Business

Probably everyone has seen a dozen of these by now. Usually someone has discovered some amazing way to make money, or to achieve something that makes money. He or she will tell you all about it, at great length on their seemingly one page web site.

Oh and what a page it is. Make $103,736 a month plucking chickens at home. Just keep reading and we'll tell you how. Watch our fantastic headers show up in uppercase red text. Count the exclamation points! Look at how we make everything longer with our big borders and narrow copy area.

There's even proof: here's images of copies of the Big Fat Earnings.

And now testimonials. Joe the Plumber used this system and now has two houses and three vacation properties. Maybe you can even hear from Joe in a video. Regular folk who look like losers made money with this fantastic technique.

Here's a link to get started NOW. But just in case you're not convinced, let's repeat the whole thing, saying the same stuff in a slightly different way.

Okay, let's repeat that again. And again. Maybe even again.

Well if you got all the way down here you MUST be convinced, so save 50% or more in this time limited offer by clicking on this special link! Only a fool would pass this by!

And now you're at the end.

Ten, twenty, thirty pages of essentially empty claims all jammed into one and dressed up in a loud suit. The only option for navigation is to the order page.

You've just been subjected to a Toilet Paper Pitch. If you printed it out, you'd get a long roll ready for what it's worth.

Ever notice how these things read like those old five page double-sided direct snail mail pieces you used to have to wade through fifteen years ago? That's because they're direct descendants. They try to get you in a box, lead you through their pitch. I think the same cabal of old men is convincing people that this is the way to go in the web world and cranking them out at some ludicrous price.

At some point this pitch style must have worked for someone, because not a week goes by that I don't see another variation on this theme. Style over substance, or maybe bullsh*t baffles brains, I'm not sure which.

But enough already. It's tired. It's lame. It's not Web 2.0, it's Web 0.5. It's old. It's done. It's boring. Build a useful site instead... unless of course your product is crap. In which case TP is definitely the way to go.

Do something else. Anything. Please.

With the rise of social media sites and services (Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, and so on), a whole new field of "Social Marketing Expert" has been created. Aside from the obvious fact that it's hard to be a credible expert in a relatively new domain, the silliness of some of these "experts" is laughable.

By far the best of this bunch are those who have been discredited elsewhere and are hoping that their bankrupt strategies can somehow find new life in a new medium. It may be true that "the medium is the message", but sometimes the message sucks universally and thus transcends all media.

The prime example here is "word of mouth" marketers. These aren't the people who say, quite correctly, that word of mouth is the most powerful form of marketing communication anyone can get, but those who figure that somehow word of mouth is a tool, something that can be created out of thin air.

Surely manufactured word of mouth has been sufficiently discredited that we don't have to bear through more ill-advised campaigns in the social media space. Is there anyone still doing the "paid shill" scam, where people are paid to go into public spaces and talk up specific products? Have sufficient bloggers been roasted over online flames for accepting money in exchange for talking up products? Apparently not.

So get ready for a (hopefully brief) onslaught of bull masquerading as recommendations. It will be easy to spot, let's take a look at a quick example:

Slimeball:	Good morning.
You:	Good morning Slimeball, what's the weather like over there?
Slimeball:	Pretty good, it's a great day for DumbProduct!
You:	So, it's warm and sunny or something?
Slimeball:	Actually it's raining quite heavily, perfect for DumbProduct.
You:	I see, and how are the kids?
Slimeball:	They're happy, thanks to DumbProduct.
You:	Just hold on a second while I block you and write a negative blog post about DumbProduct's unethical marketing techniques.

Bottom line: if you're a marketer don't do this. Just don't. Build genuine word of mouth by delivering a great product and providing great service. Encourage your customers to talk about you, but please, never cross the line and start trying to pay for it. No good can come from this.

Writing on ojr.org, Getty Storch asserts that "Papers must charge for websites to survive". There is a lively debate in the comments that follow, most of them are in disagreement with Storch's analysis.

This includes mine, which I reproduce here.

Anyone who thinks newspapers can survive on local content needs to spend a few weeks on Twitter. Here is a medium where news arrives in near real time, is reliable (since misinformation is rapidly corrected by others), and relevant. This applies just as well in a global environment. I have seen real reports from people on the scene of demonstrations in Thailand and Athens, and learnt about the supply of gas from Russia to Slovakia from people in cold buildings. Twitter and similar channels tell me about traffic jams on my route downtown, about power outages and emergencies in ways that no newspaper or even television station can ever dream of achieving.

Twitter has merely brought something that has been happening for a very long time into the mainstream. As a case in point, I learnt about the death of Princess Diana via an international online chat almost three hours before the local media picked it up. This is a decade ago. Times have changed.

Information is now free and it will remain so. Any attempt to charge for access to it is absolutely doomed. The only hope that news media, particularly "print" media have for survival is by adding value. This means aggregating sources, adding perspective, and performing astute analysis. Even so, most of the revenue from these activities will be derived from online advertising, and those revenues will be orders of magnitude below what the industry currently sees as normal.

The newspaper as we know it is dead. There is no model that will resuscitate it, period. Rigor mortis has set in, the patient just doesn't fully realize it yet.

For those who don't know, a favicon is the graphic that shows up in the location bar and bookmarks of modern browsers. They're great visual clues that help you remember what's on a page.

It is possible to have this icon animated, at least for some browsers. DON'T DO IT.

Animated graphics are designed to catch your eye. Once your attention is caught, you're supposed to understand a message and respond. That response takes you to a web site. If a favicon is up, then you are already on the site, so animation just catches your eye and distracts you from the site. Anyone who thinks distracting viewers from paying attention to their site should get out of the business and consider a career as a utility pole.

The other possible thought behind an animated icon is that in a sea of tabs and bookmarks, the animation calls attention to your site. That might work, but if every icon is animated, then the result is a sea of irritation, so it's not a strategy that will work for long. As far as tabs are concerned... I just visited these sites, I can recognize your icon without having it wave at me. In fact, the second time it interferes with my attention, your tab will get closed.

Summary: Animated favicons have lots of drawbacks and little upside. Just say no.

One site I miss from years back is swoop.org. It was a compendium of "swoop" based logos, showing the design trend (or lack of originality if you're less generous) pioneered by the Nike logo.

Maybe it's time to do the same with four colour quadrant-based logos. I admit, I used this motif in a logo about four years ago. Maybe that's a sign. When part-time hacks like me start using a motif, it's time to put it to bed.

Yet this past week, Google introduced a new four-colour, quadrant based "favicon". And... and... and it just plain sucks. Not only is it a stunning example of trailing-edge design, it features limited readability. On my system, the outlined lowercase "g", which bleeds into the background, is lost in either the default brownish grey of the default theme, or completely obliterated by the black background of my alternative theme. If you can't control the background, don't use bleed. Isn't that Design 101?

Two revisions back, Google's icon was an elegant representation of the uppercase G on their full logo. I have no idea why they moved away from that, but each successive revision has been worse.

So here's some advice for aspiring designers: get past the four colour quadrant motif. Come up with something new and original, or at least rip off something that's less tired. Please.

A few days ago, YouTube began muting the audio tracks of videos that contained "unauthorized" copyright material. Some videos will now have the notice “This video contains an audio track that has not been authorized by all copyright holders. The audio has been disabled.” displayed beneath them.

This is a good move for YouTube. It will help absolve them from any liability for "broadcasting" content that the RIAA cabal deems worthy of protection.

It's not such a good move for the RIAA and similar groups. A music track is an essential part of many videos, and we can be pretty sure that not many people who produce them are going to go to the trouble of obtaining copyright clearance. Instead, they're going to seek unencumbered music. This is going to drive up the demand for "open" music, which will in turn cause more musicians to provide the same in exchange for some small promotional credit on the video.

Thus a win-win is born. Video creators will have access to more music they can use, musicians will have a showcase for their work with a potential for global profile that would otherwise be difficult to obtain. How long will it be before this exposure results in a musician who "makes it" in the mainstream? It will only be a matter of time.

How will these musicians feel when a big label comes along to offer them a contract that pays a fraction of the revenue they actually generate while insisting that they turn their backs on their roots by joining the copyright cartel? Some will buy in to the promises and sign up, but some won't. Instead they'll seek new methods and revenue models for distributing their work. Perhaps they will make the bulk of their money from live performance, or maybe they'll find other ways to do it, but they will eventually succeed at it.

Once a successful formula has been found, those who seek to maximize revenue by controlling distribution will have lost the final step in their battle. They will have successfully spawned a revitalized industry that makes them irrelevant. This has always been inevitable, but YouTube's move will certainly accelerate the process. To me it is amazing how, blind to reality, this industry continues to find ways to kill itself off with ever greater efficiency.

Kudos to YouTube; still yet another dunce cap to the established music distribution business.

In Media Metrics: Hate to Burst Your Bubble, John Gerzema discusses the erosion of the power of branding. In the process he makes an interesting observation: many companies have capitalized their brands, and they carry them on their books at considerable values. If these brands are in fact not worth anything close to the value they've been assigned, then there's another financial crisis on the horizon.

Gerzema is writing from his perspective as "Chief Insights Officer" at Young & Rubicam. As soon as I stop chuckling at this utterly ludicrous title, the observation is that as a member of the industry that has created and perpetuated the myth of brand value, his take is bound to be somewhat biased. This is the industry that has for decades convinced otherwise rational executives to spend stupid amounts of money on an intangible concept while simultaneously convincing them that the result is a capital asset.

Now certainly it can be argued that a brand has some value. Awareness of a product is linked to the selection of a product for purchase, without question. But the brand itself is still intangible. The value of a brand should be measured as the cost of changing it. As an example, let's say Pepsi decided to rebrand itself as "Foo". There would be considerable cost and significant time involved in doing this, but it's possible. With some tired brands (Levis comes to mind), it might even be advisable. This cost of rebranding is the true value of the asset. My bet is that the actual cost is considerably less than the asset value on many balance sheets. In his article, Gerzma asserts that "brands account for 30 percent of the market capitalization of the S&P 500, or almost $4 trillion dollars" (without citation). That's one heck of a bubble.

In discussing the extent of the bubble, Gerzma writes "Further signs of this worrying disconnect emerged as we examined the extent of the gap between business and consumer perceptions of brand value". What's funniest there is the phrase "worrying disconnect". To me it seems like a "reconnect" between consumers and reality that can only be worrying to big advertising agencies and to CFO's with overvalued brands.

All that money companies have poured into ineffective marketing efforts — driven by "gut feel", and marked by a complete inability to measure performance in any truly analytical way — is money thrown away. It's lost, it's gone. We have tools that measure the effectiveness of most of these things now in hard numbers, and the brand game is up, it's done.

Still someone with a "CxO" title at a major agency has a responsibility to evangelize for his industry, be he right or wrong. He applauds the performance of brands who are "innovating beyond advertising", such as in product development, corporate social responsibility and sustainability". I hate to break it to him, but in these cases the brand is just an identifier that links a consumer to an enterprise that is doing these real, tangible things such as producing good products in a responsible way. Now there's an insight!

Gerzma wraps up his weak argument that big agencies somehow still have a purpose with "today, everything is marketing and only creativity matters if a brand is to hold its value in this rapidly transforming and unforgiving marketplace." This is a complete and utter contradiction of the reality that he has observed but still cannot accept: good products and good service are everything, and marketing is in large part the process of communicating the good things you do through various channels. Worse, some channels cannot be controlled, such as social media.

The days of managing a message through monolithic media are long gone. Now it's about doing a excellent job and getting people to talk about what your organization does in a genuine way. Social media can be influenced, but ham-handed attempts to "manage" it are almost certainly destined to end badly. If I was involved in a big advertising agency, that's the bubble I would be most worried about. That and keeping my resume up to date.

Two interesting things about viral marketing:

• In a lot of cases, you can't even be sure if there was originally a marketing intent behind it.
  
• Just about any business can wind up as the subject of a viral "buzz".
  

That's any business, even including a Sand Road Venture Capital firm. Take a look at this "Anti-Portfolio" from Bessemer Venture Partners.

I've had that link sent to me via IM twice today. That's buzz.

Why does it work? It's true, it's funny, and it's out of the box. Every VC I've met to date seems to like to put forward the image of near-prescient infallibility. Openly admitting to your mistakes, and naming names is an utter reversal of this image-making. It is so novel and unusual that it's immedately worth passing along. Not only that but it instantly humanizes the entire firm and makes them seem like the sorts of people you'd like to pitch to first.

Its both superb and brilliant — be it intentional or not.

It's interesting how often the question of online versus traditional shopping comes up. A friend asked me this earlier today and I gave him the same answer I've been providing for a decade now.

These days the response seems reasonable, but back in 1998 it was heresy. It used to be guaranteed to make a room full of start-ups and venture capitalists go dead quiet. Of course back then we were in the middle of the dot-com boom, when somehow geeks who don't like daylight managed to convince everyone that their concept of a good shopping experience was somehow universal.

So here it is:

As more Windows users cry "Help, I've been Vista whipped!", I thought that the introduction of the oppressive Windows Vista was going to be a boon for Linux.

I got the first part right. As Vista subverts your computer into a Microsoft Peripheral, subject to whatever whim "Balmer and The Boys" cook up, users have resisted. A large number of not-so-technical people I've talked to want to avoid Vista like the plague. [And in my opinion, rightly so.]

My assumption was that given reasonably priced hardware from several suppliers and completely free Linux distributions like Ubuntu, the discomfort with Vista would be the kick that finally pushed Linux into the consumer mainstream.

Not so.