Marketing Pilgrim Published: “China’s State News Agency Fires Up Its Own Search Engine” plus 4 more

China’s State News Agency Fires Up Its Own Search Engine
Google Collects Part of Kids’ Social Security Numbers for Contest
The Ethics of Pay Per Post
On Facebook Breaking Up is Not So Hard to Do
Looking to Get Out of Jury Duty? Be a Social Media Dimwit

China’s State News Agency Fires Up Its Own Search Engine

Posted: 23 Feb 2011 06:51 AM PST

"If you can't get the results from Google that you want you should just go out and start your own darn search engine!"

How many times have we heard that one? Most people just turn tail and hide, resigned to the fact that making a search engine isn't all that easy. That is unless you are the Chinese government's press agency! Since Google doesn't like to play nice the Chinese government has taken search into its own hands.

The Washington Post reports:

China’s main government news agency launched an Internet search site Tuesday, giving its own sanitized view of the Web following Google’s closure of its China-based search engine last year over censorship.

The Xinhua News Agency is operating http://www.panguso.comin partnership with state-owned China Mobile Ltd., the world’s biggest phone carrier by subscribers.

The Chinese government hopes that the engine will be a leading Chinese search engine. No official indication was given if there would be force involved in getting to that position (it's a joke, relax).

What's not a joke is the following statement regarding the engine

“We would like to fully exploit the advantage of Xinhua as an official agency having a large collection of news and information, and that of China Mobile in terms of technology, advanced operation principles and strong infrastructure,” said Xinhua president Li Congjun in a statement released by the agency.

Yikes. Whenever there is an official Chinese release and “exploit the advantage” is a key phrase I get a little nervous.

As is to be expected the engine appears to have a selective memory or index or whatever.

Panguso, available on both Web and mobile phone, appears to filter even more stringently than other Chinese sites.

A search on Panguso for Liu Xiaobo, the jailed activist and Nobel Peace Laureate, returned no results. A search on Baidu turned up Chinese-language commentaries criticizing Liu.

Searches on Panguso for the Dalai Lama turned up tourism information for Tibet, followed by commentaries from Chinese state media criticizing the exiled Tibetan leader.

And Panguso has politically embarrassing gaps. It returned no result in a search for the website of People’s University in Beijing, the first university founded after the 1949 communist revolution and one of China’s most prominent institutions.

Even Baidu returned results that outsiders would see as political propaganda? Isn't the Chinese government going to toot its own horn over its own criticism of Nobel Peace Laureates?

At any rate, few governments or organizations have taken things to this extreme and it will be interesting to see just how well this engine does. At least Baidu now has some 'competition', right?

Google Collects Part of Kids’ Social Security Numbers for Contest

Posted: 23 Feb 2011 06:09 AM PST

Google can't seem to get out of its own way sometimes. Of course, it is a big company that may have certain parts doing one thing while another part does another without real knowledge of each other's plans. That happens in big business. Of course, you would suspect that there is some kind of algorithm keeping everyone in order, right? If it is, it certainly doesn't have a "WTF?" filter on it.

Apparently there needs to be some good old fashioned human supervision based on some of the decisions coming out of the Googleplex these days. The latest is the fact that Google collected the final four digits of the entrants of an art contest whose entrants were kids. Google claims a 'no harm, no foul' on this one but just the idea of it happening is enough for a raised eyebrow or two.

As Silicon Alley Insider reports

Google asked parents to enter the last four digits of their children’s Social Security Numbers, as well as their city of birth and age, as a condition to enter a Google-sponsored art contest.

While it is uncertain of any of the parents thought this request was out of hand (although one wonders if a parent should willingly give up this data for the sake of Junior's art sensibilities in the first place) it came to the attention of someone who decided that more questions should be asked and he asked them on the Huffington Post which is the online equivalent of a year round celebration of the Festivus Airing of Grievances. This time it was done by a documentary film director, Bob Bowdon. He postulated

You see what Google knows and many parents don’t know is that a person’s city of birth and year of birth can be used to make a statistical guess about the first five digits of his/her social security number. Then, if you can somehow obtain those last four SSN digits explicitly — voila, you’ve unlocked countless troves of personal information from someone who didn’t even understand that such a disclosure was happening.

A stretch for sure and even he admits that he has no evidence of this being Google's intent (or there being any intent other than to separate entries and prevent duplicates). Of course, it is fun to throw out there though and it does get links and page views so nice work, Bob (cut to HuffPo management smiling and giving polite golf applause).

But back to this 'story'. Google was shown the error of its ways. Back to SAI.

Some of the people who tipped Bowdon off about the story sent an email to the FTC on February 17 wondering if it was even legal to solicit kids’ Social Security Numbers.

As one of my kids would say "Uh oh, potatoes!" Google quickly responded by changing the form and releasing the following explanation of why this even happened in the first place.

This year we started accepting doodles from kids even if their school hadn’t registered for the contest. To help us keep entries distinct and remove duplicate entries from any particular student, we asked parents for limited information, including the last 4 digits of a student’s social security number. We later updated our forms when we recognized that we could sufficiently separate legitimate contest entries while requesting less information. To be clear, these last 4 digits were not entered into our records and will be safely discarded.

The city of birth helps us identify whether contestants are eligible for the contest, as winners must be either U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents of the U.S. The information isn’t used for any other purpose.

OK, so here is my question. Well, maybe a few questions. That information had to be entered into some system or record to make the determination of what Google was trying to figure out, right? We all know how those pesky 'non-entered' pieces of data can leave a trail. In other words, that statement is a bit ridiculous for us to swallow even though it is likely that the intent of the statement is genuine. If collecting this data even seemed a little odd wasn't there another way? Couldn't there have been a PIN created rather than asking for that kind of information?

As you know, I really like Google, for the most part. I think that in an overall sense what they do is incredibly beneficial to society for all kinds of reasons. It's moves like this, however, that make one wonder. This was something that was given wider attention and Google quickly pulled its hand back from the data cookie jar. In fact, Google called the whole timing of the FTC letter and their removal of the information from the form as a coincidence. Ok, Goog, we trust you!

By the way, wasn't there also the ‘accidental’ collection of data from their Street View drones roaming the countryside as well? Hmmmmm. Whoops! Our bad!

With stuff like this happening, you start to wonder if Google is being consulted regarding privacy issues by Mark Zuckerberg.

Anyway, this may be all a big dust up over nothing but it does show that data collection is the name of the game and the big players are not afraid to push any envelopes at all since big data = big money.

How do you feel about this one? Is it the honest mistake that Google portrays it as or is it a warning to the rest of us? As the personal data jackpot gets bigger and the stakes get higher is that the old sales phrase "better to ask for forgiveness than for permission" mantra is alive and well in Mountain View? Should we all be concerned?

Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

The Ethics of Pay Per Post

Posted: 22 Feb 2011 04:02 PM PST

Suppose you ask me to write something nice about your company. I do it and you give me a $10 bill. If I work for you, then it’s a paycheck. If I don’t work for you, then it’s Pay Per Post and that’s a whole different bowl of noodles. . . or is it?

If I disclose the fact that you paid me the money to write the post as required by the FTC, then I’m in good shape, right? But if I disclose the fact that you paid me, maybe the value of the post decreases because now people aren’t sure that I told the truth.

A few weeks ago, a mommy-blogger was outraged by a proposal from a marketing company that offered to pay her if she wrote nice things about a big name brand who was having an image problem. I can’t be any more specific about the incident because I’ve since found out that the the entire affair was drummed up by an industrious wannabe PR pro and was never sanctioned by the company. Still, it brings up an interesting point. How is asking a blogger to write something nice about a company for pay any different than offering a blogger a free product in return for a review?

You could say that a review requires an honest opinion, which could be good or bad. But what if I agree with the positive statements I’m asked to write? If I believe that, despite recent reports to the contrary, ABC Inc. makes the safest product in its category, is it wrong to say so and get paid? What if I write it and ABC pays me afterwards as a thank you, then do I have to disclose it?

Many years ago, I tried one of the Pay Per Post companies, wrote the required text and was quickly dinged by Google who dropped my page rank two points. I was devastated. If that happened today, I wouldn’t care. Page rank is passe. But I do care if people think I’m a shill, writing half-truths about window blinds in order to make $6.00. In the spirit of full disclosure, I do occasionally Tweet for pay but I’m selective about which offers I put through.

The question here is about drawing the line or if there even should be a line? It’s my blog and if you want to pay me to write something and I agree to do it, then are we all good?

KMart announced today that they’re looking for gamer bloggers to send to the E3 convention. It’s all expenses paid, travel, accommodations and entrance to the show and in return all they ask is that the bloggers write about the experience and post links to KMart’s gamer blog (who knew KMart was so big with gamers?). Is that the ultimate in Pay Per Post or what? A several thousand dollar trip to video game heaven? Sure beats a $10 Starbucks card as thanks, doesn’t it?

This is where you come in. What are your thoughts on Pay Per Post? Have you ever paid a blogger to write about your company? I’d like to hear about your experience and where you think companies should draw the line.

On Facebook Breaking Up is Not So Hard to Do

Posted: 22 Feb 2011 01:08 PM PST

Getting customers to follow you on Facebook is hard enough, but once you have them, it’s just as much of a chore to keep them. According to the latest Subscribers, Fans and Followers report from ExactTarget, social media followers are like Goldilocks. Too big, too small, too hard, too soft — finding a happy medium that suits the majority of your visitors is nearly impossible according to their stats.

“After liking a company, 51% of consumers say they expect the company to send them marketing messages, while 40% say they don’t expect to receive marketing messages from the company.”

Forget Goldilocks, that’s more like Alice in Wonderland. If you don’t get the mix of entertainment vs value correct, only 57% of the unhappy followers will click the “Unlike” button but don’t rejoice yet. The rest of the unmerry band will simply ignore you or chose to stop showing your posts in their feed. Either way, it means you’re broadcasting to less people than you think you are. That’s why page activity is, in many ways, a better indicator because it’s proof that people are actually reading your message.

Why do people jump ship? Mostly because there were too many posts coming through either individually (63%) or because the have too many marketing messages in their newsfeed as a whole (43%).

38% said they unliked a brand because it was boring and 26% said they only signed up to get a one time offer and unliked soon after. I’m surprised that number is so low. With so many companies offering deals and giveaways on Facebook, I would expect that “one-time” number to be much larger.

The good news is that “unlike” doesn’t mean you’re un-loved. 63% of people surveyed said that their decision to disconnect from a brand on Facebook didn’t effect their opinion of the brand overall. I love Hershey’s chocolate but I don’t follow them on Facebook. Maybe I should.

Unfortunately, the point of all of this is that there’s no formula for success on Facebook. Random posts may work for Skittles but not so much for Bank of America. TV fans may tolerate multiple posts a day from their favorite show but as much as I love Del Taco, I’m signing off if they hit me up more than once a day.

The best thing about Facebook is that it’s easy to change the plan. Play around with content and frequency until you find the right mix that works for both you and your followers. It could take a while to get there, but if you hit the mark, it’s worth the effort.

You can download the full Subscribers, Fans and Followers: The Social Breakup report for free at ExactTarget.

Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

Looking to Get Out of Jury Duty? Be a Social Media Dimwit

Posted: 22 Feb 2011 12:33 PM PST

As is the case in many things in life, just because a lot of people have something it doesn't mean they know how to use it. Back in the Stone Age of video everyone had a VCR but no one could program the darn thing.

We are now seeing the same happen with social media. There are a lot of people with accounts or profiles or whatever in the social media space but that doesn't mean they can harness the power of the medium or even understand much beyond updating a status.

One area that is getting more aggressive in its use of social media channels is the law. It is already fairly well known that divorce lawyers are using social media outlets to catch opposing spouses in compromising social media positions. Now lawyers are turning to social media to help clean up the jury pool before they go to trial.

The Wall Street Journal reports

Facebook is increasingly being used in courts to decide who is—and who isn’t—suitable to serve on a jury, the latest way in which the social-networking site is altering the U.S. court system.

Prosecution and defense lawyers are scouring the site for personal details about members of the jury pool that could signal which side they might sympathize with during a trial. They consider what potential jurors watch on television, their interests and hobbies, and how religious they are.

This is one of those developments that is generating significant talk from both sides of the argument. Lawyers love being able to turn over a rock on a perspective juror that reveals a potential bias that could hurt their client's chances of victory. Not everyone connected to the law is happy about this development though.

Some legal experts oppose this growing practice of scouring social-media sites, arguing that the traditional jury-selection process, which involves lawyers questioning prospective jurors, provides more valuable information than out-of-context online comments.

“I don’t think we should abandon that system in favor of Internet snooping,” said Jason Schultz, co-director of the Samuelson Law, Technology & Public Policy Clinic at the University of California, Berkeley, law school. “There are a number people who post who they want to be, as opposed to who they are.”

No kidding? Really? People acting all unlike their real selves online? Well, looks like it's time to pack up the plantation and move on because I though everyone was always honest online.

It's getting pretty high tech in the world of law these days for sure. Here is one instance where this idea was applied

Armando Villalobos, the district attorney of Cameron County, Brownsville, Texas, last year equipped his prosecutors with iPads to scan the Web during jury selection.

He acknowledged that they sometimes dug up only the unprotected tidbits that Facebook users share with everyone, such as their alma mater or favorite band.

Many people, he said, limit access to more telling details to those they have “friended.” (It’s unclear, for example, what his prosecutors would glean from Mr. Villalobos’s own Facebook page, without friending him: It shows he is married and a fan of the TV show “Spartacus.”)

Now is where it gets pretty silly because we know that lawyers like to find ways around things. In order to help with getting more information on a jury pool the lawyer mentioned above, Mr. Villalobos, has come up with this possible scheme to help folks in a jury pool pass the time.

Mr. Villalobos is considering a method to get behind the site’s private wall to learn more. One option: granting members of the jury pool free access to the court’s wi-fi network in exchange for temporarily “friending” his office.

Would anybody really fall for that line? Whether they do or not, it looks like the legal field is certainly still willing to stretch the boundaries of anything as indicated by this quote from another lawyer.

Mr. Josh Marquis, district attorney of Clatsop County in Oregon, said that even small details, like a person’s favorite show, could say something about them. A predilection for crime shows, such as “CSI: Crime Scene Investigation,” tells Mr. Marquis that the prospective juror might have unrealistic expectations that DNA evidence could be obtained from every crime scene.

I wonder if my choice of Seinfeld as a favorite TV show makes me an unfeeling, self-centered, narcissistic person (or does that make me a Twitter guru?)?

Are there limits, in your opinion, as to how far this open information world we live in should go to? Are people really aware of what they are doing to themselves with their online behavior? I sincerely doubt it considering some of the things I have seen people do (and, admittedly some of the incredibly stupid moves I have made which has caused me to know just how my foot tastes).

But hey, if you can get out jury duty by just being yourself maybe there is an upside? What are your thoughts?