However, my article is not really as much about Yelp as it is about defending online advertising, which the article in question attacks with a vengeance. In essence, the article paints a picture of online advertising where all ads should be sold for 60 cent CPMs regardless of whether they are geo and industry targeted or provide branding with prominent placement. Don’t charge too much or you might be accused of being a “rip off”!

Additionally, the article attacks the very core of online advertising by stating, “”For online advertising, I strongly recommend against commitments and impression-based advertising.” In short, the article advocates that all advertising be priced like Google Adwords and Facebook ads or similar. As marketers know, online advertising is more than just clicks. It’s about reaching your potential customers and pay per click (PPC) advertising isn’t the only way to go about that.

>>> Do you feel that Yelp is a rip off? Do you believe that all online advertising should be cost per click (CPC)? What is your experience with online advertising, good or bad? Comment Here…

Let’s give this article a proper dissection:

1. The article states, “At a time when much online advertising is being sold for 60 cents per thousand impressions (CPMs), Yelp is charging some local advertisers $600 per 1,000 impressions. That’s not a typo. Yelp is charging small businesses 1,000-times the standard online CPM rates for local ads that appear on Yelp.”.

This simply doesn’t make sense to anyone who has experience in online advertising. Sixty cent CPM’s are NOT the standard online rates for local ads. That is a rock bottom rate that large ad sellers charge for non-targeted inventory. To get placement on a premium site that is geo targeted with a very specific industry niche, advertisers will pay substantially more, even a $600 CPM. Sometimes much less, but certainly not a measly 60 cents!

2. The article states, “Now consider the types of local Yelp ads that small businesses buy: In this scenario, the ad goes to the advertiser’s Yelp review page. That’s a page where users are free to leave any kind of review for the business, including ones that trash it. That ad runs about a $600 CPM.”

What about TripAdvisor or Urbanspoon? The concept of reviewing restaurants or other businesses does not make paying for a premium placement a bad decision. Obviously, a business should make sure they are providing a great service and excellent product before advertising. However, it is pretty naive to believe that it’s somehow stupid to pay top dollar for a highly targeted ad spot on Yelp simply out of fear that someone could “trash” your business. As businesses in the service industry know, review sites and apps like Yelp can drive significant new business for free and it seems to me that paying for that top placement might even drive more business.

3. The article states, “It’s common for more targeted inventory, such as the type that Yelp provides, to command higher CPMs. But triple-digit CPMs are extremely unusual.”

At least the article finally acknowledges that targeted ads are worth more than untargeted ads. However, the assumption that it is “extremely unusual” to charge over $100 CPM’s and therefore makes Yelp a rip off is inaccurate. Ad spots are priced based on demand for those spots by advertisers and obviously Yelp has more demand than they can deliver for many of those top spots on review pages. There is good reason for this – businesses want to be the dominant brand in their service category in their locality. To many businesses, that is worth paying a premium and they don’t consider themselves “ripped off”. If you own Rory Lake’s Karaoke Dreams in Chicago, you want to be the featured listing for “Nightlife in Chicago”. Rory is not making that decision because of a high or low CPM, he is spending cash with Yelp because he wants to be the dominant brand in the nightlife category. He wants everybody that uses Yelp to at least consider stopping by Rory Lake’s Karaoke Dreams. All advertising isn’t about the cost, sometimes it’s simply about the exposure, despite the price.

4. The article states, “At the high end, it’s a $600 CPM. At the low end, that’s a still eye-popping $367 CPM — more than 10-times the rate of a Super Bowl ad.”

Is the writer suggesting that no ad should cost more on a CPM basis than Super Bowl ads? Super Bowl ads are by their very nature only loosely targeted, skewing somewhat more male and youthful, but not much more targeted than that. After all, Super Bowl 2012 set a record as the most-watched television show in U.S. history because almost everybody from young kids to Grandma watched it. Again, targeting increases the value for advertisers and thus increases the cost. Yelp is not only targeting by business type, it is also targeting by geo location. This adds significant value over a Super Bowl ad on a CPM basis. Not to mention that with a Super Bowl ad, a business that spends $3.5 million for a 30 second spot deserves a little CPM discount.

5. The article states, “To make matters worse, Yelp requires a 12-month commitment for these rates. Even if Yelp doesn’t deliver your business a single customer, you’re on the hook for $3,600.”

Paying $3,600 to be the top position on a popular site and app like Yelp for your business category and in your locality is a deal if your business needs branding. It’s about being in the right spot at the right time in order to attract customers. As with all advertising, the hope is for all new customers to become regular customers, thus paying for the cost of your Yelp ad. If you’re a donut shop, would you want your competitor’s shop to be at the top of Yelp or would you consider paying to make sure you are? Additionally, advertisers on Yelp are reaching potential customers that have only one reason to use yelp; to purchase a product from them or their competitor. With that in mind, a $3,600 fee to reach real potential customers rather than just Facebook clickers can be a great deal.

6. The article states, “For comparison, Facebook only requires that you set your budget to $1 a day and does not have a commitment. A business could try it for a week, see if it performs and then decide.”

It is very misleading to say Facebook only requires $1 a day, since if that’s your budget you will not even get one single impression of your ad run on Facebook. To be fair, Facebook is a cheaper alternative for advertisers. However, to be fair to Yelp, it is not even remotely comparative. Facebook clicks range from around 50 cents to $3, but the targeting and volume of clicks would not match Yelp’s in my experience. Facebook allows targeting by location and interest. However, the interest is based on people’s selection in their profile or what they have “liked.” It’s not all that scientific because if I “liked” a restaurant on Facebook, it does not mean I would click a different restaurant’s ad in the future. That’s why Facebook ads are not great for micro targeting and Yelp ads most certainly are!

7. The article states, “I cannot think of any scenarios where I would advise businesses to advertise on Yelp at these rates.”

I can think of a very good reason … branding. As a business owner I want my business to be the most noticed in my category and location. I don’t want my competitors to be. I understand as a business owner that many businesses also want to be at the top of Yelp categories, so I am willing to pay a premium for my business to be there instead of theirs.

8. The article states, “For online advertising, I strongly recommend against commitments and impression-based advertising.”

Actually, many businesses desire to effectively reach their targeted potential customers and that Facebook and Google are not always the best way to do this. Really, should all online advertising be cost per click? Advertisers, such as WebProNews or Yelp value their audiences and have limited space in which to allow businesses to also reach their valued audiences. Those targeted audiences are worth way more than 60 cents per thousand impressions or a few cents a click. For a sponsor to lock up ad space for them to reach their potential customers and potentially keep their competitors out of that space requires a “commitment” with the publisher and is worth paying a premium CPM. Just ask the advertisers on Yelp, WebProNews or even VentureBeat.

The article mentioned Super Bowl advertising earlier… exactly how many people clicked those CPM ads?

>> Discuss the article with Rich Ord and other commentors in the comments section….

Anthony Ha quotes CEO Jeff Weiner as saying the company is ready to “start to introduce advertising in our mobile solutions”.

“Ready,” to me, indicates sooner rather than later, but we’ll see.

LinkedIn has already seen impressive revenue growth, and mobile ads would add another healthy layer, no doubt. At $167.7 million, the company saw a 105% increase in revenue for the fourth quarter compared to 2010. For the entire year 2011, revenue increased 115% to $522.2 million (from $243.1 million). LinkedIn hasn’t even been public for a year yet.

LinkedIn became much more usable on mobile devices last year, when the company launched a major update to its apps:

Even by the time that was released, the company claimed it had already seen a 400% year-over-year increase in mobile pageviews.

It’s probably about time LinkedIn started making more money from the mobile experience.

The company saw a 105% increase in revenue for the fourth quarter compared to the same period last year. Q4 revenue was $167.7 million, up from last year’s $81.7 million.

For the entire year 2011, revenue increased 115% to $522.2 million (from $243.1 million).

“Q4 once again exceeded our expectations for member engagement and business growth. It was a fitting end to a memorable year in which we reinforced our position as the pre-eminent professional network on the web,” said CEO Jeff Weiner. “We believe continued focus on our members and technology infrastructure positions us well for accelerated product innovation in 2012.”

The company went public last year.

Here’s the release in its entirety:

Mountain View, Calif. — February 9, 2012 – LinkedIn Corporation (NYSE: LNKD), the world’s largest professional network on the Internet with more than 150 million members, today reported its financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended December 31, 2011:

• Revenue for the fourth quarter was $167.7 million, an increase of 105% compared to $81.7 million for the fourth quarter of 2010
• Net income for the fourth quarter was $6.9 million, compared to net income of $5.3 million for the fourth quarter of 2010; Non-GAAP net income for the fourth quarter was $13.3 million, compared to $5.2 million for the fourth quarter of 2010. Non-GAAP measures exclude tax-affected stock-based compensation expense and tax-affected amortization of acquired intangible assets
• Adjusted EBITDA for the fourth quarter was $34.4 million, or 21% of revenue, compared to $16.3 million for the fourth quarter of 2010, or 20% of revenue
• GAAP EPS for the fourth quarter was $0.06; Non-GAAP EPS for the fourth quarter was $0.12
• For the full year 2011, revenue increased 115% to $522.2 million from $243.1 million.  GAAP EPS increased to $0.11 from $0.07 and Non-GAAP EPS increased to $0.35 from $0.24.  Adjusted EBITDA increased to $98.7 million from $48.0 million

“Q4 once again exceeded our expectations for member engagement and business growth.  It was a fitting end to a memorable year in which we reinforced our position as the pre-eminent professional network on the web,” said Jeff Weiner, CEO of LinkedIn. “We believe continued focus on our members and technology infrastructure positions us well for accelerated product innovation in 2012.”

Fourth Quarter Financial Details and Operating Summary
LinkedIn reported revenue of $167.7 million for the quarter ended December 31, 2011, an increase of 105% compared to the fourth quarter of 2010, and the 6th straight quarter of greater than 100% year-over-year growth.

• Hiring Solutions: Revenue from Hiring Solutions products totaled $84.9 million, an increase of 136% compared to the fourth quarter of 2010. Hiring Solutions revenue represented 50% of total revenue in the fourth quarter of 2011, compared to 44% in the fourth quarter of 2010.
• Marketing Solutions: Revenue from Marketing Solutions products totaled $49.5 million, an increase of 77% compared to the fourth quarter of 2010. Marketing Solutions revenue represented 30% of total revenue in the fourth quarter of 2011, compared to 34% in the fourth quarter of 2010.
• Premium Subscriptions: Revenue from Premium Subscriptions products totaled $33.3 million, an increase of 87% compared to the fourth quarter of 2010. Premium Subscriptions represented 20% of total revenue in the fourth quarter of 2011, compared to 22% in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Revenue from the U.S. totaled $112.0 million, and represented 67% of total revenue in the fourth quarter of 2011. Revenue from international markets totaled $55.8 million, and represented 33% of total revenue in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Revenue from the field sales channel totaled $95.8 million, and represented 57% of total revenue in the fourth quarter of 2011. Revenue from the online, direct sales channel totaled $71.9 million, and represented 43% of total revenue in the fourth quarter of 2011.

GAAP net income for the fourth quarter was $6.9 million, compared to net income of $5.3 million for the fourth quarter of 2010. Non-GAAP net income for the fourth quarter was $13.3 million, compared to $5.2 million in the fourth quarter of 2010.

Adjusted EBITDA was $34.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2011, or 21% of revenue, compared to $16.3 million in the fourth quarter of 2010, or 20% of revenue.

GAAP EPS was $0.06 based on 108.6 million fully-diluted weighted shares outstanding compared to $0.03 for the fourth quarter of 2010 based on 49.4 million fully-diluted weighted shares outstanding; Non-GAAP EPS was $0.12 based on 108.6 million fully-diluted weighted shares outstanding compared to $0.05 for the fourth quarter of 2010 based on 95.0 million fully-diluted weighted shares outstanding.

“LinkedIn grew over 100% for the sixth consecutive quarter and posted all-time high adjusted EBITDA,” said Steve Sordello, CFO of LinkedIn.  “Our fourth quarter results underscore the company’s success in 2011, which saw revenue and adjusted EBITDA more than double.  In 2012, we will continue to invest in our product, engineering, and sales infrastructure to capitalize on our long-term opportunity.”

For additional information, please see the “Selected Company Metrics and Financials” page, updated through the end of the fourth quarter of 2011, on LinkedIn’s Investor Relations site.

Fourth Quarter Highlights and Strategic Announcements

• LinkedIn completed the latest phase of the re-architecture of its software development and deployment process, known internally as InVersion, which is the foundation for accelerated product innovation in 2012.
• LinkedIn continued its international expansion and localization with the addition of three new offices (Tokyo, Japan; Bangalore, India; and Sao Paulo, Brazil), and five new languages (Japanese, Swedish, Indonesian, Malay, and Korean.) 
• At its Talent Connect conference in October, LinkedIn announced Talent Pipeline, a new solution that allows recruiters and hiring managers to manage, track, and stay in touch with active and passive candidates, regardless of source. Talent Pipeline is currently in pilot testing phase with select Hiring Solutions customers.
• LinkedIn unveiled two new offerings for Marketing Solutions customers at Connect:11 in October. Company Status Updates and the Certified Developer Program give brands more powerful ways to connect and engage with LinkedIn members. 

Business Outlook
As of today, LinkedIn is providing guidance for the first quarter of 2012 and for the full year 2012 on revenue, adjusted EBITDA, depreciation and amortization, and stock-based compensation. 

• Q1 FY12 Guidance: Revenue for the first quarter of 2012 is projected to be in the range of $170 million to $175 million. For the first quarter of 2012, the company expects to report adjusted EBITDA of $25 million to $27 million. The company expects depreciation and amortization in the range of $15 million to $17 million, and stock-based compensation in the range of $13 million to $14 million.
• Full Year FY12 Guidance: Revenue for the full year of 2012 is projected to be in the range of $840 million to $860 million. For the full year of 2012, the company expects to report adjusted EBITDA of $155 million to $165 million. The company expects depreciation and amortization in the range of $70 million to $80 million, and stock-based compensation in the range of $65 million to $75 million.

Quarterly Conference Call
LinkedIn plans to host a webcast/conference call to discuss its fourth quarter 2011 financial results and business outlook today at 2:00 p.m. Pacific Time. Jeff Weiner and Steve Sordello will host the webcast, which can be viewed on the investor relations section of the LinkedIn website at http://investors.linkedin.com/. This call will contain forward-looking statements and other material information regarding the company’s financial and operating results. Following completion of the call, a recorded replay of the webcast will be available on the website. For those without access to the Internet, a replay of the call will be available beginning at 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on February 9, 2012 through February 16, 2012 at 9:00 p.m. Pacific Time. To listen to the telephone replay, call (855) 859-2056, access code 45016554.

Upcoming Events
Management will participate in upcoming financial Q&A discussions at investment industry events on February 14th, February 27th, and March 13th.  LinkedIn will furnish a link to these events on its investor relations website, http://investors.linkedin.com/for both the live and archived webcasts.

About LinkedIn 
Founded in 2003, LinkedIn connects the world’s professionals to make them more productive and successful. With more than 150 million members worldwide, including executives from every Fortune 500 company, LinkedIn is the world’s largest professional network on the Internet. The company has a diversified business model with revenue coming from member subscriptions, marketing solutions and hiring solutions. Headquartered in Silicon Valley, LinkedIn has offices across the globe.

Non-GAAP Financial Measures
To supplement its consolidated financial statements, which are prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP, the company uses the following non-GAAP financial measures: adjusted EBITDA, non-GAAP net income, and non-GAAP EPS (collectively the “non-GAAP financial measures”). The presentation of this financial information is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for, or superior to, the financial information prepared and presented in accordance with GAAP. The company uses these non-GAAP financial measures for financial and operational decision making and as a means to evaluate period-to-period comparisons. The company believes that they provide useful information about operating results, enhance the overall understanding of past financial performance and future prospects, and allow for greater transparency with respect to key metrics used by management in its financial and operational decision making. 

The company excludes the following items from one or more of its non-GAAP measures:

Stock-based compensation. The company excludes stock-based compensation because it is non-cash in nature and because the company believes that the non-GAAP financial measures excluding this item provide meaningful supplemental information regarding operational performance and liquidity. The company further believes this measure is useful to investors in that it allows for greater transparency to certain line items in its financial statements and facilitates comparisons to competitors’ operating results.

Amortization of acquired intangible assets. The company excludes amortization of acquired intangible assets because it is non-cash in nature and because the company believes that the non-GAAP financial measures excluding this item provide meaningful supplemental information regarding operational performance and liquidity. In addition, excluding this item from various non-GAAP measures facilitates internal comparisons to historical operating results and comparisons to competitors’ operating results. 

Income tax effect of non-GAAP adjustments. Excluding the income tax effect of non-GAAP adjustments from the provision for income taxes assists investors in understanding the tax provision related to those adjustments and the effective tax rate related to ongoing operations.

Assumed preferred stock conversion. As a result of the company’s initial public offering, all outstanding shares of preferred stock were automatically converted into shares of Class B common stock. Consequently, non-GAAP diluted net income per share has been calculated assuming the conversion of all outstanding shares of preferred stock into shares of Class B common stock. 

For more information on the non-GAAP financial measures, please see the “Reconciliation of GAAP to non-GAAP Financial Measures” table in this press release.  This accompanying table has more details on the GAAP financial measures that are most directly comparable to non-GAAP financial measures and the related reconciliations between these financial measures. Additionally, the company has not reconciled adjusted EBITDA guidance to net income guidance because it does not provide guidance for other income (expense) and provision for income taxes, which are reconciling items between net income (loss) and adjusted EBITDA. As items that impact net income (loss) are out of the company’s control and/or cannot be reasonably predicted, the company is unable to provide such guidance. Accordingly, a reconciliation to net income (loss) is not available without unreasonable effort.

Safe Harbor Statement 
“Safe Harbor” statement under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995: This press release contains forward-looking statements about our products, including plans for 2012 and our Talent Pipeline product, our planned investments in key strategic areas, and our expected financial metrics such as revenue, adjusted EBITDA, depreciation and amortization and stock-based compensation for the first quarter of 2012 and the full fiscal year 2012. The achievement or success of the matters covered by such forward-looking statements involves risks, uncertainties and assumptions.  If any such risks or uncertainties materialize or if any of the assumptions prove incorrect, the company’s results could differ materially from the results expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements the company makes.

The risks and uncertainties referred to above include – but are not limited to – risks associated with: the company’s short operating history in a new and unproven market; engagement of its members; the price volatility of our Class A common stock, including in connection with the release of any restrictions on trading in the company’s stock; general economic conditions; expectations regarding the return on our strategic investments; execution of our plans and strategies; expectations regarding the company’s ability to timely and effectively scale and adapt existing technology and network infrastructure to ensure that its website is accessible at all times with short or no perceptible load times; security measures and the risk that the company’s website may be subject to attacks that degrade or deny the ability of members to access the company’s solutions; members and customers curtailing or ceasing to use the company’s solutions; the company’s core value of putting members first, which may conflict with the short-term interests of the business; privacy issues; increasing competition in the market for online professional networks; and the dual class structure of the company’s common stock.

Further information on these and other factors that could affect the company’s financial results is included in filings it makes with the Securities and Exchange Commission from time to time, including the section entitled “Risk Factors” in the company’s Form 10-Q that was filed for the quarter ended September 30, 2011, and additional information will also be set forth in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011.  These documents are available on the SEC Filings section of the Investor Information section of the company’s website at http://investors.linkedin.com/. All information provided in this release and in the attachments is as of February 9, 2012, and LinkedIn undertakes no duty to update this information.

The results are based on responses from adults (18 and over) and the sample includes responses from 2,260 adults via telephone interviews conducted in Spanish and English between july 25th and August 26th of 2011. The survey will also serve as a basis for comparing adults perceptions to teenage perceptions (another study Pew carried out).

Surprisingly, most users report that their experiences are overwhelmingly positive (85%) and only a small percentage (5%) said that they witnessed mostly unkind behavior. Almost 70 % said that their social networking experiences made them feel good about themselves. Doesn’t sound too bad so far.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, almost 50% agreed that they had witnessed cruel or outright mean behavior while using sites. In fact, 5% said that they never encountered generous behavior or comments while using sites. 18% report they only see helpful behavior once in a while.

Also of interest, is that almost three fourths of those sampled claim that they encountered offense content only once in a while or never while on social networking sites. When witnessing social attacks on sites, 26% of women will tell the attacker to stop, while only 19% of men will do the same. Interesting! Almost the same percentages report that they actually defend the attacked party.

Well there you have it, most adults are having positive experiences while networking on social sites. I am curious to see the comparisons once Pew releases the teenage versus adult study.

This infographic finds that LinkedIn may not be all that it’s cut out to be. Sure, it’s great for business, but people only use it for that – business.

They found that people of the business mindset are still in that mindset even when on Facebook. Using it effectively could tremendously help your business. We’ll let the infographic give you the rest of the details:

This should come as no surprise to those who are business minded. Linkedin is more of a no non-sense social networking site. “I don’t wanna see pictures of your gandchild, I wanna know what your company can do for me”. This mentality rules out Facebook and Twitter seems less than organized for targeted searches of a professional nature.

Business minded people are drawn to Linkedin and the numbers don’t lie. Check out this bar graph assembled by HubSpot:

Some tricks to using LinkedIn for growing your business include paying attention to what’s already working for you on the site. Look at what draws customers in and do more of that. It just makes sense. Why do you think big company’s always ask, “How did you hear about us?”.

Also, stay vigilant. Just because blogs about your industry are mentioning you and bringing in leads doesn’t mean that is the only vehicle you should rely on. Keep expanding your horizons and testing the waters. Exposure in different circles can be crucial to expanding your base of customers.

Word of mouth is still the best way to gain fame in any arena. People love to reccommend services. It makes them feel connected. If someone has an overwhelmingly positive experience or unique story about your services, attempt to capture that feedback and get it visible to other potential clients.

Not that Facebook isn’t a good place to advertise, but to me, it seems like more of a ‘family and friends’ network. Concentrate on something designed for strict business and marketing connections.

DMARC stands for Domain-based Message Authentication, Reporting and Conformance.

The companies involved include: Google, Facebook, LinkedIn AOL, Microsoft, Yahoo, PayPal (eBay), Bank of America, Fidelity Investments, American Greetings, Agari, Cloudmark, eCert, Return Path and Trusted Domain Project.

In a post on Google’s Online Security Blog, product manager Adam Dawes writes:

Industry groups come and go, and it’s not always easy to tell at the beginning which ones are actually going to generate good solutions. When the right contributors come together to solve real problems, though, real things happen. That’s why we’re particularly optimistic abouttoday’s announcement of DMARC.org, a passionate collection of companies focused on significantly cutting down on email phishing and other malicious mail.

We’ve been active in the leadership of the DMARC group for almost two years, and now that Gmail and several other large mail senders and providers — namely Facebook, LinkedIn, and PayPal — are actively using the DMARC specification, the road is paved for more members of the email ecosystem to start getting a handle on phishing. Our recent data indicates that roughly 15% of non-spam messages in Gmail are already coming from domains protected by DMARC, which means Gmail users like you don’t need to worry about spoofed messages from these senders. The phishing potential plummets when the system just works, and that’s what DMARC provides.

“Email phishing defrauds millions of people and companies every year, resulting in a loss of consumer confidence in email and the Internet as a whole,” said Brett McDowell, Chair of DMARC.org and Senior Manager of Customer Security Initiatives at PayPal. “Industry cooperation – combined with technology and consumer education – is crucial to fight phishing.”

“BITS has been committed to defining and improving email authentication standards and practices to meet the financial services industry’s needs. DMARC’s evolutionary approach is critical in assuring these needs are met for years to come,” said Paul Smocer, President of BITS, the technology policy division of The Financial Services Roundtable.

DMARC is encouraging interested organizations to read the specification, join their mailing list and start testing and deploying standards, by learning the details at DMARC.org.

The report found many interesting trends about both groups and how they embrace technology. For instance, according to the survey, 41 percent of LinkedIn members are planning to spend at least $1,000 on consumer electronics this year. The general public, however, is a little more hesitant, since 29 percent said they were planning to spend that much on consumer electronics during the year.

How much (if any) do you plan to spend on new innovations and gadgets this year? Let us know.

As far as trends go, LinkedIn members are much more tech savvy in both travel and mobile than the general U.S. public. The survey found that LinkedIn members are 53 percent more likely than the average U.S. adult to have Bluetooth in their car, and 31 percent more apt to have some form of GPS device. In addition, 51 percent of LinkedIn members are more likely to own or use a smartphone as opposed to the average adult in the U.S.

Tablet devices are consistent with this trend as well with 85 percent more prone to own or use one. Despite all the tablet devices that are available, most of the users said they were iPad users.

What’s interesting is that LinkedIn members are not just interested in gadgets for fun and games. On the contrary, 93 percent of them rely on technology for managing various aspects of their lives, compared to 89 percent of the general online population. LinkedIn members also said productivity and efficiency are the most important qualities of consumer electronics for them.

While television and newspapers influence the general online U.S. population, they are less likely to impact the shopping decisions of LinkedIn members. Instead, they seek recommendations through social networks. However, both the general public and LinkedIn members believe that companies should have a social media presence, weighing in with 75 percent and 82 percent respectively.

Even though the LinkedIn members surveyed are seemingly wealthier than the general population, with 49 percent having households of $100K or more, this report still offers insights into user trends. What’s more is it could especially help companies market their new innovations through the right channel to meet their target audience.

View more daily video round-ups here.

The greatest overreaction on YouTube since the double rainbow:

Post a company status update on LinkedIn:

Building the musical muscle:

Tesla coils will shoot 260-foot lightning bolt:

Androidland:

Crazy PSA from the 80s getting shared a lot now:

Lion hug:

NORAD’s 2010 Santa tracking:

NMA takes on the Kardashian divorce:

Just give it til the metal starts:

Where do you stand concerning the Stop Online Piracy Act? Do you side with the web giants or the government? Does the power SOPA give to stop piracy go too far? Let us know what you think in the comments.

It looks like the American public is also getting wise about the consequences of such a bill to pass, as the SOPA acronym is currently the top Google Trend. One hopes this isn’t a case of too little, too late. The resistance that’s getting the most coverage has to do with the rebellious responses of a consortium of well-known — and powerful — web companies, all of which banded together to create the following letter as their opening means of disagreement.

The letter, found under the Protect Innovation TLD, is signed by the following entities:

Google
Facebook
Twitter
AOL
eBay
LinkedIn
Yahoo
Zynga
Mozilla

The stance of this group is one of disapproval concerning SOPA, and the crux of their position is here, with our own emphasis added:

We support the bills’ stated goals — providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign “rogue” websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement or counterfeiting. Unfortunately, the bills as drafted would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that would require monitoring of web sites. We are concerned that these measures pose a serious risk to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation, as well as to our Nation’s cybersecurity. We cannot support these bills as written and ask that you consider more targeted ways to combat foreign “rogue” websites dedicated to copyright infringement and trademark counterfeiting, while preserving the innovation and dynamism that has made the Internet such an important driver of economic growth and job creation.

Essentially, these companies would like to stop piracy as well, they just don’t want it to be under the guise of “The Great Firewall of America,” which is what some entities have started calling SOPA.

The push back doesn’t stop there, however. With Mozilla, besides co-signing the letter, they also created a page that clearly states their position in relation to SOPA in its current form. The page links to an Electronic Frontier Foundation page that, in part, generates letters of opposition to whatever state representatives are applicable. The page also features valuable information about the potential harm SOPA can cause.

An example:

As drafted, the legislation would grant the government and private parties unprecedented power to interfere with the Internet’s domain name system (DNS). The government would be able to force ISPs and search engines to redirect or dump users’ attempts to reach certain websites’ URLs. In response, third parties will woo average users to alternative servers that offer access to the entire Internet (not just the newly censored U.S. version), which will create new computer security vulnerabilities as the reliability and universality of the DNS evaporates.

I urge you to continue reading.

Google, which also signed the letter of opposition, has also posted about their intentions over at their public policy blog, which includes Google copyright policy counsel Katherine Oyama testifying before the House Judiciary Committee. Oyama was scheduled to testify earlier today, and the post has a link to her written and oral testimony.

An example from the written portion explains Google’s position quite well:

We support SOPA’s stated goal of providing additional enforcement tools to combat foreign rogue websites that are dedicated to copyright infringement and counterfeiting. Unfortunately, we cannot support the bill as written, as it would expose law-abiding U.S. Internet and technology companies to new uncertain liabilities, private rights of action, and technology mandates that could require monitoring of web sites and social media. Moreover, we are concerned that the bill sets a precedent in favor of Internet censorship and could jeopardize our nation’s cybersecurity. In short, we believe the bill, as introduced, poses a serious threat to our industry’s continued track record of innovation and job-creation.

These more well-known companies are not the only voices of dissension concerning SOPA. Even Vice President Joe Biden spoke out against the spirit of the act, and although the White House clearly supports the reduction of online piracy, at least one component of the United States Government disagrees with how SOPA goes about its prevention:

It doesn’t stop here, either. Websites all over are using “No Censorship” graphics for their logos, including such well known properties as Reddit and Boing Boing. There are a veritable avalanche of articles speaking out against SOPA as the backlash continues to build.

If you’re still wondering what all the hubbub is about, watch this video — in its entirety — and if, after finishing it, you still don’t understand why Google and their cohorts are against it, watch it again:

Are you for or against SOPA? Do you stand with the tech industry or not? Does being against SOPA mean you support online piracy? Is there no middle ground? Let us know what you think.