Super Tuesday is a day when 9 states are voting with a total of 419 delegates at stake, but none of the states voting today are winner take all.

Youtube’s official blog had this to say today:

“The election season heats up today as voters in ten states — with a total of 419 delegates at stake — head to the polls to cast a ballot in the GOP primary. We’ve been following the race closely on YouTube, featuring this cycle’s trending videos, political advertisements and campaign highlights on youtube.com/politics. Tonight, you can watch live coverage from the Wall Street Journal, whose top editors and reporters will be providing commentary and analysis as the results come in. Tune in to youtube.com/wsj starting at 7pm ET to follow the evening’s returns. And if you’re in one of the ten states holding a primary or caucus today, we’d love to see your videos!

For those on the campaign trail documenting the political process at work, you can upload your videos to YouTube using a new mobile app created by the team at Storyful. Available for both Android and iOS, Storyful Direct is an easy way to share your videos with Storyful, who will be choosing a selection to be featured on YouTube and google.com/elections. Even if you don’t live in a state that’s holding a primary tomorrow, Storyful Direct can be used to document your experience during the run-up to the Presidential election in November.”

Live coverage from the Wall Street Journal, which is in my opinion, the only respectable news organization left in the United States, is available after 7pm with analysis of the voting returns and what their impact means.

Their stock rose 12% Since announcing their new platform to get players off of Facebook and onto something they have more control over. Until yesterday when it fell back 6% to $13.78. The grim outcast by the WSJ is partially due to Zynga reaching away from their Facebook comfort zone and partially due to the markets concern that another dotcom bubble is going to burst again.

Zynga is a social network game development company located in San Francisco, California. Founded by Mark Pincus in April of 2007. According to the company’s website, as of December 2009, it had 60 million unique daily active users.

In a statement from Ashley S. Huston, Vice President, Corporate Communications, for the Wall Street Journal, she explains that “Google First Click Free is a way to introduce our content to new readers and broaden our audience. As a strategy, we hold back a few of our top stories by not having the full story crawled, which limits select articles from being available via First Click Free. We have been doing this since last summer as a strategy to encourage subscriptions.”

Google’s First Click Free program allows users to see full-text content that is typically hidden behind a subscription barrier. With certain articles remaining “unlocked,” Google can understand them better as it runs a query, which in turn affords more visibility to the website of the publication. Also, Google doesn’t have to worry about users getting mad that they can’t fully read articles that show up in a search. Basically, if a user searches for something in Google, the full article comes up, though subsequent clicks within the site are blocked per subscription status, as detailed at the bottom let of the image below:

Google allows 5 First Clicks per day, to limit the amount of free content one can access, but publishers are still pulling back on this. So far, news outlets have been all or nothing on the matter, with the New York Times offering all of their content available to be first-clicked. Some outlets allow none. The Wall Street Journal has been implementing a sort of hybrid model where only some content is available. Google wants to be able to search and index all of the content of an entire website, which can make subscription news sites tricky, as an outlet might mistakenly (or purposely) cloak some of their content, to maintain site traffic, while still locking their stories. The WSJ’s hybrid system looks to be mutually beneficial to its website and Google.

Do I sound upset? I am. You see I have a child that loves Facebook. Because I am involved in the industry I have been able to lock down my child’s profile to the best of my ability. The friends of my child though now have lists of other kids that are on display for everyone to see. That everyone includes those with good intentions and those that see the new Facebook ‘privacy’ as a pervert’s WalMart SuperCenter of data to carry out their deviant needs. Over reaction? When it comes to the safety of a child be it mine or anyone else’s there are no over reactions.

So how does Facebook suggest you move forward? According to a TechCrunch report one option is to violate the Facebook’s own ‘voted on’ terms of service.

At least, that’s what Barry Schnitt, Facebook’s Director of Corporate Communications and Public Policy, told the Wall Street Journal in an article this evening. From the story:

Facebook also made public formerly private info such as profile pictures, gender, current city and the friends list. (Mr. Schnitt suggests that users are free to lie about their hometown or take down their profile picture to protect their privacy; in response to users’ complaints, the friends list can now be restricted to be viewed only by friends).

Back to my real life example, the WSJ article makes the point

But those who want a private experience on Facebook will have to work harder at it: if you inadvertently post a comment on a friend’s profile page that has been opened to the public, your comment will be public too.

Now you have to police whether your friends are private with their profiles if you say something to them that you would rather not have broadcast. This could get complicated quickly. So complicated, in fact, that some may throw their hands up and just walk away.

As for the ‘lie to protect’ policy. Mr. Schnitt backpedaled fast in an attempt to avoid a media snit about his intentions.

I think WSJ is paraphrasing. What I said is profile picture and current city are optional. You don’t have to include a profile picture or you can include a picture of your dog or anything you like. Similarly, you don’t have to indicate your current city or you can indicate that your current city is “Atlantis”, “Valhalla” or, again, anything you like. We hope people will use accurate information if they are comfortable doing so because that information helps them to be found by their friends, which is part of the point of joining the site.

So let’s sum this up. Facebook puts a default ‘privacy’ policy in place that is private in name only. They claim that 50% of the users have already made changes to their privacy profiles (which is difficult to believe but I will give the benefit of the doubt). That only leaves about 175 million people walking around with their Facebook kimono wide open to the world.

Is there anything good coming out of this? Is the need to have real time data and marketing information worth the risk of being ‘wide open’ with your data? Of course, there is the option to not be involved at all which is a valid argument. If that were the case though, and a lot of people walked away, then just how valuable does that Facebook data become when it only represents a certain kind of user? Is this the start of Facebook’s move to a MySpace type of case study in what not to do to stay on top of the social media world?

So your thoughts are welcome and desired. Be warned: We expect you will tell the truth but what’s a few lies between friends?

Comments

However, what if Murdoch was really only talking about the Wall Street Journal and not all News Corp publications? Then the idea might actually make a lot of sense.

According to Compete.com WSJ.com already receives the largest percentage of its traffic from Microsoft’ (18.74%). This is contrary to many sites which typically receive the majority of their referrals from Google, often many times more than what Microsoft delivers. Yahoo provides another 6.3% and since Bing will likely be owning Yahoo’s search business that means Microsoft is actually delivering 25% of the Wall Street Journals current traffic. 

If Rupert Murdoch can get Microsoft to pay possibly as much as $50 million or more a year to lose just 11.5% of his Google traffic sent to WSJ.com the deal makes a lot of sense.

According to Hitwise Google and Google News combined deliver approximately 26% of WSJ.com visitors. However, even with this larger percentage (vs. Compete’s) Hitwise notes in a blog post why this might not be as much of a traffic loss as it appears:

Analyzing Google search terms driving traffic to the Journal, the top 100 terms accounted for over 21.6% of all Google search traffic to WSJ.com. Of that 21.6%, 13.4% were navigational or brand searches (e.g. "Wall Street Journal," "WSJ," "WSJ.com" etc…). Even if Murdoch decides to block Google, these navigational search queries will most likely remain intact.

Of the remaining 8.2%, the majority of searches were for stock quotes, and general business related searches. Most specific news related searches fill-out the long tail of search queries. While the Journal may lose traffic if it ceases to cooperate with Google the loss may be less then anticipated.

From Bing’s perspective Wall Street Journal exclusivity not only differentiates Bing from Google but it could also help change its image as a more consumer focused search engine. The Wall Street Journal is the most read business publication in the World and this deal could go a long way toward modifying Bing’s consumer image in the minds of business executives.

After all, a click resulting from a B2B oriented search term usually demands a premium price, which could help offset Bing’s cost of paying Murdoch for exclusive inclusion.

Update: Two more publishers have come out with statements indicating their possible desire to de-index from Google as well. Read more here …

At the summit, Facebook’s social graph was the brass ring—everybody wanted a way to tap into the friend data and relationships in Facebook, but most users aren’t happy with sharing that information. Beacon, Facebook’s efforts to leverage friendship data and connections for people (and selected advertisers), will officially come to an end once a court approves a class-action settlement.

It’s little wonder Facebook friends are so highly prized to marketers—according research firm Nielsen Claritas, Facebook’s audince is a far more affluent demographic these days than that of the former social media king, MySpace:

According to the research, the top third of lifestyle segments relative to affluence (aka the “richest” users) are 25% more likely to use Facebook than those in the lower third. The bottom third segments related to affluence (aka the “poorest”) are 37% more likely to use MySpace. Also of note, Facebook users are more likely to use LinkedIn, a site for professional business networking, and again, another factor which points towards the differences in demographics between the two social networks.

So if Beacon is out, what can marketers do to leverage social connections without freaking people out?

Well, you could ask. That’s what Red Robin is doing. They’ve found that simply having fans isn’t enough—those fans have to be active. (Admit it: how often do you go digging through what all your friends are fans of and viewing those pages?) So when customers check out, the restaurant includes an online survey address on the receipt (with incentives for taking the survey, of course—cash prizes).

As part of the survey, they are asked to recommend Red Robin to a friend via their Facebook profile. (This makes it sound like RR is asking people to go to individuals’ profiles to post on their wall, but the rest of AdAge’s coverage sounds more like the people surveyed can just post on their own wall.)

What do you think? Are you trying your hand at Facebook marketing? Will Red Robin’s campaign be effective, or will that still be considered an invasion of privacy by some?

Comments

In the Internet marketing press it depends on who you listen to and / or trust that will help you make your very own prediction. Publicis ending up with Razorfish has been favored by the folks at paidContent and they were willing to pay handsomely for the company although not quite the $800 million that it was supposed to merit. That may not be the case any longer. WPP is in the game as well but that is another that falls under the category of “to be determined”

Although three sources told paidContent that WPP had a cordial meeting with Microsoft execs about what it would it take to move Razorfish out of the Redmond software company’s orbit, a deal appears to be in doubt.

Several executives speculated it was a matter of demonstrating who wants Razorfish more, and so far, Publicis has gone to greater lengths to show its desire. For one thing, Publicis executives have indicated that they would be willing to pay upwards of $700 million to acquire Razorfish, while WPP has balked at paying more than $600 million.

Other sources including Business Insider have stated that Publicis’ interest is on the retreat (that was on August 4th). On the 6th both Reuters and The Wall Street Journal reported that the deal was likely to happen. Since none of the companies seem to be actually saying anything rather than this being a case of “he said, she said” between companies it’s one of “we said, they said” amongst various industry insiders.

If it were to happen, the deal is said to be slated for September but who the heck knows. Right now, it seems like there is much ado about nothing since Microsoft is supposedly talking to others as well. Comparatively this must seem like a vacation for Microsoft staffers following the Yahoo “Boatloads of Fun” event. Whether this is all a negotiation ploy or not matters most to Razorfish employees who are probably wondering what the future holds for them. Let’s face it, they’re the ones that will feel any impact the quickest and just how much impact will be felt depends greatly on who eventually walks away with the company.

Comments

WSJ Managing Editor Robert Thomson says, "It’s a payments system — once we have your details we will be able to charge you according to what you read, in particular, a high price for specialist material."

Are readers going to go for this though? Mike Mansick at TechDirt doesn’t think so, and he raises some very valid points on the matter: 

"First, the ‘cost’ is much bigger than the nominal sum, because of the mental transaction costs (‘is this worth buying?’) that add friction to the process. Second, and more importantly, it’s a self-defeating move. In adding micropayments, you automatically decrease the value of the content."

"These days, many people value content for the ability to engage with it, comment on it and share it with others. Micropayments take away that ability, and thus decrease the value of the content. In some sense, adding a micropayment option gives people fewer reasons to pay!"

I know that if I am following a link to an article (from any paid content site) that is unavailable to me because I am not a registered subscriber, I am bound to go elsewhere for that information. I suspect that most other people would do the same. The question is, how much is the brand of that publication worth to you? Are you willing to pay just because the info is coming from a brand like the WSJ or are you likely to look a little further for material on the topic of interest?

In the age of Twitter, the Blogosphere, Google News, and the general openness and sharing of information, (not to mention a down economy) I think many readers are going to have a hard time justifying paying for online content when there is plenty of free quality content available to them.

Do you think the micropayment model will work for the Wall Street Journal or do you see people just getting their content elsewhere? Share your thoughts.

It appears as if the Facebook publicity train has run out of steam, though. I say that because today’s WSJ ran a story of people who have decided that giving up Facebook for Lent is their big sacrifice. I realize that may sound a bit absurd thus my saying that this train may have run out of steam. It does, however, give some insight into just how deeply embedded social media can get in anyone’s life and makes it so attractive to marketers of just about anything.

The article talks about adults taking this journey not just the younger set that have grown up with Facebook. The amount of uncertainty, hand wringing and preparation of excuses in case of slips is both amusing and disturbing at the same time. The Pew Research Institute places the daily usage for 18-24 year olds of social media like Facebook and MySpace at 50%. That’s a strong number from any perspective but marketers want a piece of that audience for sure. Only 13% of the rest of Internet users have the same habit but they buy stuff too, right? One of those 13% is a 39 year-old electrician who says he updates his Facebook status about 20 times a day. I hope he doesn’t cross any wires in the process.

The most telling account may have been given by a college student and her experience with walking away from her social media habit (in this case Facebook) for 40 days.

College students who have abstained from Facebook for Lent in recent years say it was brutal, but valuable. Whitley Leiss, now a junior at Texas Christian University, slipped up only once, on her birthday, when she was desperate to see the well-wishes posted for her. She asked a roommate to log into her account and read them aloud while she averted her eyes from the screen. When Lent ended, she logged on to find dozens of messages waiting and strangely little desire to answer them.

“I saw all that I had missed,” Ms. Leiss said. “And I realized I hadn’t missed anything.” She also learned, she says, who her true friends were — those who would take the radically retro step of calling or emailing to stay in touch.

Since the Marketing Pilgrim crowd rates very high on the social media usage scale it begs the question “If you chose to step away from social media for 40 days what impact would it have on your life? Could you or would you even attempt to do it? If you do we’ll make sure to e-mail you while you’re away.

Comments

The original change was hammered hard in the blogosphere and traditional media outlets. As can happen with news of this nature its rapid spread and the building intensity was enough to have Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg post on his blog:

Going forward, we’ve decided to take a new approach towards developing our terms. We concluded that returning to our previous terms was the right thing for now. As I said yesterday, we think that a lot of the language in our terms is overly formal and protective so we don’t plan to leave it there for long.

His post talks more about the entire situation and gives Facebook’s commitment to changing the terms to what was prior to the Feb. 4th change (a Black Wednesday of sorts?) and to really dig in to what was considered by the Facebook team to be an overly formal document. There is even an invite for involvement by anyone who wants to put in their 2 cents.

So once again we see Facebook try to do some things that simply don’t fly with their users and privacy advocates (remember Beacon?). I guess what we as users of Facebook can take away from this is to keep a close eye on what they are up to. This is a second strike of sorts so they now have the opportunity to take this in one of two directions. They can either work to gain the trust of their users by sitting tight and figuring out how to monetize their deal or they can try to get things past folks again. Maybe because they are so big they don’t feel that people would leave them so they are insulated from a mass exodus. That may be true.

Your thoughts?

Comments