Marketing Pilgrim Published: “Italian Court Autocompletes Google Case With “You Lose!”” plus 4 more

Link to Marketing Pilgrim - Internet News & Opinion

Italian Court Autocompletes Google Case With “You Lose!”
Enter the IAB Seal of Approval
Customer Insight Tops List of Social Media Expectations
Google to Become Even More Engineer Centric
LivingSocial Living High on $400 Million in Funding

Italian Court Autocompletes Google Case With “You Lose!”

Posted: 06 Apr 2011 07:03 AM PDT

Imagine the difficulties that Google must have compared to many other Internet companies. Along with the great success and truckloads of cash comes the reality that different laws in different lands are going to create many different headaches especially in the legal realm. Italy has been particularly rough on Google and now it has ruled against the search giant in a case that involves the content of search results from Google's autocomplete function.

ZDNet UK reports

Google has lost a case in Italy over the defamatory nature of autocomplete suggestions, according to a lawyer for the complainant.
On Tuesday, lead counsel Carlo Piana wrote on his blog that the Court of Milan has upheld its earlier decision to order Google to filter out libellous search suggestions. These are the suggestions that pop up in Google’s search input bar, proposing what the user might be wanting to search for.

People searching via Google for Piana’s client, who remains publicly unnamed, were apparently presented with autocomplete suggestions including truffatore (“con man”) and truffa (“fraud”).

No that I am upset for Google. This kind of activity is just part of playing the game at the scale which they do.

As for the actual ruling? It's difficult to justify based on censorship and free speech but there is also plenty of room for discussion. As a searcher I would want to be warned of any wrong doing that the party I am researching has been up to. As a person in the Internet age though, I am well aware of the ability of Internet savvy people to smear someone's name in the SERP's. There is also the trouble of guilt by association if someone is searching for a person or business with a common name and they see negative results that may have nothing to do with the searcher's actual target.

Unfortunately, the Internet is far from perfect and cases like this show how these imperfections play out in various countries and cultures. It's a variable that marketers have to be aware of for their own efforts as well.

The article continued

Google lost its bid to claim the protection of the E-Commerce Directive’s safe harbour provisions, which partly shields hosting and ISPs from liability for content held on or transmitted over their systems. However, the court viewed the autocomplete suggestions as being produced by Google itself.

“Google argued that it could not be held liable because it is a hosting provider, but we showed that this is content produced by them (and by the way, they do filter out certain content, including terms that are known to be used to distribute copyright-infringing material), although through automated means,” Piana wrote.

The lawyer said the suit is “by no means an endorsement to censorship”, as the allegations had been fully discussed with Google before the court action was even considered and only two phrases were put forward to be filtered out of autocomplete.

Apparently, the unnamed 'victim' was in the world of finance so I immediately received a much clearer vision of what might be happening here. Hmmmm, finances, claims of fraud and cons. Seems to fit. While that is terribly stereotyped it is good to know that this is something that happened in an industry where that claim is much more common and can be made loudly online (and is very often).

So how did Google respond to the verdict?

“We believe that Google should not be held liable for terms that appear in autocomplete as these are predicted by computer algorithms based on searches from previous users, not by Google itself,” the company said. “We are currently reviewing our options.”

I found that response pretty curious because it seems like Google is talking out of both sides of its servers. That statement acts as if an algorithm is some separate entity that does its own thing. Didn't someone (as in a Google employee) program that algorithm to do what it does? This is the kind of creepy talk that Google needs to avoid at all costs because the more they advance with technology and engineering the less human they sound.

Go to the light. Enter the Goog. We'll take care of everything for you (cue the evil laugh and maniacal rubbing together of hands).

Join the Marketing Pilgrim Facebook Community

Enter the IAB Seal of Approval

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 01:46 PM PDT

After many months of talk about a set of self-policing rules for digital marketers, the Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) has finally launched their Ad Network & Exchange Quality Assurance Certification program.

The new IAB guidelines is a 35-page document that covers such topics as Acquiring Inventory, an Online Media Rating System, Data Disclosure and methods of handling customer complaints. Ad networks who agree to follow a published set of guidelines will receive what they refer to as “the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval for digital marketing.”

For those of you born in the later half of the century, the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval was awarded to products that were tested and approved by the popular homemaking magazine. It started in the early 1900′s and was a highly recognized symbol of trust through the 40′s, 50′s and 60′s. If a product had that seal, then the consumer knew it was safe, reliable and a good buy.

The IAB is hoping that consumers will feel the same way about their new Quality Assurance Certification seal. More than that, they hope the threat of not getting approved will be enough to make errant advertisers change their evil ways.

In a video presentation, David Moore, founder of 24/7 Real Media says;

[He expects the seal] to eliminate a vast percentage of the people that are not playing the game the way it should be played.”

At the end of the video, Moore thanks those advertisers who are compliant, then points directly at the camera and says,

“for those that aren’t, we’re going to get you.”

There’s a laugh after that and maybe he meant, ‘we’re going to convince you that being compliant is a good thing,’ but it sounds more like he’s going to arrange an accident or delivery of a horse’s head.

I’d like to think that they’re doing all of this because they believe in doing right by the public, but the cynic in me says it’s more about keeping the government from imposing regulations of their own. As far as this being a seal of approval that consumers can trust, I don’t see it. The folks in the presentation video admit that the only way this will work is if consumers refuse to deal with companies that aren’t certified. That’s not going to happen. Most people aren’t going to check the ad delivery service on their favorite website to see if they’ve been approved before typing their email into an form.

I’m not saying these guidelines aren’t a good thing. I just think it’s a moot point, because the government is going to step in with language and rules of their own sooner than later.

Would you stop using a website that didn’t carry the IAB Seal of Approval?

Customer Insight Tops List of Social Media Expectations

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 12:32 PM PDT

When asked what they expected to get out of social media followers, most of the brand marketers surveyed went with insight over money.

eMarketer took a look at this July 2010 survey and they made this easy to read chart that you see here on the right.

As you can see, less than half of the respondents expected to see a short-term or long-term increase in sales due to social media. I’m sure they’d be happy to see that gain, but I expect the response was more about the reality not the hope.

The reality is that we don’t really know what kind of impact social media can have on brands because there just isn’t enough data. Many companies have tried to qualify the ROI per Facebook fan or Twitter follower, but the truth is we don’t have a solid way of quantifying social media behavior.

So, if we can’t see a direct correlation between social media followers and sales, (not including items sold directly through social media links), then why do it?

The survey respondents said they did it to deepen engagement, increase the chance that someone will recommend the product and to increase customer loyalty. That’s one pocket. In the other pocket is this concept of customer insight. 85% of people surveyed chose that as an answer. But what does it mean?

If you look at all the fans on a Facebook fan page as the population of the world in microcosm, there are things you can use. For example, if a large number of fans show up to comment on a new product release (good or bad), you’re doing something right. You’ve got their attention and you’ve compelled them to get involved. If you announce that the formerly yellow product will now be blue and no one responds, then maybe you’re wasting your money on the new version.

At the very least, social media can be used as a polling place and a way of gauging general customer satisfaction. If no one is complaining, then you’re one up on the rest of the world.

It’s true that you can use social media insights to gauge customer interest but is that enough? Is it worth the time and effort you’re putting into a Facebook page just to have your own private, on demand, focus group? What’s the other option? Not have a social media page at all? And what does that say about you?

Now switch hats. As a consumer, are you put off by companies that aren’t on Facebook or Twitter? Would that have any effect over your decision to buy from them?

The perception is, if your brand doesn’t use social media, you’re old fashioned and you’re missing out. But more and more I’m beginning to wonder if that’s true. Surely there are companies that are doing just fine without a social media presence. What about you?

Google to Become Even More Engineer Centric

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 11:32 AM PDT

Google is changing. Not only has the Larry Page as leader era officially begun but there has been a surprise exit as well. Jonathan Rosenberg , a senior vice president who has been with Google since 2002 is leaving the company. Apparently he was not in line with Page's desire to have long-term commitments from the executive leadership of Google. Rosenberg planned to leave the company when his daughter went to college in 2013 which in Internet years is about a decade away but looks like that's not good enough.

Instead Google is starting to remake itself in the image that Page has for the company. According to John Paczkowski of All Things Digital we can expect much more change at the Goog in the future

That said, its timing (Rosenberg's departure) seems quite convenient, particularly in relationship to what looks very much like a significant reorg that is currently underway at Google, said sources familiar with the situation.

The main theme that seems to be emerging: An elimination of Google's more centralized functional structure–where Rosenberg was one of several manager kingpins–to one in which the individual business units and their engineers, such as its most independent Android division, rule more autonomously.

In other words, the company that already seems to be robotic in its delivery of products and promotion of them is going to become even more so. If that's true I can't imagine what Google will look like.

Why? Because the last thing Google needs to be doing is shooting even farther over the heads of what most human beings can handle from a technology standpoint. Right now, Google offers more products and flavors than anyone I know can name. Many of these offerings have some serious technological 'whiz bang' to them but they are also not necessarily what the average user is looking for. If Google were to continue to distance itself from the end users of the world they stand to possibly innovate themselves into a corner. A marketing corner.

From a competitive standpoint, this news should thrill anyone who is paying attention over at Bing. Why? Because if Google is now heading even more into the techno stratosphere by doing things that most mere mortals aren't going to understand let alone use, Bing could sneak in give the commoners what they want: clean simple answers to questions that are reasonably accurate and actionable.

If Google is to become even more engineering centric what will happen to their relatively non-existent marketing efforts? Will they even bother or will they just assume that everyone will be assimilated into the Goog because it's the only way to go?

Is it possible that Google's engineering prowess could simply outrun the marketplace and make them even less accessible to much of the marketplace? I think so. Considering that the vast majority of people don't yet have a clue what Google's current capabilities are they could well become more distanced from a company that seems more interested in competing against itself rather than giving the people what they need to do the relatively simple things that most of the world still does with Google.

The article at All Things Digital goes on to say about this engineering focus

But is this a good idea?

Looking at the company's Android unit, the answer would appear to be a resounding yes. Under Andy Rubin, the Android team has developed its own structure and processes and it's excelling in the market. Google's role here is more nurturing parent than anything else. In other words, it's supporting innovation, not micromanaging it.

Well, that may be true on some levels but as a current Android user myself I am not sure that it's working for the long term. Why? Because despite the coolness of the Android platform it feels very much like an engineering play vs. the Apple blend of cool tech creating an easily usable platform for people with little or no tech savvy.

When I am around an iPhone user I still marvel at how easily things happen and how infrequently they need to do anything to their device other than use it. Android feels very "Windowy" to me in that you need to worry about malware and there are more times than I would like where I need to restart my device to get it working again. In other words, it's fun from an engineering standpoint but as a regular end user I always think that my next phone might be an iPhone because I don't want whiz bang; I want it to work.

Would it make sense for Google to simply slow down and let their user base catch up with where they are now? Not likely. Would it be best for Google to clean up some of the mess that it already as like its Google Places hodgepodge? I think that would be time well spent. What might happen though is that they may just move on to the next cool thing and leave something as valuable as Places to 'work itself out'. If that's the case there may not be a better time for a competitor to come in and make some serious inroads. Are you listening Bing?

So what does the prospect of a more engineer centric Google mean to you? What areas would you like to see them get it together before they move on to the next great thing? In the end, can anyone truly compete with them? Give us your take in the comments.

LivingSocial Living High on $400 Million in Funding

Posted: 05 Apr 2011 08:17 AM PDT

The online deals space is certainly heating up as more and more marketers get in the game. The decision for many is whether they want to build their own version of a deals site or whether they want to use one of the big names in the space.

For the most part, the biggest name in the space is Groupon. They are in the news constantly for a variety of reasons which are a mix of good (tremendous growth) and bad (poor executive decisions about marketing etc) but they are the de facto industry leader.

Unlike the search marketing game though Groupon's position is less than bulletproof since the ability to copy the process isn't a high barrier to entry. What is tough is scale and that's where Groupon has the edge over most little guys.

Where that edge is wearing thin, however, is in their competition with the other big player LivingSocial. LivingSocial is quietly putting together a serious threat to Groupon's status as the only big player in town. How do we know that? Well, a $400 million dollar new round of funding is evidence that many people who already believed (meaning they already invested) are going back again. And the rumored valuation of LivingSocial? $3 billion. Not too bad.

The New York Times reports

Less than four months after landing a $175 million investment from the e-commerce giant Amazon, LivingSocial last week raised an additional $400 million from existing investors like Amazon and Lightspeed Venture Partners, and several new ones including T. Rowe Price and Institutional Venture Partners, according to two people close to the company who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The deal values LivingSocial at more than $3 billion.

"The investment is certainly a milestone in the company's evolution," said (chief executive) Tim O'Shaughnessy, who declined to talk specifically about the valuation. "But it's just that — a milestone, not the end game."

This is a significant mark in the whole deal space because until now, Groupon has been the Google of the space getting the lion's share of publicity and business. Where LivingSocial is making inroads is by being just different enough and actually quiet enough to let Groupon stub its toe and make others see that there is another option and it's pretty good. (Note: I just bought tickets today through LivingSocial for the Durham Bulls and I am very happy about it).

From the industry side of the coin there is one difference between LivingSocial and Groupon that will play out and could be the difference as to why one marketer chooses one company over the other. The leadership.

Groupn's CEO, Andrew Mason, has done a brilliant job getting the company to the place it is but he has also shown some less desirable traits that have made some wonder if the hubris of the company could eventually hurt it. It was Mason who initially stood by the now infamous Super Bowl ads developed by Crispin Porter + Bogusky only to turn on them last month. LivingSocial's O'Shaughnessy paints a different picture despite being about the same age.

Mr. O'Shaughnessy, 29, also represents an interesting foil to Mr. Mason, known for T-shirts and practical jokes. The LivingSocial chief wears a crisp, buttoned-down shirt every day and rode a Segway to work for a year, after calculating the time and risk of various modes of transportation. Mr. O'Shaughnessy's aggressive efficiency and dexterity with numbers is part of the reason LivingSocial has been able to grow as fast as it has, according to several of his colleagues.

With culture usually being a top down event in most organizations will the more business like approach from LivingSocial help it to run with Groupon? There really is no way of knowing and time will ultimately tell but it will be interesting to watch the contrast in styles as these two deal makers heat up an already hot market.

It's that heat, though, that make some wonder whether this entire space is running a little too hot.

But as LivingSocial's statistics climb, some analysts warn the industry may not have a big upside over the long term. Several local vendors have publicly expressed dissatisfaction with daily deal services, which often attract discount-seekers instead of repeat visitors.

"This is not attracting the customer behavior that anyone wants, few merchants cheer and say 'This is the opportunity we've been waiting for,' " said Sucharita Mulpuru, an analyst at Forrester Research. "Groupon or LivingSocial could be No. 1, but is this a $50 billion business?"

So it looks like LivingSocial is truly in this game. And while all of this is being discussed it is no small matter that Amazon is a major player in the future of LivingSocial. It's already been evidenced as to how powerful Amazon's influence is when LivingSocial ran it's now famous $20 for $10 on Amazon deal and sold 1.3 million deals. That will make anyone stand up and notice.

Where do you see this space going? Will there be two big players and the rest or will it eventually fragment to more local offerings? Is this something that has long term value or is it a fad? When will merchants wield enough power to cut the onerous terms that they face for revenue shares?

What’s your take?