Whoring it up in the land of Blogs …

While at work I came across the following brief from the Associated Press about payola in the land of blog.

A company that helps advertisers connect with bloggers willing to write about their products for payment will now require disclosures amid criticism and a regulatory threat.

Before this week, advertisers were barred by PayPerPost Inc. from telling bloggers they can’t disclose the sponsorship, but bloggers were able to decide on their own whether or not to do so. Under the new policy, bloggers must disclose that they are accepting payment, either in the write-up or in a general disclosure policy on the blogger’s Web journal.

“Ever since we launched, there’s been a lot of controversy about disclosure,” said Ted Murphy, PayPerPost’s chief executive.

Besides other bloggers questioning the ethics of receiving payments without disclosure, the Federal Trade Commission said in a Dec. 7 staff opinion that failure to disclose could, in some cases, violate consumer-protection laws on deception. The FTC did not single out PayPerPost or say whether it would launch any investigation.

David Sifry, founder of the blog search site Technorati, praised PayPerPost’s move.

“Overall, this is an encouraging and long-awaited change,” he said. “I think that people have learned that without trust, all posts become suspect. … By encouraging honesty and transparency in sponsored posts, PayPerPost adds (some) clarity to the waters they muddied when they launched six months ago.”

PayPerPost lets advertisers tell bloggers about word-of-mouth marketing opportunities such as a new gadget or shoe. Advertisers set a price of $5 or more per post, and willing bloggers respond. The better the price, the more quickly spots fill up. The Orlando, Fla., company brokers the payments.

Bloggers are free to trash products or write neutral reviews, but advertisers can specify whether they pay only for positive write-ups.

Advertisers include News Corp.’s Speed Channel and OfficeMax Inc., Murphy said.

PayPerPost may lose some advertisers with its new policy but believes the transparency will be better in the long term, Murphy said.

“Your bigger advertisers, clients that we really want to go after, the Fortune 500, the Fortune 1000, we saw they were requiring disclosure anyway,” he said.

TIME says we ALL rule!

Just by typing this blurb I am part of the lot named as TIME’s “Person of the Year.” The magazine honored “citizens of the new digital democracy, as the magazine put it. The winners this year were anyone using or creating content on the World Wide Web.”

Estonia rules!

Here is an excerpt of an AP report about The W’s stop in Estonia …

Bush received two gifts from his Estonian hosts: a glass sculpture and a Skype wireless phone that can be used to make calls over the Internet.

The country is often nicknamed “E-Stonia” for its booming high-tech industry, and it is the main hub of Skype, the Internet telephone company that eBay bought last year for $2.6 billion.

If the phone and accompanying headset Bush received illustrated Estonia’s technological savvy, the other one represented its yearning for light during the dark winter months.

Titled “Northern Light,” the sculpture symbolizes “the Nordic freshness and crispness, the longing for light during lasting dark periods, strength of purpose and perseverance,” the Estonian government said.

real interactive communications

Boo on me for note being here for a while … work, life, etc., but that’s no excuse.

As we all discuss what interactive communications is all about, here’s a great example of how today’s technology has allowed a group of people with a common interest come together to share with and support each other.

Click here

Don’t read this, it’s private!

Writer’s Note: A few years ago I was working in a newsroom when a member of the Associated Press released an AP phone list. I can’t recall if it was a disgruntled employee or just an incompetent one, but the names on this list made Paris Hilton’s Sidekick seem like a discarded bar napkin. There before me were 10-digits of dialing in a column next to names like Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Willie Mays, George W. Bush (Crawford, Texas not The White House) and others. Moments after we started discussing who on this list would become our next phone friend it was over. The AP moved a request that the file be killed from all member databases and files. Ahh, but we already had a paper copy (or two … or three) so they could keep their digital file and kill it all they wanted. I didn’t dial any of the numbers on the list that I admit to holding onto for a few days in my desk drawer. And, I’d like to think it was some ethical epiphany that kept me from racking up long-distance charges to the stars, but honesty compels me to admit it was fear. The only number I really wanted to dial was that one in Crawford, Texas, but I knew nothing good would come out of it.

Can you keep a secret? Well, I can’t. I’m terrible at it, but I hide behind the claim that I’m a professional gossip. Yes, that’s right, a journalist. It’s my job to tell people your–that’s a collective your–business. You know the best way to keep something secret (other than taping my mouth shut)? DON’T TELL ANYONE! Unfortunately in today’s world that becomes more and more difficult. Sure, it’s easy to keep aspects of our lives private or semi-private, but keeping personal data private isn’t so easy. Think how many websites you log onto in a given day. How many of those sites recognize you (meaning your computer) when you arrive? Well, our digital footprint grows every day and we shouldn’t have to pay to keep it contained.

Where do you keep your most private stuff? No, I’m not asking about your “adult” stuff, but you’re private stuff. You know, your passport, mortgage or lease, pay stubs, birth certificate … all that good stuff. When I was growing up my Dad (he’s more of a “Dad” guy than a “Father” guy … which is a good thing!) kept our important papers in a lockable box. That seemed pretty safe back in the day, but facing today’s technology, a lock and key just isn’t going to cut it. How much of your most important data (bank account info, credit card data, car loan, cell phone bill) is available online? Well, there’s really no way to shove all that into a box to ensure someone isn’t going to make off with it.

Shaprio’s “Privacy for Sale” was a bit of a wake-up call … even though I thought I paid pretty close attention to my private stuff (adult and all). The mention that “privacy could emerge as a market commodity” and to label such a prospect as “intriguing” is surreal (Shapiro; 1999; Page 159). The idea that privacy could be something bought or sold much like Professor Halavais’ examples of other commodities like flour and salt is unnerving, not intriguing. Flour is flour. Salt is salt. Privacy is, well, not flour and salt. “We do not buy and sell civil liberties,” University of Washington professor Philip Bereano is quoted as saying in Shapiro’s piece (Shapiro; 1999; Page 163). But it appears that’s what we are headed for.

The privacy market may soon be booming. Retailers have been tracking our online behaviors for years. Before they were tracking our online footprints they were following our purchasing habits and any other piece, nay scrap, of data they could find. If you subscribed to Time magazine a certain set of direct-mail pieces would soon be cluttering your mailbox. How naïve we were! The phone would ring during dinner and someone from a company we didn’t do business with was trying to sell us a product that we didn’t want. “How did they get our number,” we would ask as we returned to our now lukewarm meal. Those telemarketers and direct-mail marketers found us because someone sold us out. This behavior became a new way for companies to make money … selling data.

“Marketers can follow every aspect of our lives, from the fist phone call we make in the morning to the time our security system says we have left the house, to the video camera at the toll booth and the charge slip we have for lunch.” – President Bill Clinton (Shapiro; 1999; Page 158)

If you have any doubt how we are constantly being bought and sold, check out the new book by Douglas B. Sosnik, Matthew J. Dowd and Ron Fournier entitled Applebee’s America. This trio details how the data trail you leave behind is used to sell you everything from bottled water to presidents. And they know because they’ve done it. Sosnik did it for Clinton. Dowd did it for Bush. And Fournier does it online. The question is now: where does it end?

I can’t believe I’m going to reference a Will Smith movie, but … there’s a line in Enemy of the State where Gene Hackman or Jon Voight says that the only privacy we have left is what’s in our head. Well, if companies start selling security levels as Shapiro writes, that may be true (Shapiro; 1999; Page 160). The bigger problem arises when someone can’t afford to keep their personal information secret. “Customers who can’t afford these premiums will be left more exposed simply by dint of economic disadvantage,” Shapiro writes.

P.S. — Just for kicks, take a look at your “past search history” and think about what someone would think of you if they saw it, as William Cohen mentions in Katie Hafner’s piece. Now, how much would you pay to keep that secret? (Did you click on The White House link in the editor’s note?)

Glaser, M. (2004). On the wild, woolly internet, old ethics rules do apply. Online journalism review. August 8.

Shapiro, A.L. (1999). Privacy for Sale (pp. 158-165). The control revolution. New York: Perseus.

Hafner, K. (2006, August 23). Researchers yearn to use AOL logs, but they hesitate. New York Times.

Oh captain my captain …

I’m not sure everyone’s up for standing on desks and all, but here’s a tip of the hat to Prof Alex who was featured in The New Haven Register.

“I think anyone using Wikipedia has to be skeptical about the content, but people should be skeptical about all the content they read,” said Alexander Halavais a professor of interactive communications at Quinnipiac University.

dvd freedom

Anyone looking for HD-DVD or Blue Ray info … here you go!

you got your media in my peanut butter, I got my peanut butter in your media …

To be honest, I like my media like my peanut butter … crunchy. I don’t want some store-brand peanut butter slapped on a couple slices of Wonder Bread and stuffed into a sandwich bag. Nope, I want something that’s going to stick to the roof of my mouth and is, at times, a little tough to swallow. To be honest, I don’t just want a peanut butter sandwich. I want choices when I’m deciding about dinner. I’m never sure what I’m in the mood for until the time comes around and I’m equally unsure how I want to consume my media … I just want to help out in the kitchen.

I’m not looking for the Emeril Lagasse of media. (The truth is that I’d probably kick someone in the teeth if they yelled “BAM!” every time they posted to their blog or filed a story.) But I do want someone who knows how to cook and someone who isn’t afraid to spice things up a little. Basically, I want a media bouillabaisse that I can help cook. As Jenkins quoted French cybertheorist Pierre Levy: “None of us can know everything; each of us knows something; and we can put the pieces together if we pool our resources and combine our skills” (Jenkins; 2006; P. 4). Continuing with the restaurant theme, what do you think would happen if you walked into the kitchen and told the chef you wanted to help prep the meal? It’s likely that you’d be shown the door. Well, the same thing would probably happen if you walked into any major media outlet’s newsroom. Now, think about restaurants that have a B.Y.O.B. policy. The chef and owner want you to bring in your favorite wine and add it to the mix. They want you to use their dinner as the centerpiece and allow you to accent it. This is how most media outlets view user-generated content. Newspapers and tv stations won’t let you in the kitchen, but it’s okay if you want to bring the wine. But what happens when you don’t like your dinner?

The attitude of traditional media outlets is, “you’ll eat what’s on your plate or you don’t get any dessert.” Now that we can cook our own meals and don’t have to settle for whatever slop these mass media cafeterias are slapping on our plates, but they’re still going to try to force-feed us their cooking. In is lecture Felton described the backlash against Sony when the electronics company introduced the VCR. They were threatened with lawsuits because they allowed users to record copyrighted material. As emerging media platforms like YouTube flush out, traditional “media barons” will continue to attempt to hold onto their “centralized empires” (Jenkins; 2006; P. 5). Companies, regardless of the industry, will always attempt to hold onto their stake, their claim. The difference is that we’re in the midst of a transition. As this tipping point approaches, media professionals and novices are attempting to figure out what’s next. As Jenkins wrote, this “age of media transition” brings “mixed signals and competing interests” (Jenkins; 2006; P. 11).

In some ways it’s okay for media companies to hold on, especially to what belongs to them. By that I mean their content, their products, their work … not the notion that the audience is divinely theirs. I’ve heard people in the media business make cracks about free speech; they’d say it’s not free because someone pays for the press. Now, without the need to fork out piles of cash to purchase a printing press in order to reach an audience, the value isn’t the expensive press, but creative product. The person or company producing that content should be able to protect their original creations and anyone who uses it, retools it, retouches it—or anything else—should have to credit its source and get permission before using it. Is this likely? Probably not.

Jenkins, H. (2006). Introduction: “Worship at the alter of convergence” (pp. 1-24). Convergence Culture. New York: NYU Press.

Felton, E. (2004). Rip, mix, burn, sue: Technology, politics, and the fight to control digital media. Princeton University President’s Lecture Series, no. 1.

Damn you Google!

As if Ed Crowder and I weren’t already bracing for the pending death of the newspaper as we know it, your friendly-neighborhood Google decides to add a little pressure to the boot other media has planted on newspapers’ collective neck.

music you can … um … read?

I know that New York Times bashing is en vogue but I’ve never wanted to be part of that crowd.

It’s not the paper’s Lefty slant that’s got me upset, it’s the fact that they strive to lead on anything obscure, but will let the basics fall by.

Check out this story on the CMJ (College Media Journal) convention.

The author pounds away at the keyboard in an effort to craft the setting of bands on the cusp of breaking … some trying too hard (“At the CMJ showcases, some bands were still aiming for careers in current mass-market rock. They were the ones slavishly imitating Fall Out Boy’s punk-pop hooks and making music-video rock-star faces.”) and some just playing.

Why not SHOW us the scene. Take a freakin’ camera in there and talk to these bands, show them backstage, show them on the stage, show them doing anything and everything they do. Obviously there are copyright concerns with uploading mp3 files, but couldn’t the nytimes.com stafff simply offer us links to these bands so we could hear them for ourselves?

Instead, the only link in the story is to MySpace … WOW … MySpace … good thing they told us how to get there!

Editor’s note: I apologize for linking to Fall Out Boy’s website!!! Also, didn’t link to MySpace out of protest.