information

Aardvark Publishes A Research Paper Offering Unprecedented Insights Into Social Search

Source: http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Techcrunch/~3/IMDRrISRf-8/

In 1998, Larry Page and Sergey Brin published a paper[PDF] titled Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Search Engine, in which they outlined the core technology behind Google and the theory behind PageRank. Now, twelve years after that paper was published, the team behind social search engine Aardvark has drafted its own research paper that looks at the social side of search. Dubbed Anatomy of a Large-Scale Social Search Engine, the paper has just been accepted to WWW2010, the same conference where the classic Google paper was published.

Aardvark will be posting the paper in its entirety on its official blog at 9 AM PST, and they gave us the chance to take a sneak peek at it. It’s an interesting read to say the least, outlining some of the fundamental principles that could turn Aardvark and other social search engines into powerful complements to Google and its ilk. The paper likens Aardvark to a ‘Village’ search model, where answers come from the people in your social network; Google is part of ‘Library’ search, where the answers lie in already-written texts. The paper is well worth reading in its entirety (and most of it is pretty accessible), but here are some key points:

  • On traditional search engines like Google, the ‘long-tail’ of information can be acquired with the use of very thorough crawlers. With Aardvark, a breadth of knowledge is totally reliant on how many knowledgeable users are on the service. This leads Aardvark to conclude that “the strategy for increasing the knowledge base of Aardvark crucially involves creating a good experience for users so that they remain active and are inclined to invite their friends”. This will likely be one of Aardvark’s greatest challenges.
  • Beyond asking you about the topics you’re most familiar with, Aardvark will actually look at your past blog posts, existing online profiles, and tweets to identify what topics you know about.
  • If you seem to know about a topic and your friends do too, the system assumes you’re more knowledgeable than if you were the only one in a group of friends to know about that topic.
  • Aardvark concludes that while the amount of trust users place in information on engines like Google is related to a source website’s authority, the amount they trust a source on Aardvark is based on intimacy, and how they’re connected to the person giving them information
  • Some parts of the search process are actually easier for Aardvark’s technology than they are for traditional search engines. On Google, when you type in a query, the engine has to pair you up with exact websites that hold the answer to your query. On Aardvark, it only has to pair you with a person who knows about the topic — it doesn’t have to worry about actually finding the answer, and can be more flexible with how the query is worded.
  • As of October 2009, Aardvark had 90,361 users, of whom 55.9% had created content (asked or answered a question). The site’s average query volume was 3,167.2 questions per day, with the median active user asking 3.1 questions per month. Interestingly, mobile users are more active than desktop users. The Aardvark team attributes this to users wanting quick, short answers on their phones without having to dig for anything. They also think people are more used to using more natural language patterns on their phones.
  • The average query length was 18.6 words (median of 13) versus 2.2-2.9 words on a standard search engine.  Some of this difference comes from the more natural language people use (with words like “a”, “the”, and “if”).  It’s also because people tend to add more context to their queries, with the knowledge that it will be read by a human and will likely lead to a better answer.
  • 98.1% of questions asked on Aardvark were unique, compared with between 57 and 63% on traditional search engines.
  • 87.7% of questions submitted were answered, and nearly 60% of them were answered within 10 minutes.  The median answering time was 6 minutes and 37 seconds, with the average question receiving two answers.  70.4% of answers were deemed to be ‘good’, with 14.1% as ‘OK’ and 15.5% were rated as bad.
  • 86.7% of Aardvark users had been asked by Aardvark to answer a question, of whom 70% actually looked at the question and 38% could answer.  50% of all members had answered a question (including 75% of all users who had ever actually interacted with the site), though 20% of users accounted for 85% of answers.
Information provided by CrunchBase


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

Why Job Seekers Should Worry About Their Online Reputation

Source: http://www.labnol.org/internet/online-reputation-important-for-jobs/12582/

If you are looking for a job or are a potential job-seeker, be very careful of what you write or share online because HR departments and recruitment professionals are scanning tweets, blog posts, photos, and other online profiles of job candidates before offering them positions.

Why Online Reputation Management is Important

Around 70% of hiring managers in in US have rejected candidate just because of their online reputation. The chart looks at the various types of online information that have led companies to reject candidates.

Why Companies Reject Candidates

Tomorrow is Data Privacy Day and this research (download PPT) was originally commissioned by Microsoft as part of the same initiative.

Other than Microsoft, Google, Intel, AT&T are also part of the Data Privacy Day group. You should also check their site as it contains some excellent resources on how companies, students and parents can better protect their online information.

Why Job Seekers Should Worry About Their Online Reputation

Originally published at Digital Inspiration by Amit Agarwal.

Facebook    Twitter    Technology Blog

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

The Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing

The Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing

  1. Thou shalt not target customers with messages they don’t want.

  2. Thou shalt be truthful.

  3. Thou shalt respect your customers.

  4. Thou shalt make it easy for people to find you.

  5. Thou shalt be useful.

  6. Thou shalt make it easy for people to pass along.

  7. Thou shalt measure and optimize.

  8. Thou shalt listen to customers.

  9. Thou shalt remove any organizational barriers to speedy, collaborative innovation.

  10. Thou shalt not do brand-ing.

Thanks for all the retweets!

WSI_ComandixI’m not Moses, but here’s The Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing http://ow.ly/TQuh

iamdanmoriartyThis is awesome – the 10 commandments of modern marketing http://bit.ly/7l8aBw – All very true, but especially #9!

tombutlin10 Commandments of modern marketing http://bit.ly/8MNo8g by @acfou. It doesn’t get clearer than this.

SuzzicksRT @AnnaMariaVirzi: How true, @acfou! Online marketing commandment no. 5: Thou shalt be useful http://www.clickz.com/3636027

acfouThou Shalt Not Target Customers (even with #BehavioralTargeting): Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

matt_mcgowanRT @AnnaMariaVirzi: How true, @acfou! Online marketing commandment no. 5: Thou shalt be useful http://www.clickz.com/3636027

indie_preneurThe 10 commandments of modern marketing — are you playing nicely? http://www.clickz.com/3636027 /via @AnnaMariaVirzi

pedrogomezGreat read: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

AnnaMariaVirziHow true, @acfou! Online marketing commandment no. 5: Thou shalt be useful http://www.clickz.com/3636027

horacemitchell10 commandments of modern marketing http://short.to/12npj

fonstuinstra10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ http://ow.ly/TOgq (h/t Jan van den Bergh)

GetPushingRT @GranerCreative: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://tinyurl.com/y8mahr5 #marketing

MarComNetworkRT @GranerCreative: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://tinyurl.com/y8mahr5 #marketing

GranerCreative10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://tinyurl.com/y8mahr5 #marketing

jevedebe10 Commandments of Modern Marketing. http://tr.im/JJ1A

TemplateZonepretty solid guidelines – maybe someone should carve them into stone tablets! http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

theviragomedia10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ http://bit.ly/7HKYGI

GreeneMarketRT @acfou: Thou Shalt Not Do Brand-ing: Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing #whatwereyouthinking – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

MoniqueElwellexcellent reading: Augustine Fou Thou Shalt Not Do Brand-ing: Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing http://htxt.it/E3ut

PeteHealyAugustine Fou’s “10 Commandments of Modern Marketing” @acfou http://j.mp/5MWrLr #in

jessweissAll communications must be relevant, respectful, etc. @sarahebourne @andylarrimore The 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://ow.ly/TLCI

sarahebourneTrue! RT @andylarrimore I think I will revise these slightly to the 10 Commandments of Web Content – http://ow.ly/TI0V

blakeandwhite10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – from @ClickZ. Great list, @acfou! http://bit.ly/5MWrLr

TachmanRT @PDMAffiliates 10 Modern Marketing Commandments: http://bit.ly/5MWrLr #advertising

TdF_ConsultantsRT @berteloot: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

DecorcatsRT @berteloot: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

BrandojoRT @acfou: Thou Shalt Not Do Brand-ing: Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing #whatwereyouthinking – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

acfouThou Shalt Not Do Brand-ing: Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing #whatwereyouthinking – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

berteloot10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

pamdyerColumn: Modern marketing must focus on today’s consumers http://bit.ly/8g3EGJ 10 commandments for marketing in 2010

TaiKolenkoAn awesome article on Modern Marketing! I like the comment, “the sun is setting on the era of big “push” advertising.” http://bit.ly/5MWrLr

KFinneganThe 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – http://bit.ly/90GhVq

DistribionDMRT @AdLocal: Reading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

AnteroDiasCommandments of Modern Marketing – A list of the 10 rules every marketer should follow to meet consumer needs in 2010: http://bit.ly/5MWrLr

AdLocalReading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

patriciahader#Measure and optimize on the 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing list http://bit.ly/8vQ1w6 via ClickZ

_Vanessa_V10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

HamiltonWallaceRT @acfou: Ten Commandments to help “marketing sinners” become saints – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

seewhatcouldbe10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 via @addthis

winsell10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 via @addthis

mnm8312Reading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

andylarrimoreI think I will revise these slightly to the 10 Commandments of Web Content – http://ow.ly/TI0V

PedroBravoNada de hacer branding y otros 9 mandamientos de marketing moderno http://www.clickz.com/3636027

davidamoore10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ http://bit.ly/5MWrLr

shannonholatoRT @cmo4hire: Read 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing, #10 No Brand-ing :) http://www.clickz.com/3636027

everyspoon10 Commandments of Modern Marketing. Learn them. Love them. Live them. Especially #5: Thou shalt be useful. http://www.clickz.com/3636027

zapalaFZKReading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

joshua_dthou shall be useful & truthful – RT @gerardodada: Reading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027 – all true

MMG_Works10 Commandments of Modern Marketinghttp://bit.ly/8UVG1J

gerardodadaReading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027 – all true

PDMAffiliates10 Modern Marketing Commandments: http://bit.ly/5MWrLr #affiliate #advertising

BizIncubationRT @mediatrustpete 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 by @acfou chief digital officer

mediatrustpeteMust Read for Marketers : 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 by @acfou chief digital officer

MetaResponse10 Marketing Tips; http://bit.ly/5MWrLr

shiraadattoBrilliant as always! RT @acfou Ten Commandments to help “marketing sinners” become saints – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

raysmannaTen Commandments to help “marketing sinners” become saints RT@acfou http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

acfouTen Commandments to help “marketing sinners” become saints – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

gmcdanielGood #marketing advice. Thanks for sharing! RT @Intouchsol: The 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing- from @ClickZ http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

ChurchChair10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 via @addthis

IntouchsolThe 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing- from @ClickZ http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

delpierreReading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

AdsMitchell#Marketing | 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027

Datadude09Reading 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://www.clickz.com/3636027 Nothing we don’t already know but still interesting.

debbieswiderLove this from the ClickZ crew: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing! http://bit.ly/6f3F5d

cmo4hireRead 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing, #10 No Brand-ing :) http://www.clickz.com/3636027

CollinsCompany10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 via @addthis

susanjspauldingRT @RoyMorejon: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – http://zi.ma/86997a

pablorazziRT @gnewell: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/4RC4K1

gnewell10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/4RC4K1

glenngabe10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/75GhEK -great post by @acfou. I found myself nodding in agreement through most of it. :)

RoyMorejon10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – http://zi.ma/86997a

acfouHappy 2010! Ten Commandments to help “marketing sinners” become saints – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

Sharon_Higbee10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/6khoUG

thenameshopnz10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 via @addthis

Spunky_PR10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: http://www.clickz.com/3636027 http://bit.ly/8B5DZ7

jenkins123110 Commandments of Modern Marketing: On the other hand Sweetriot came out of nowhere, used no paid advertising .. http://bit.ly/5yKvpX

jenkins123110 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/5yKvpX

Jeff_Scarpo10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/5yKvpX

beeyourfriend10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: Some people start the new year with resolutions. I thought, why not … http://bit.ly/5hjQZJ

friendfollower10 Commandments of Modern Marketing – ClickZ: Some people start the new year with resolutions. I thought, why not … http://bit.ly/5hjQZJ

2koolsales10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: With digital tools, devices, and channels data and feedback can be obtaine.. http://bit.ly/5yKvpX

col250401RT @sponsordiddy: 10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/8uC7up

2adproshop10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: http://bit.ly/5GVRTl

EnterSuccess10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: On the other hand Sweetriot came out of nowhere, used no paid advertising of … http://bit.ly/6HLwmZ

jamieohler10 Commandments of Modern Marketing: On the other hand Sweetriot came out of nowhere, used no paid advertising of … http://bit.ly/4B39X4

marketingbot“10 Commandments of Modern Marketing” http://tinyurl.com/y8mahr5

GINFrank10 Commandments of Modern Marketing http://bit.ly/8dJM9l

HartHootonMarketing and #SocialMedia tips from Augustine Fou | RT @acfou: Ten Commandments of Modern Marketing #marketing – http://bit.ly/8U3iI6

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, January 7th, 2010 Uncategorized No Comments

How Major Labels Cook the Books with Digital Downloads [Digital Downloads]

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/jl5xTTh-ZxM/my-6247-royalty-statement-how-major-labels-cook-the-books-with-digital-downloads

Tim Quirk was the singer of punk-pop outfit Too Much Joy, signed by Warner Bros. in 1990. Now he’s an executive at an online music service, giving him insight on digital sales data and just how labels fudge their numbers.

I got something in the mail last week I’d been wanting for years: a Too Much Joy royalty statement from Warner Brothers that finally included our digital earnings. Though our catalog has been out of print physically since the late-1990s, the three albums we released on Giant/WB have been available digitally for about five years. Yet the royalty statements I received every six months kept insisting we had zero income, and our unrecouped balance ($395,277.18!)* stubbornly remained the same.

Now, I don’t ever expect that unrecouped balance to turn into a positive number, but since the band had been seeing thousands of dollars in digital royalties each year from IODA for the four indie albums we control ourselves, I figured five years’ worth of digital income from our far more popular major label albums would at least make a small dent in the figure. Our IODA royalties during that time had totaled about $12,000 – not a princely sum, but enough to suggest that the total haul over the same period from our major label material should be at least that much, if not two to five times more. Even with the band receiving only a percentage of the major label take, getting our unrecouped balance below $375,000 seemed reasonable, and knocking it closer to -$350,000 wasn’t out of the question.

So I was naively excited when I opened the envelope. And my answer was right there on the first page. In five years, our three albums earned us a grand total of… $62.47.

What the fuck?

I mean, w! e all kn ow that major labels are supposed to be venal masters of hiding money from artists, but they’re also supposed to be good at it, right? This figure wasn’t insulting because it was so small, it was insulting because it was so stupid.

Why It Was So Stupid

Here’s the thing: I work at Rhapsody. I know what we pay Warner Bros. for every stream and download, and I can look up exactly how many plays and downloads we’ve paid them for each TMJ tune that Warner controls. Moreover, Warner Bros. knows this, as my gig at Rhapsody is the only reason I was able to get them to add my digital royalties to my statement in the first place. For years I’d been pestering the label, but I hadn’t gotten anywhere till I was on a panel with a reasonably big wig in Warner Music Group’s business affairs team about a year ago

The panel took place at a legal conference, and focused on digital music and the crisis facing the record industry**. As you do at these things, the other panelists and I gathered for breakfast a couple hours before our session began, to discuss what topics we should address. Peter Jenner, who manages Billy Bragg and has been a needed gadfly for many years at events like these, wanted to discuss the little-understood fact that digital music services frequently pay labels advances in the tens of millions of dollars for access to their catalogs, and it’s unclear how (or if) that money is ever shared with artists.

I agreed that was a big issue, but said I had more immediate and mundane concerns, such as the fact that Warner wouldn’t even report my band’s iTunes sales to me.

The business affairs guy (who I am calling “the business affairs guy” rather than naming because he did me a favor by finally getting the digital royalties added to my statement, and I am grateful for that and don’t want this to sound like I’m attacking him personally, even though it’s abo! ut to se em like I am) said that it was complicated connecting Warner’s digital royalty payments to their existing accounting mechanisms, and that since my band was unrecouped they had “to take care of R.E.M. and the Red Hot Chili Peppers first.”

That kind of pissed me off. On the one hand, yeah, my band’s unrecouped and is unlikely ever to reach the point where Warner actually has to cut us a royalty check. On the other hand, though, they are contractually obligated to report what revenue they receive in our name, and, having helped build a database that tracks how much Rhapsody owes whom for what music gets played, I’m well aware of what is and isn’t complicated about doing so. It’s not something you have to build over and over again for each artist. It’s something you build once. It takes a while, and it can be expensive, and sometimes you make honest mistakes, but it’s not rocket science. Hell, it’s not even algebra! It’s just simple math.

I knew that each online service was reporting every download, and every play, for every track, to thousands of labels (more labels, I’m guessing, than Warner has artists to report to). And I also knew that IODA was able to tell me exactly how much money my band earned the previous month from Amazon ($11.05), Verizon (74 cents), Nokia (11 cents), MySpace (4 sad cents) and many more. I didn’t understand why Warner wasn’t reporting similar information back to my band – and if they weren’t doing it for Too Much Joy, I assumed they weren’t doing it for other artists.

To his credit, the business affairs guy told me he understood my point, and promised he’d pursue the matter internally on my behalf – which he did. It just took 13 months to get the results, which were (predictably, perhaps) ridiculous.

The sad thing is I don’t even think Warner is deliberately trying to screw TMJ and the hundreds of other also-rans and almost-weres they’ve signed over the years. The reality is more boring, but also more depressing. Like I said, they don’t actually ow! e us any money. But that’s what’s so weird about this, to me: they have the ability to tell the truth, and doing so won’t cost them anything.

They just can’t be bothered. They don’t care, because they don’t have to.

“$10,000 Is Nothing”

An interlude, here. Back in 1992, when TMJ was still a going concern and even the label thought maybe we’d join the hallowed company of recouped bands one day, Warner made a $10,000 accounting error on our statement (in their favor, naturally). When I caught this mistake, and brought it to the attention of someone with the power to correct it, he wasn’t just befuddled by my anger – he laughed at it. “$10,000 is nothing!” he chuckled.

If you’re like most people – especially people in unrecouped bands – “nothing” is not a word you ever use in conjunction with a figure like “$10,000,” but he seemed oblivious to that. “It’s a rounding error. It happens all the time. Why are you so worked up?”

These days I work for a reasonably large corporation myself, and, sadly, I understand exactly what the guy meant. When your revenues (and your expenses) are in the hundreds of millions of dollars, $10,000 mistakes are common, if undesirable.

I still think he was a jackass, though, and that sentence continues to haunt me. Because $10,000 might have been nothing to him, but it was clearly something to me. And his inability to take it seriously – to put himself in my place, just for the length of our phone call – suggested that people who care about $10,000 mistakes, and the principles of things, like, say, honoring contracts even when you don’t have to, are the real idiots.

As you may have divined by this point, I am conflicted about whether I am actually being a petty jerk by pursuing this, or whether labels just thrive on making fools like me feel like petty jerks. People in the record industry are very good at making bands believe they deserve the hundreds of thousands (or sometimes millions) of dollars labels advance th! e musici ans when they’re first signed, and even better at convincing those same musicians it’s the bands’ fault when those advances aren’t recouped (the last thing $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man yelled at me before he hung up was, “Too Much Joy never earned us shit!”*** as though that fact somehow negated their obligation to account honestly).

I don’t want to live in $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man’s world. But I do. We all do. We have no choice.

The Boring Reality

Back to my ridiculous Warner Bros. statement. As I flipped through its ten pages (seriously, it took ten pages to detail the $62.47 of income), I realized that Warner wasn’t being evil, just careless and unconcerned – an impression I confirmed a few days later when I spoke to a guy in their Royalties and Licensing department I am going to call Danny.****

I asked Danny why there were no royalties at all listed from iTunes, and he said, “Huh. There are no domestic downloads on here at all. Only streams. And it has international downloads, but no international streams. I have no idea why.” I asked Danny why the statement only seemed to list tracks from two of the three albums Warner had released – an entire album was missing. He said they could only report back what the digital services had provided to them, and the services must not have reported any activity for those other songs. When I suggested that seemed unlikely – that having every track from two albums listed by over a dozen different services, but zero tracks from a third album listed by any seemed more like an error on Warner’s side, he said he’d look into it. As I asked more questions (Why do we get paid 50% of the income from all the tracks on one album, but only 35.7143% of the income from all the tracks on another? Why did 29 plays of a track on the late, lamented MusicMatch earn a total of 63 cents when 1,016 plays of the exact same track on MySpace earned only 23 cents?) he eventually got to the heart of the matter: “We don’t normally do this for unrecouped bands,” he ! said. “B ut, I was told you’d asked.”

It’s possible I’m projecting my own insecurities onto calm, patient Danny, but I’m pretty sure the subtext of that comment was the same thing I’d heard from $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man: all these figures were pointless, and I was kind of being a jerk by wasting their time asking about them. After all, they have the Red Hot Chili Peppers to deal with, and the label actually owes those guys money.

Danny may even be right. But there’s another possibility – one I don’t necessarily subscribe to, but one that could be avoided entirely by humoring pests like me. There’s a theory that labels and publishers deliberately avoid creating the transparent accounting systems today’s technology enables. Because accurately accounting to my silly little band would mean accurately accounting to the less silly bands that are recouped, and paying them more money as a result.

If that’s true (and I emphasize the if, because it’s equally possible that people everywhere, including major label accounting departments, are just dumb and lazy)*****, then there’s more than my pride and principles on the line when I ask Danny in Royalties and Licensing to answer my many questions. I don’t feel a burning need to make the Red Hot Chili Peppers any more money, but I wouldn’t mind doing my small part to get us all out of the sad world $10,000-Is-Nothing-Man inhabits.

So I will keep asking, even though I sometimes feel like a petty jerk for doing so.


* A word here about that unrecouped balance, for those uninitiated in the complex mechanics of major label accounting. While our royalty statement shows Too Much Joy in the red with Warner Bros. (now by only $395,214.71 after that $62.47 digital windfall), this doesn’t mean Warner “lost” nearly $400,000 on the band. That’s how much they spent on us, and we don’t see any royalty checks until it’s paid back, but it doesn’t get paid back out of the full price of every album sold. It gets paid back out of the band’s share of every albu! m sold, which is roughly 10% of the retail price. So, using round numbers to make the math as easy as possible to understand, let’s say Warner Bros. spent something like $450,000 total on TMJ. If Warner sold 15,000 copies of each of the three TMJ records they released at a wholesale price of $10 each, they would have earned back the $450,000. But if those records were retailing for $15, TMJ would have only paid back $67,500, and our statement would show an unrecouped balance of $382,500.

I do not share this information out of a Steve Albini-esque desire to rail against the major label system (he already wrote the definitive rant, which you can find here if you want even more figures, and enjoy having those figures bracketed with cursing and insults). I’m simply explaining why I’m not embarrassed that I “owe” Warner Bros. almost $400,000. They didn’t make a lot of money off of Too Much Joy. But they didn’t lose any, either. So whenever you hear some label flak claiming 98% of the bands they sign lose money for the company, substitute the phrase “just don’t earn enough” for the word “lose.”

** The whole conference took place at a semi-swank hotel on the island of St. Thomas, which is a funny place to gather to talk about how to save the music business, but that would be a whole different diatribe.

*** This same dynamic works in reverse – I interviewed the Butthole Surfers for Raygun magazine back in the 1990s, and Gibby Haynes described the odd feeling of visiting Capitol records’ offices and hearing, “a bunch of people go, ‘Hey, man, be cool to these guys, they’re a recouped band.’ I heard that a bunch of times.”

**** Again, I am avoiding using his real name because he returned my call promptly, and patiently answered my many questions, which is behavior I want to encourage, so I have no desire to lambaste him publicly.

***** Of course, these two possibilities are not mutually exclusive – it is also possible that labels are ! evil and avaricious AND dumb and lazy, at the same time.

Reprinted with permission from Too Much Joy.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, December 2nd, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

Your Data’s Probably Gone Forever [Outages]

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/gizmodo/full/~3/BtPKBvdhhc8/t+mobile-sidekick-outrage-your-datas-probably-gone-forever

T-Mobile Sidekick users have been holding out hope that their data might be recovered after T-Mo issued an optimistic message of hope. But the carrier just updated users and admitted the truth: Your shit’s gone. Sorry, guys.

It’s been more than two weeks without data for Sidekick users, and T-Mobile finally bit the bullet and announced that it probably isn’t coming back. The quote:

Regrettably, based on Microsoft/Danger’s latest recovery assessment of their systems, we must now inform you that personal information stored on your device – such as contacts, calendar entries, to-do lists or photos – that is no longer on your Sidekick almost certainly has been lost as a result of a server failure at Microsoft/Danger. That said, our teams continue to work around-the-clock in hopes of discovering some way to recover this information. However, the likelihood of a successful outcome is extremely low.

This is pretty crappy of T-Mobile and Danger, and while it’s probably unfair to make this connection, doesn’t give us any new confidence in Project Pink, developed by the remnants of Danger after Microsoft acquired it. (After all, Microsoft bought Danger specifically because of their software services. And now, it just goes kablooey?) Renowned Sidekick user and a-hole Perez Hilton, while normally hysteric about just about everything, has the right tone here:

To add insult to injury, the ONLY thing T-Mobile is offering their customers, whom they obviously don’t value or respect, is one month of free data service.

That’s shit!

One month of free data service (which is not the same thing as one month of free phone use) for SEVEN DAYS of heartache and no access to contacts????

That’s fucked!!!!

Really, that’s kind of putting it lightly. [T-Mobile via Boy Genius Report]


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 10th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

Twitter Stats

source: http://www.sysomos.com/insidetwitter/

Summary

Over the past few months, Twitter has experienced explosive growth, attracting celebrity users such as Oprah, and a growing mountain of media and blog coverage. Sysomos Inc., one of the world’s leading social media analytics companies, conducted an extensive study to document Twitter’s growth and how people are using it. After analyzing information disclosed on 11.5 million Twitters accounts, we discovered that:

  • 72.5% of all users joining during the first five months of 2009
  • 85.3% of all Twitter users post less than one update/day
  • 21% of users have never posted a Tweet
  • 93.6% of users have less than 100 followers, while 92.4% follow less than 100 people
  • 5% of Twitter users account for 75% of all activity (see the report on analysis of top-5% users)
  • New York has the most Twitters users, followed by Los Angeles, Toronto, San Francisco and Boston; while Detroit was the fast-growing city over the first five months of 2009
  • More than 50% of all updates are published using tools, mobile and Web-based, other than Twitter.com. TweetDeck is the most popular non-Twitter.com tool with 19.7% market share.
  • There are more women on Twitter (53%) than men (47%)
  • Of the people who identify themselves as marketers, 15% follow more than 2,000 people. This compares with 0.29% of overall Twitter users who follow more than 2,000 people.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, October 6th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

A new definition of “digital” – the collection of habits and expectations of modern users

By defining “digital” as not the technology, device, or channel, but rather the habits and expectations of modern users, we are able to make practical decisions about which marketing tactics, technologies, devices, and channels to use to match these users’ habits and expectations.  If you know their habit is to search, then you wouldn’t blow your whole budget on TV ads and have nothing for them to find online when they search. if you believe they expect to be able to find information from their iPhones, then you wouldn’t make your whole site high bandwidth, flashy, and Flash because they wont be able to view it at all.

Thank you all for your comments and retweets.

HamiltonWallaceA New Definition of Digital: http://bit.ly/2deV5u Article nails how “digital” is changing behavior. Listen-up marketers!

glenngabeA New Definition of ‘Digital’ http://bit.ly/2deV5u via @acfou on ClickZ

belindaangRT @randymatheson: Do we need a new definition of ‘Digital’? | ClickZ http://ow.ly/qZ4N

randymathesonDo we need a new definition of ‘Digital’? | ClickZ http://ow.ly/qZ4N

jonnylongdenRT @arkley68: Good post by @acfou – A New Definition of ‘Digital’ – http://www.clickz.com/3635052 #measure #roi

BennaPReading: the new definition of ‘digital’ from @acfou -via Clickz – excellent and informative read http://www.clickz.com/3635052

bwhigamInteresting POV – A New Definition of ‘Digital’ – http://bit.ly/2deV5u

MJinNYCRT @acfou – Branding is dead; targeting is dying; social media is not media- A new definition of digital? – http://bit.ly/TTTPC

acfouBranding is dead; targeting is dying; social media is not media – if you believe this new definition of “digital” – http://bit.ly/TTTPC

SgtWiggidyA new definition of Digital – http://bit.ly/2deV5u – Good Read!

jacqueswarrenNot so hot about his definition of digital, but this is certainly an action packed article !! http://bit.ly/2deV5u

Adtraction_RAJ_The new definition of digital – not just websites anymore. http://bit.ly/pAfEP

arkley68Good post by @acfou – A New Definition of ‘Digital’ – http://www.clickz.com/3635052 #measure #roi

MPPR755DCSRT @kathymbaird Defining ‘digital’ http://tinyurl.com/yb5f9tq I work with a ‘digital’ team I teach a ‘digital’ course. This about sums it up

jeanaandersonI just had this conversation at an interview Tues: Is Digital killing the brand? Is creative losing its pull? http://www.clickz.com/3635052

RaynaNyc‘A New Definition of Digital’ http://bit.ly/Xn2Gr Thought provoking post by @acfou (via clickz)

HeidiPatmoreRT @Jussipekka Reading A New Definition of ‘Digital’ (via @DaGood) http://www.clickz.com/3635052

kathymbairdDefining “digital” http://tinyurl.com/yb5f9tq. I work with a “digital” team. I teach a “digital” course. This about sums it up.

mktmobileA New Definition of ‘#Digital’: is not about products, it’s all about habits and expectations http://bit.ly/iTH67

fsdigitalA New Definition of ‘Digital’? : http://bit.ly/moxhd

konsultantasRT @baltix A New Definition of ‘Digital’ http://htxt.it/ZnVv

JussipekkaReading A New Definition of ‘Digital’ (via @DaGood) http://www.clickz.com/3635052

baltixA New Definition of ‘Digital’ http://htxt.it/ZnVv

sunshooter81A New Definition of ‘Digital’: Many people actively search for things online. And the moment they type i.. http://bit.ly/19irO8

DeanLandRecommended reading. Good piece from AC Fou: RT @acfou: How do you define “digital”? I define it thusly … http://bit.ly/TTTPC

acfouHow do you define “digital”? I define it thusly … http://bit.ly/TTTPC

LevickHow the new definition of “digital” is shaping marketing trends (from @acfou) http://bit.ly/Xn2Gr

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, September 24th, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

Contextual Help Bubble – Dictionary, Thesaurus, Wikipedia, Amazon, Google Translate, Clip2Send

Dead simple, handy tool for adding contextual help to any web page or entire site. It is installed on this blog — so go ahead and select something with your mouse.

Install on any webpage or blog by way of 1 line of code:

<script src=”http://64.202.162.213/bubble/bubble.js“></script>

Select any text, contextual bubble appears, click Wikipedia to get more information about the selected text

contextual-bubble-wikipedia-1contextual-bubble-wikipedia-2

When more than 5 words are selected, other options are grayed out and clip2send is the link to click to send the selected part of the page via email. Type in the email address; the subject line is autofilled, but editable; the source URL is automatically cited>

contextual-bubble-clip2send-1contextual-bubble-clip2send-2

Select text, contextual bubble appears, click Amazon link to bring up results on Amazon.

contextual-bubble-amazon-1contextual-bubble-amazon-2

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, August 23rd, 2009 Uncategorized No Comments

The JKWeddingDance video was real; the viral effect was MANUFACTURED – Post 1 of 2

originally investigated and reported on Friday July 31, 2009 by Augustine Fou, with Tugce Esener @tesener

Several friends and colleagues had the same reaction when they found out about this video — that it was at such a high view count already and we were late to the party of finding out.  Then we did some more digging — digital forensics  :-)  And this is a case where a viral hit was indeed successfully manufactured.  There’s something to be learned from all this – how to successfully manufacture a viral video sensation and make viral profits.

Related: How to manufacture a viral video sensation and make viral profits – Post 2 of 2

Chris Brown is successfully tapping into the viral halo of a funny video that coincidentally used his song.

ReadWriteWeb article on how rights owners (Sony, Chris Brown) can make viral profits on other people using their work instead of suing them - http://bit.ly/KA3HI

The video was real. But promotional activities (possibly/likely paid) created the initial viral effect (led to the tipping point of the viral effect) which then got carried a further by people thinking they were simply late to the party, including myself (e.g. 440k bit.ly clicks and 3k detectable retweets out of the 13M views). The numbers don’t jive.

The viral halo has added 1 million more views to the video from August 1 – August 2.  (13.1 M to 14.5 M)


Ten ELEVEN TWELVE THIRTEEN proof points to follow, each with screen shot to illustrate.

1a. anyone notice that the “Forever” soundtrack is remarkably consistent throughout the video as if it were dubbed or added in after the original footage was shot. The sound is too consistent in volume and loudness to have come from a built-in, on-camera microphone. At the very end of the video, once it cuts back to the couple at the altar the sound quality goes back to the echo-y, tinny sound of an on-camera mic.

1b. The “TheKHeinz” user on YouTube was registered on July 19, 2009, the day the video was posted. We usually look for clues like this to detect “plants” by PR agencies.  This is an issue of trust — a user “CmdrTaco” on Slashdot has been around the forums for years, made hundreds of posts, and was rated by the community very highly. PR agencies trying to seed stories have to create new user accounts during the PR campaign (recent registration date) and have made no other posts or uploads before (no history).

thekheinz-user-info-on-youtube

2. The social intensity detected in all of the top social venues like Technorai, Delicious, Reddit, Digg, etc. indicate there was not enough organic sharing to support a view count of 13 million views in 11 days (updated: 14.6 million today August 2, 2009).

a) Bit.ly shows only 447k clicks on the shortened URL

bitly-statistics-on-jkwedding-video

“At Fortune’s Brainstorm:Tech conference Ashton Kutcher effectively took credit for boosting the views from – in his words – 12,500 views before he tweeted the link – to some 1.2 million views 12 hours later…”

Well, unfortunately he used a bit.ly link which provides public analytics on how many people clicked. Most tweets result in immediate traffic, which then tails off immediately after the tweet falls off the first page. In his case, look at the following bit.ly stats URL and click “past month” to see the peak clicks on July 23. All he can actually claim is that his tweet drove a peak of about 100,000 clicks on that day not 1.2 million :-(

http://bit.ly/info/Z7vMw

too bad Ashton. next time you make a BMOC claim, be sure to use a non trackable method, so analytics won’t “out” you so easily.

august-21-bitly-intensity-update

after only 3.5 days of retweets the twitter intensity died off to next-to-nothing; if this were a truly viral video, carried forth by real people (and not by paid PR support and paid media) the retweet intensity would remain high. As of August 21, there are over 21M views on the video and the 505k retweets does not show actual organic support for that number.

ashton-kutcher-promote-viral-video


b) Twitturly shows only 3 thousand retweets on the YouTube URL itself

updated-twitturly-stats-for-video

c) Delicious shows only 447 bookmarks of the video itself

delicious-bookmarks-jkwedding

delicious-bookmarks-jkweddingdance

d) Reddit only shows 673 thumbs up for the video itself

reddit-results-for-jkweddingvideo

e) Technorati shows only 277 blog mentions of the video itself — this could be undercounting if blogs used URL shorteners. But if you look at the blog intensity results (below) sorted by blogs with most authority the blogs have very little authority (i.e. influence or size of audience).

technorati-blog-posts-on-jkwedding

– these are real indications of interest by real people. The social intensity of the passalong for this video does not substantiate the huge number of views in 11 days.

What we are seeing now is the additional viral halo, as the momentum is sustained by large media outlets reporting on the story — even Google Blog blogged about it (boasting about the success of YouTube advertising in driving revenues). Of course TechCrunch is right that viral videos can be monetized: http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/07/30/youtube-viral-wedding-videos-are-great-for-advertising/ )


3. Twitter shows nothing in the top “trending topics” related to this video – indicating few people are actually tweeting about it — if this video is SO viral (13M views in 11 days) then it has GOT to show up on a scan of social intensity. (see screen capture below)

July 31 (Friday)                 August 2 (Sunday)

twitter-trending-topics-455pm-july-31-2009August-2-trending-twitter-topics

4. The original video was posted July 19, 2009. The people from the video appeared on NBC’s Today Show and danced around Rockerfeller Center on July 25th (6 calendar days after posting). Today Show staff may be great at spotting news, but to get all the wedding party from the wedding to re-enact the dance on the Today Show in 6 calendar days — too good to be true?  Hmm…

today-show-appearance


5. Out of all the wedding videos on YouTube, how did Chris Brown detect this particular one that used his song. @glenngabe noted that there are song detection mechanisms  - ContentID - which detect the pattern of the copyrighted song and report that to the rights owners. We know there are hundreds, if not thousaands, or really funny wedding home videos — America’s Funniest Videos has been running for years and years on TV showing funny wedding blooper videos that people submitted to them.


6. ALL TEN of the top viral videos on AdAge’s Viral Video Chart took around 3 – 6 months to achieve full viral effect — not 6 days.  See all 10 videos’ stats, as reported by YouTube at the following link. This video has not shown up at all on the list of Adage viral videos.

AdAge Top Viral Videos all take 3 – 6 months to reach full viral effect



7. From @RedW0rm – YouTube Declares Wedding Video a Financial Success http://bit.ly/9ZUtu


8. also check the velocity of this http://twitter.com/#search?q=jkwedding or this http://twitter.com/#search?q=jkweddingdance notice the tweets are not seconds apart but hours apart. Something that achieved 13M views in the 11 days since posting would show far higher velocity or twitter intensity.

twitter-1-jkwedding

twitter-1-jkwedding

9.  For a top-trending topic on twitter, there is usually correspondingly high search volume that is detectable.  At first glance, terms related to this viral video like “jkwedding” or “jk wedding dance” all seem to spike.  But if you put it against even “Corazon Aquino” (one of the top trending topics NOW on Twitter) those JK wedding search volumes are dwarfed.  (see chart below).

corazon-aquino-search-volume

10.  Google only reports 366 links to the video and most of them are not even important websites (see Alexa blue bar)

google-in-links-for-jkwedding-video

11.  The video itself has no honors and no stats (yet); YouTube stats are conveniently turned off. Other videos have their stats graphs publicly available.

no-honors-for-jk-wedding-video

12. see the fine print in the YouTube description — For more information or to make a donation towards violence prevention please visit our website: http://www.jkweddingdance.com/ – why would a normal wedding video ask people to make a donation towards violence prevention? (see screen capture below), the WHOIS record shows the domain jkweddingdance.com was created 29-Jul-09 — today is 31-Jul-09

Updated: This was circumstantial evidence. A source confirmed that Jill is studying patterns of violence propagation for her PhD. Their choice of charity was their own choice. And the site was set up to help that cause.

violence-prevention-chris-brown

whois-jkweddingdance-part1

whois-jkweddingdance-part2

Conclusion?  The video itself is real, made by those nice people in the wedding. They may not even realize why or how their wedding video went viral (and the tens of thousands of other wedding videos on YouTube did not). On the Today Show, “The couple told Lauer they were surprised at the video’s popularity” (also see NY Daily News article – http://bit.ly/OA3iG )

Related articles:

ReadWriteWeb – Build Profit Not DMCA Suits

WSJ – YouTube Declares Wedding Video a Financial Success

PSFK – Co-opting Viral Hits to Sell More Music

TechCrunch – YouTube: Viral Wedding Videos Are Great For Advertising

Huffington Post – Viral Wedding on YouTube Drives Buyers to Chris Brown Music

ClickZ – http://blog.clickz.com/090805-160921.html

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, July 31st, 2009 Uncategorized 37 Comments