and consider long and hard, the effects of moving into a new space. I know enough about Microsoft's demise to lack confidence in their ability to pull this hardware venture off as I have blogged before here http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/vanity-fairs-expose-of-microsoft-and.html

There's an old saying in business.
Stick to the knitting.

Rumours abound of Apple's entry into Social Media buying The Fancy? Or Pinterest?

There's no doubt about Pinterest being loved - it's not - it's adored.
Without a doubt it is THE Social Media site of the decade and being so visual it can actually be beautiful. (Have a look at Pinterest's Streamabout pins for example! http://pinterest.com/streamabout/).

It's very much a sharing site for photos that really started mid 2011 and in May this year, raised 100 million usd valuing it at 1.5 billion usd. Some success.

Although its growth has slowed a bit in June to about 16% (still fantastic), it is on its way to be the 4th largest traffic site in the world after Google, YouTube and Facebook. 

Apple on the other hand, the highest valued company in the world, sitting on billions in cash, have lacked one thing - Social Media. Apart from Social Media bringing "members" in its own right, it also gives Apple a chance to showcase their products. If you own the devices....it's easy to promote the Social element and especially on Apple TV due late 2012 (yes, they've already sold 4 million but officially it's launched later this year).

The New York Times, a credible news source, indicated Apple were actually in talks to buy Twitter recently but they didn't go anywhere. An indicator of Apple's desire to get into social.

Apple also has to use its cash to invest. There's no point in sitting on it. 
http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/apples-worth-is-539-billion-with-117.html

And so it was always felt that Apple would acquire Pinterest to deliver a Social site, but also because the style of Pinterest seemed very similar to Apple. It just made sense.

In fact, if rumours are true (and they're very strong, led by Business Insider), Apple are about to buy Pinterest lookalike, The Fancy. In some ways that's not fair comment because The Fancy has been there first (so the lookalike is actually Pinterest) but The Fancy is more like Ebay with better pictures. Kind of like an Instagram with a cart. No, I don't like it.

It's a shopping market site since, if you "fancy it", you can buy it. In today's crass world of monetisation, it does the job and with Jack Dorsey of Twitter fame, Eric Eisner (son of Disney's Michael Eisner), Chris Hughes (one of the 500 claimants as a Facebook co-founder) on the Board, it probably ticks all the investment boxes. But Pinterest it just ain't.

The Fancy is considered 2 years old and only has 20 employees yet the rumour is more than strong that Apple are about to acquire it. Apple CEO Tim Cook, notoriously social Media shy, opened a Fancy account and that started the guessing. Reportedly worth 100 million usd it's reported to be generating 10,000 usd a day in sales.

There's no doubt about Apple's need to get into the Social space - it will come and there's no doubt they have the cash to do it.

For me, The Fancy is not it. It's too small and too "commercey" to be able to scale more than it is. And it's just all too ugly.

I've no doubt on the rumours - I've heard them too much - but sometimes a company will do that in order to negate a target's value. In other words to show that it has plenty of options.

The Iphone 5 is due out on September 12 too (by all insider reports) and Apple have a lot riding on it, so it's a busy time to be looking at acquisitions just right now. Another reason I'm doubting it.

No, I think this is an Apple game.
Pinterest is the target.

Visa 100 million usd Olympic Sponsorship goes pear-shaped. Social Media backlash follows.

I was very taken by David Jones commenting on the BBC regarding Visa's sponsorship of the Olympics. David is CEO of Havas, a large multi-national ad Agency group.

Visa have paid 100m usd to sponsor both the Olympics since 2010 Winter Olympics and including the London games. I agree, a significant sponsorship.

But in return, Visa insisted that it was the only credit card with which you could buy tickets or that were acceptable as payment, at all Olympic venues. Visa actually replaced 27 ATM's at Olympic sites with 8 of their own.  

In David's view (and mine) a big mistake, because it irritated people who went to pay with other cards. Some were left unable to pay at all because they'd no Visa card. Presumably because Visa think that's a good result in forcing customers to get one! Whereas, the more likely result is that the customer will say that they never will! Those disappointed customers are already tweeting about it.

And Visa went to the trouble to "rub it in" by having Point of Sale material (as shown above) beside retailers saying "proud to accept only Visa"(!). A ridiculous twist and poor advice.

Ron Delnevo of the UK Payments Council said the move appeared to be designed to "compel those visiting Olympic venues to use only Visa cards. The Olympics are going to be cash-starved by design. This is plainly unacceptable in a world where 85 per cent-plus of all transactions continue to be made using cash.The Olympics do not belong to any sponsor, however much money they have paid for brand awareness" reported in The Telegraph.


It actually prompted a statement from The Office of Fair Trading in the UK which contained in summary;

Based on the OFT's initial assessment of the facts at its disposal, the OFT proposes not to open a formal investigation at this stage. This is because the OFT considers that the aspects of the sponsorship arrangements under consideration are unlikely to give rise to material consumer harm. Therefore, the OFT has decided not to prioritise this matter at this stage. However, it does not rule out investigating the matter in the future should there be any evidence of material consumer harm going forward.

Which doesn't help anyone and it would seem to anyone, that a restrictive sponsorship deal such as this one, is the antipathy of "fair trade". Anyway.

Peter Vicary-Smith, chief executive of Which?, according to The Guardian, on the other hand said: 

"We think it's outrageous that some UK sports fans should be discriminated against in this way. We want the London 2012 Committee to take steps to ensure there's a level playing field and that UK consumers have equal access to the Games, whether or not they are Visa cardholders. If it doesn't, we'll call on the government to step in."


Whilst everyone accepts that spending that kind of money is deserving of some direct 'return on investment', annoying people won't do it - despite the sponsor wanting certain rights. Visa's image has been prominent at the Olympics and it will be damaged over this.

As David Jones said;

"But to actually go to the extent of only allowing Visa payments to be made at the Olympic stadiums and sites, to remove all the other cash machines that are non-Visa actually starts to really annoy people.

"And there are lots of signs around the Olympic Park saying 'we are proud to only accept Visa'. This is so out of touch with what is in people's heads.

"My view would be that Visa will probably end up damaging themselves through what they have done, rather than enhancing the brand."

It has also meant the start of a Visa backlash on Social Media which doesn't just target Visa but also The Olympic Council who agreed to these restrictive deals. Rightly. Because if you take the sponsorship too far, it will ultimately damage the brand and Social Media is now the outlet to do that.

According to a Visa online statement;


Visa Inc. (NYSE: V), a proud and long-standing worldwide sponsor of the Olympic Games, today announced that it will extend its Olympic Games sponsorship for a period of eight years. 

In renewing its sponsorship, Visa will retain the rights it has enjoyed since 1986 and remain the exclusive payment services sponsor and the only card accepted at the four Olympic Games that follow London 2012 Olympic Games, including the 2014 Olympic Winter Games in Sochi, Russia, the 2016 Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, and the 2018 Olympic Winter Games and the 2020 Olympic Summer Games.


So it will go on until 2020. Pity.

Because Visa will ultimately suffer for such a restrictive deal.
They, like so many other large corporates, forget the power of Social.
Ask NBC.


(And as an aside-

David Jones also mentioned British Airways 'London Calling' as being the example of advertising for the games given that it asked people to stay at home and not to travel. 

"They kind of get the gold medal for understanding their target group - that people aren't going to be wanting to travel away when this amazing event is happening. And I think they show they actually get what is in people's heads."

I couldn't agree more and here it is if you're interested.
http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/06/bbh-new-british-airways-commercial-for.html

TuneIn. Internet Radio with 22 million in funding, 40 million monthly listeners, growing 267% pa, coming soon. Radio is changing.

 

TuneIn, the online radio service has just raised 16 million usd from VC's on foot of the 6m it has already raised.

It's using this capital to scale the business worldwide and in other words, bringing their station to local markets - such as Ireland + UK - and promoting it directly to advertisers. In the same way that Irish advertisers and UK ones can advertise in US online paper The Huff Post - media has become cross boundary, quickly.

TuneIn has 40m active users (listeners) a month and growing at a rate of 267% a year, by offering free access to 70,000 stations and unlimited programming. Stunning.

Irish stations 'Today FM', 'RTE', 'Newstalk', '104', 'Q102', 'Clare FM' are all there. And I noted 'play fm dublin', 'dublin coast guard', 'radio kerry', 'radio ri-ra', 'the freak', 'triplag', 'athr', 'beat', 'dublin city fm' and 'dublin physics live' are already there too (!) with some I hadn't heard of (triplag, athr, freak etc so good for them starting their own online radio presumably without the need for a licence or BAI interference. Breakthrough! And I hope existing stations start to demand their BAI money back because they can no longer police this). 

But so is everything you could possibly want to listen to. Global Sports being one clear winner.

It's almost back to the concept of 'portals'. And a recent study reported on the reliable Mashable reported that 42% of US households with internet access, listened to streamed radio. Of course, they also continue to listen to AM/FM but in the younger segments of 18-35's, it's in decline. They prefer to hear their radio online and with the advent of good, wireless streaming audio boxes it makes sense.

Internet streaming devices (as well as tablets and iphones) are replacing standard audio equipment and so, internet listening will increase and eventually, take over. It has to. As indeed TV will go exactly the same way.

I would imagine that a radio 'portal' idea like tunein is going to find some way to distribute its listeners (streams they're called) across various channels and then share that revenue. So you might buy a million streams in Dublin from the tunein sales office who in turn, will get some of these provided by RTE, Today FM, Play and so on because no single station can deliver solely that number of ads.

If that's the case, you now have stations sharing in advertiser revenue sold by tunein, rather than generating their own. RTE (Ireland's state broadcaster) no longer selling its own inventory? Interesting idea.

The development of internet radio is here and now starting to attract good funding. Online listening will grow (it has to) and will overtake AM/FM listenership. That's not even arguable.

So stations now need to promote their online offering (which generally here are so poor it's hard to believe) and encourage online listenership. They also need to forge alliances with large global players such as tunein.

Local radio stations need to get ready and get onboard.

The internet is coming.

Take heed from those who've ignored it in the past.

Have a look http://tunein.com/

NASA Mars Curiosity landed 531 GMT and broadcast online and a great success. Live link is here.

You'll forgive me a short blog because apart from it being a Bank Holiday weekend in Ireland, it's also that the Nasa "Curiosity" has landed on Mars today. Incredible.


So far, everything is looking good and pictures are already back. It was streamed live at 530am GMT and amazing to watch which shows the power of web broadcasting. This is one of the first pictures.

And some more

(The last one is a joke. Really.)
Amazing too that ironically today is Neil Amstrong's 83rd birthday.


It's a real pioneer project that's really been promoted and broadcast online.
Really a true internet project with plenty of youtube video and dedicated web followers. They're broadcasting live but it's so significant, they're broadcasting live to the big screens in Times Square NYC. Some saying this is the greatest space development since 1969.


You'll get it here in the NASA TV excellent website.
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

Having difficulty, try here http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv
Or here http://www.youtube.com/NASATelevision


It landed at 532 GMT but you'll find exactly where it is at any given time here http://eyes.nasa.gov/launch2.html?document=$SERVERURL/content/documents/msl/edl.xml but you'll need Java.


There was the infamous "7 minutes of terror" whilst they awaited to see if it all worked out, nearly 3 billion dollars later. It takes 14 minutes for a signal to reach Earth from Mars being 154 million miles away. It will then seek out of evidence of life on mars. I'm 100% sure they'll find George Burns giving a concert.


Curiosity will be investigating for 2 years and it's part of President Obama's pledge to put people on Mars. This will lead the way.


It is a triumph of man's science and engineering.
And a triumph of webcasting because you cannot see it live anywhere else.
And a triumph for America who lead the way in space.


Even if it all failed, it will have opened the door to the next explorers because every explorer in history, had a bad day. As someone wise once said, it's far better to have tried and failed, than not have tried at all.


So they had to take a risk with money and effort.


The world just changed. 

Advertising click fraud - PPC. Facebook controversy explodes.

 

  
PPC, per-per-click Advertising, or Click-thrus have always been a bone of contention but an interesting story (Scandal) is emerging from a digital company called 'Limited Run' in New York. It's about click fraud. And it's getting a lot of attention. Mashable are leading with the story today.


Limited Run, a platform for selling music and other stuff, noticed that only 20% of the Facebook clicks it was paying for, actually brought people to its site. But Facebook were charging for 100%. Whoa.

Being fairly smart online people, they ran several analytical tools and yep, could only confirm 15-20% of the clicks. So they looked at it more deeply themselves and found that the questionable 80% came from web browsers with their 'java script turned off/disabled'. A page logger, tracked every time a page was loaded so they knew what they were doing.


In the real world, only about 1-2% of browsers have their JavaScript disabled. So this made no sense. Or did it?

They were able to conclude that the clicks came from 'Bots', automated programmes designed especially to fraudently click on ads. Bots is short for Robots.

Because the more the ads are clicked, the more the advertiser is charged, the more revenue for the publisher. It's the essence of this type of online advertising and an accusation that no media provider would ever want to entertain. It cuts to the core of trust.


Not that they're accusing Facebook of automating clicks to drive up revenues - not at all, who would consider such a thing?? - but when they asked Facebook they were met with a wall of silence, they say. 

Except Facebook issued a statement to say that nearly all of their billable clicks had JavaScript enabled browsers. Which helps not.

So who was doing it then? And why? Because anybody except Facebook, couldn't make money from such activity. The controversy has gone viral.

With Facebook shares closing yesterday down 45% on their IPO price, it also revealed that nearly 9% of its accounts are "fake". Which in real terms is circa 83 million accounts! Bots, Fake Accounts.....wow.

The BBC, whom I think we all consider to be well regarded, also in a bit of an experiment, set up a Facebook page called 'VirtualBagel' to see what would happen. It was a nothing page, selling nothing, just made up to see what would happen.

They quickly got 1600 likes in 24 hours and then in a week, 3000. The interesting thing is that they seem to have come from "suspicious" profiles, largely 13-17 year old Egyptians. Because the more likes you get, the more encouraged you are, the more you invest, the more it works...provided the likes are real.


Who would do such a thing? Certainly not Facebook I'm sure. Automating clicks to generate revenue (which they badly need by the way having just shown a loss), generating likes to encourage brands, fake accounts...not a good week.

In 2005, Yahoo settled a 4.5 million usd suit where it was claimed that they "didn't do enough" to prevent click fraud. Google settled for 90 million usd in 2006 on a similar basis.

If it was true, it would mean that Website owners would simply earn money by automating clicks. Or third party companies would be paid to generate clicks on behalf of publishers like the infamous Bradley 'Google Clique' case in 2004.

Perish the thought.

Twitter suspends and unsuspends Independent journalist Guy Adams. Denver gunman "fans" (Holmies) are allowed to run amok on Social Media. Censorship dawns?

The decision by Twitter to suspend and then "unsuspend" journalist Guy Adams account, may have far reaching consequences.

Adams, who works with The London Independent (an excellent quality title) had tweeted his disgust over NBC's well publicised delayed Olympic coverage. I mention that here http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/nbc-olympics-and-way-brands-can-easily.html

In tweeting however, he suggested that other Twitterers, would email a NBC executive whose email he disclosed. Twitter stopped the account and then after deliberation, re-instated it on the basis that they had wrongly thought that the disclosure of an email address was a violation. 

However, two problems. One, is that it has been suggested as a consequence of doing this, that Twitter might pro-actively censor comments they just don't like. Perhaps comments about their advertisers? The Government? Mitt Romney? Who knows.

The second is that in fact NBC and Twitter had already agreed a business partnership to provide Olympic games coverage - so, the argument goes, the critic Guy Adams, was deleted for business reasons. There's some truth in that and it makes Twitter look real bad. Imagine a call from NBC to their man in their "partners", Twitter, saying, "we don't like this guy, take him down" and they do....Wow.

So the interest of a business partner may have taken precedence over Twitter trust. Dangerous stuff and Twitter is getting the backlash, rightly so.

However, on the other hand, censorship or control of Social Media is becoming a major issue. Most of us believe it's not controlled but......on the other hand...

The shooting in Colorado during The Dark Knight, seemingly by James Holmes, has led to the opposite - calls that favourable pro-Holmes comments should be taken down. "Supporters" (I kid you not) of James Holmes, calling themselves 'Holmies' started a Facebook page and quickly got 800 likes. It was taken down although Facebook say they're not sure "by whom" (because if it was Facebook, they'd hate to admit it since they'd be seen to do what Twitter did).

Holmies have taken over Tumblr instead. Users such as "freeholmes" and "jamesholmeslovr" are active. They encourage writing to Holmes, dye their hair the same red as he did and produce fan-zines.

YouTube now feature a video clip of The Holmies Anthem.

Outraged? Now there's the issue. 

We all consider that to be a horrific use of Social Media and just bewildering. There's a lot of strange people out there determined to cause upset on a grand scale though. You only have to look at standard YouTube comments which are mostly pretty horrible anyway.


So do you allow Guy Adams to Tweet and consequently have to leave The Holmies alone? Or what?

And if you're a publisher or broadcaster or brand online, do you leave comments unmoderated exposing yourself to defamation or criticism (remember the McDonalds disaster) or censor them causing upset?

The Web has been a free, unregulated space that allows people express themselves in whatever way they wish, within the law. And if you want a view... so it should remain.

And yes, that does mean leaving The Holmies alone to do what they want but the overiding benefit of freedom, will mean, hard as it is to accept, it will be worth it for all.

What we don't need is Twitter censoring journalists anymore.

They're going to be sorry they ever did.

Digital Libraries getting investment. It's an opportunity of a lifetime. The book version of itunes.

The advent of ebooks and online distribution has opened up a whole new world for libraries and indeed, for business.

The Digital Public Library of America has just announced an investment of 1 million usd to help make library materials available online. Now while this is intended as a public archive project, it symbolises what's going on with ebooks and libraries online.


Having books online, not only frees up the physical needs (and costs) of building libraries, but brings books to a whole new readership. It makes them easily accessible which has knock on effects of positive literacy (if that's how you spell it) never mind, bringing libraries into the digital age.


Simply, you could "borrow" or rent an ebook for say, 7 days and after that it's deleted from your reader. Not unlike if you buy an ebook by mistake, they can automatically delete it. Over Wifi or 3G, the library has control over your reader and it can automatically withdraw books. Something similar could be done commercially, no problem.


Now that's a magnificent opportunity commercially if it's not provided by the State or "goodwill" companies such as the Digital library of America. Imagine, for example, a "rent a book" website - not unlike the way you rent movies on itunes.

If you're a member of a library currently, you'll know the hassle of returning books and indeed, the issue with library admin in making sure that you do. With a digital library, all of those issues disappear. You're just renting the book until it's due back and when it is, it disappears. Plus renting a book will be significantly less expensive than buying it.


Plus you develop large groups of readers who'd like possibly to buy newspapers, magazines, accept ads from coffee shops and so on.

Copyright is of course an issue but already libraries work within that problem. Plus if a rent-a-book website is successful, it will drive publishers into it. In the same way that music publishers withheld support from itunes...until they couldn't because it became too strong to avoid.


Libraries loan you books, you read them, you return them. Nothing changes except it's all done online.

You can imagine too the improvements in Search, where finding your book is quick and efficient, without the need to call into your library and wander through shelf after shelf. Ordering books in advance is made easy too and membership is simple ecommerce enabled. A fee, paid online by debit/credit card.


It's likely that this will become a major hit, in my view and encourage people, to read, notably the young. Apart from that, it also means published works will be archived and available online forever - no more "out of print" for example.

"I love libraries" is on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/ILoveLibraries but with a relatively poor 43,000 likes. Pity.

Digital libraries make sense with the development of ebooks.
The only downside is that '50 shades' will be an even bigger hit.
Ah well, it will be worth it.

Twitter have banned LinkedIn. Now they ban Instagram. Instagram is owned by Facebook. Twitter is walking on dangerous ground.

 

 
Well Twitter are at it again.

Having pulled its API from LinkedIn last month (http://streamabout.blogspot.ie/2012/07/twitters-row-with-linkedin-is-about-ad.html,) thereby denying LinkedIn users the ability to post via Twitter, it has done it again. This time on Instagram.

It breaks the link between Twitter and Instagram.

What's interesting here is that at the time of the Twitter/LinkedIn announcement, a view circulated that Facebook was next to get the Twitter shove and Instagram is of course, owned by Facebook.

What Twitter are doing is to try and generate more cash, more revenue, by driving its users away from third party platforms and back onto the Twitter site itself. In doing that, it will generate more eyeballs and therefore, more advertising.

But the consequences could be high given that it seems to me anyway, as a trade between advertising dollars versus good user experience. Twitter users want to express themselves on third party sites, there's no doubt and now they can't.

Instagram is of course the darling of mobile. With 80 million users and over 4 billion photos shared, it's extraordinary growth in under 2 years for what is, a mobile only play. The 1 billion dollar acquisition by Facebook earlier this year will of course further Facebook integration and growth for Instagram which will leave Twitter out in the cold.

At the time, when Facebook paid, what was generally considered a high valuation, there was a feeling it was because there were two bidders. Subsequently I heard the other was Twitter and if this is a reaction to losing the bid, it's poor business. Forbes today have hinted at something similar.

What these Twitter moves are also doing is to aggravate the community - they'll have lost friends at Instagram and LinkedIn - not a good thing when it comes to Social Media, in return for a quick buck.


The internet started as, and always will be, an open network where things are shared and exchanged. Closed networks just don't work.

If Twitter maintains this stance and it says it is going to, it will open the opportunity for a copycat that will allow third party access. And those third parties (like LinkedIn, like Instagram) will not only adopt the copycat but make damn sure their users in turn, know all about it. Twitter will then be faced with the power of competitors.

Twitter is walking on dangerous ground.

NBC, The Olympics and the way brands can easily lose control on Social Media.

One of the real issues around Social, is the loss of control you have for your brand. When you get it wrong, you have critics everywhere and even anonymously, who will spread that criticism far and wide and quickly. It can destroy you overnight.


You have to be real careful.


I was also looking at YouTube and note the amount of brands that keep their comments open. In other words by letting anyone comment on their channel. Abercrombie + Fitch do that.....and more of that later. Equally Irish national brands are leaving themselves open to libel.


But firstly NBC, one of America's largest broadcaster who made the news recently when they divorced from Microsofts online joint venture MSNBC
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4671466363911057753#editor/target=post;postID=3087600761229729716

What's happened to NBC to begin a tirade against them was the Olympics Opening ceremony. They seemingly promised to stream it live and didn't. Secondly they did stream USA swimmer Ryan Lochte but on a delay...however people thought they were seeing it live (it's more expensive to show programming live). So you're watching the man swim live (you think) and then you start getting the result texted to you?


That race also featured US legend Michael Phelps (coming in fourth) but witholding it from live broadcasting because they felt they could make more ad money by showing it later, is unforgiveable.


They didn't show Kobe and the USA dream team basketball opener beating France (but way too close of a game I thought?) - instead opting to show Women's cycling.


One reason, apart from just poor planning, is that by carrying key sporting moments at prime times rather than "live", they generate more media advertising. Old media rules not suited to a new world.


The coverage on their website + Apps has no commentary either which for most of us, without a clue who's good in the 100 metres or the Dressage, is fairly useless. If ever commentary was needed, it's at The Olympics.


The hashtag that has been set up is (hash)nbcfail.


NBC Producers are going onto the hashtag to answer the critics but frankly fruitlessly. Piers Morgan, UK "Larry King" chat show host, was one of the Twitter critics, complaining about not being able to see the opening ceremony.


Promises unkept is the problem and that does not go down well on Social Media.


Without a doubt, only three days in and NBC has already lost its Olympic audience. As well as breeding a new groundswell of critics. YouTube is also fundamentally that platform too - if you allow comments.


This is the infamous 10 million Abercrombie + Fitch "Call me maybe" video (yeah, I know and no I'm not). If you look into the recent comments, they're pretty worrying - definitely sexist, probably racist and certainly homophobic. Abercrombie + Fitch is taking a chance here on their channel on YouTube allowing unmoderated comments.

Critics will use Social media freely and my great friends at Irish broadcasting, should watch their YouTube channel. All you need is one little bit of libel and it could prove expensive.


Social Media means you can lose control of your brand and endanger it long term.


NBC are learning that in what should have been their flagship week.

(Update Today- Techcrunch, the influential blog, have started a campaign to ask people not to watch The Olympics on NBC. http://techcrunch.com/2012/07/28/please-dont-watch-nbc-tonight-or-any-night/ . It gets out of hand so easily...)










(And a better hetreosexual version of call me maybe that started the whole thing. Well, you know, just for balance.

Or The Miami Dolphin Cheerleaders....it's going on and on and on....)