Should we trust technology?

At the risk of sounding Asimov-ian, should we trust “the machines?”

Take my retired mother-in-law. She uses a computer daily: e-mailing her children and grandchildren, researching her frequent travel plans online. She’s relatively advanced for being introduced to the personal computer after sixth sevenths of her life has gone by.

Her issue is less one of technical savviness than simply of trust. She almost lost her hard drive once, including some digital photos. She’s now so afraid to download them to her PC and delete them from her camera’s storage card, that she’s convinced my father-in-law to purchase multiple storage cards to store all their photos. When one gets full, they just start another. In her mind, it’s the lesser of two evils.

I laughed at first, then got annoyed that she didn’t trust technology and wasn’t taking advantage of it (my tech snobbery bubbling over). You’d think Google, Facebook and Twitter would be on my side, but in fact, they’re validating my mother-in-law’s fears.

In less than a week, Google’s Gmail suffered two mass outages, as frustrated users sent sales of replacement keyboards and Rogain up sharply. Google burned up some goodwill this week, and reminded everyone that nothing is failsafe. Worse, it hurt its credibility promoting the next big thing – cloud computing – where people use applications and software, like office applications, over the Internet instead of being hosted on individual PCs. When the cloud gets hazy or disappears, or the connection is broken, and there are multiple fail points, then the justification and cost savings for cloud computing goes up in smoke.

Ironically, much of the complaining about Gmail’s outage could be found on micro-blogging application Twitter, which itself is approaching legendary status for its frequent outages. A VC cash infusion to Twitter operators this spring was supposed to correct the technical flimsiness, but hiccups and whining persists. Twitter’s infamous fail whale is becoming the poster child for unreliable technology.

As more people live their lives online, posting personal videos and photos and information on social networks, is there any confidence that the content will be available, always, when we need or want? Or should a small company or entrepreneur trust cloud computing, leaving business-critical functions partially in the hands of someone else whose servers may or may not collapse or be hacked some day?

The $5-billion boo boo

Many companies I consult with are still unsure about influence of  “social media” and the online world. Mostly they’re unsure about the degree of impact on them, their people, products/services, brand and ultimately, their reputation.

In short, I tell them the online world, and the rise of social media, is a phenomenon they ignore at their own peril. And that the impact is real and tangible. Glaring examples pop up frequently. The latest involves one incident with two “boo boos:” the first refers to a heart attack, the second, more importantly, refers to the fact it was misinformation.

Apple Inc.’s share price plunged, shaving $5 billion its market capitalization in three hours, in early October when someone anonymously posted a story on CNN’s iReport citizen journalism website. The post said a “reliable source” (does anyone quote unreliable sources?!) saw Apple CEO Steve Jobs admitted to a hospital with a heart attack. With Apple’s success largely dependent upon Jobs (and with his appearance and health the subject of speculation in 2008), skittish investors responded by bolting from Apple stock. It took a few hours before the notoriously closed-mouthed Apple (and Jobs) confirmed that the post was not true, but by that time, word spread quickly online. The SEC has since identified an 18-year-old as the poster, and are investigating to determine if it was a prank or if he profited from the post.

The veracity of the story is less relevant than what it demonstrated: the speed and reach of the online world can have dire consequences to your business or organization. Here’s why:

<!–[if gte mso 9]> Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE <![endif]–><!–[if gte mso 9]> <![endif]–> <!–[endif]–>

Immediacy. The Internet operates real-time. You don’t have to wait for the newspaper to be published or for the reguarlly scheduled 6 p.m. TV broadcast to get your information. The posting of information is instantaneous and 24/7, as connections to the Internet become more ubiquitous and simpler (from PCs, wireless devices, iPhones, smart phones, etc.). At the same time, accessing the information (blogs, discussion forums, etc.), photos and videos is just as immediate and can quickly gain momentum in seconds and minutes, not hours and days.

Reach. Unlike a local newspaper, the online world is not restricted by physical geography and distribution. Information in a newspaper will reach only as far as the paper carrier can throw it; a movie or video only to those in the theatre. In the online world, anyone connected to the Internet globally can access that information. People you didn’t expect, or even want, to know about certain information are only a mouse-click away. Consider that a local newspaper column is read by thousands, but an influential blog or video-sharing site, with it’s “social” component, can be viewed by tens of millions. Your information is not just in Kansas anymore, Dorothy.

 

Live by the blog, die by the blog

Interesting social media effort from Globalive, the new upstart in the Canadian wireless telecom scramble. Globalive snapped up some significant access to wireless spectrum and plans to offer a national service in the first half of 2009.

In the runup to this launch (and while they seek out a Sugar Daddy to pay for the venture), Globalive also launched Wirelesssoapbox.com, a social media effort designed to get people talking about what they’d like in a new wireless company.

It’s a smart concept that the existing wireless players simply can’t successfully duplicate: the discussion forums and comments would be flaming with disgruntled customers instead of the constructive discussion or positive conversation building that Bell, Telus or Rogers would want. You only have to look at the rocket-like popularity of the online petition railing against Rogers’ initial plans for its exclusive iPhone launch. Ruinediphone.com garnered nearly 60,000 names, along with some nasty comments, in just a few short weeks.

Globalive is hoping to tap into that discontent and build some brand awareness and loyalty in a market that analysts have roundly decried as lacking more robust competition and lower prices. Wirelesssoapbox.com provides a neat online kickstart to Globalive’s marketing/PR/customer research efforts with basic applications like comments, discussion forums, videos — all hallmarks of a good social media site.

But eventually Globalive will have to pony up with a service plan. Virgin Mobile, Koodoo, even Rogers, started out as the upstart to long-time incumbent Bell and basked in an initial “we’re going to do things different” glow with Canadians. In the end, no one has demonstrably stood apart from the crowd. And so all the goodwill built up through Wirelessoapbox.com and its conversation-building efforts will go ‘poof’ if it raises expectations and doesn’t deliver.

And that’s the beauty — and curse — of social media: all those loyal subjects you’ve successfully courted and nurtured can become equally disloyal and disruptive when you mess up. Live by the blog, die by the blog (or any social media venture).

One other note: Wirelesssoapbox.com is appears to be crowdsourcing its infrastructure:

Very importantly, we want to hear from tech-savvy armchair engineers who are interested in sharing their advice on network architecture and design, and wireless suppliers and vendors.

Would I sign up for a phone service that was partially built by “armchair engineers?” Heck, my dad is an armchair engineer (you should see him put up a fence or fix my washing machine). I hope Globalive can find the investors to leave that to the experts.

Travel checklist: clean undies, clean laptop

There’s been some, but sporadic, media coverage about the risk of traveling into the U.S. and having immigration and customs agents seize your computer laptop and download the information. It’s a result of 9/11 and was designed to allow the U.S.’ Homeland Security to search and seize terrorist information.

As unlikely as it sounds, it has happened, and is expected to escalate as the U.S. has adopted guidelines that allow even less suspicion to search any and all electronic devices and download them.

Besides the implications on personal data (uh-oh, don’t want that floating around…), there are business-related ones involving your company’s or your customer’s proprietary, confidential information stored on laptops and other devices. Many companies are now providing “blank” laptops for staff to travel with, already wiped clean of information. Business travelers then use web-based e-mail applications, so no e-mails or other data sits on the laptop.

There are ways to minimize the risk and prevent prying eyes from seeing stuff that could damage the integrity of your data, your firm or your customers and suppliers. Take advantage of them.

And from the “hey, get your own black kettle” file comes word that the U.S. government this week issued warnings to Olympic athletes and travellers flying into China about their electronic devices being compromised or seized by Chinese authorities.

Rich…

Get on the ehPhone bandwagon

Wayne MacPhail may have coined it a year ago, but consider this the official kickoff to my subliminal propaganda campaign to infect all telecom analysts, gadget reviewers and media headline writers in Canada with the niggling urge to refer to Apple’s game changer as the “ehPhone.”

Donuts and the power and peril of social media

Was a time when news, issues, disputes, trends and the like bubbled and percolated before gaining momentum. The world was a seemingly quieter, albeit less informed place. The printing press started us down the path. Skip ahead to Marshall McLuhan and his prognostications about the “global village.” Then Vinton Cerf gives McLuhan’s revolutionary musings a technological boost and voila: paradigm shift (apologies!). How people express themselves and learn is exponentially accelerated.

Which is why Dunkin Donuts and Tim Hortons have been on the online firing line in recent weeks.

A Dunkin Donuts ad campaign featuring celebrity cook/talk show host Rachel Ray wouldn’t appear to be terrorism related. But the speed and reach of social media and can quickly spark enough momentum to influence a company to yank a multi-million-dollar campaign. The charge was led by right-wing pundit and blogger Michelle Malkin, who also supports a group railing against Starbucks for promoting family-friendliness with suggestive photos on their new coffee cups (ed. note: can a mermaid really spread her legs?!)

Coffee and donut shops were taking it on the chin in Canada before that. Tim Horton’s ran afoul when one its overzealous managers fired a part-time employee for giving a 15-cent Timbit (small donut) for free to a child of a regular customer. The blogosphere lit up with complaints and, coincidentally or not, the woman was rehired. Even the re-hiring story posted on Yahoo! Canada recorded thousands more comments.

Advocacy groups for whatever cause — charitable, political, disruptive, you name it — can quickly gain momentum online. Using all the tools of the trade — blogs, discussion forums, wikis — and spreading their gospel through feeds, trackbacks and the like, an otherwise innocuous issue or comment can take on a life of its own.

For organizations or companies, that has ominous implications. Customer complaints or product defects are immediately and widely communicated. That means companies must be monitoring and reacting to online communications before they reach a critical mass.

Consider the opportunities:

1. Build up some goodwill (that you may need to call upon later) by engaging in ongoing conversations with customers now.
2. The Internet is one giant focus group. Reach out to customers with new ideas or changes that might help confirm or contradict assumptions in advance of costly product or marketing development.
3. Just as bad news can spread like wildfire, so can your promotion. Buzz building happens faster and more broadly than ever before. Use it to be pro-active. Or else others may fill the vacuum.

Is RIM scared of losing employees?

Is success going to RIM’s head? I invited a former colleage who now works there join my LinkedIn network. But apparently LinkedIn is now verboten at RIM. When she tried to link to me, this is what popped up:

Access to this site is restricted

Restricted Access Note – All RIM Employees RIM places a high value on security, safety and intellectual property. All RIM employees share in the goal of safeguarding our assets and keeping the best interests of RIM in mind. The use of internet access is governed by the Acceptable Use of RIM Systems and Data Directive, as well as the Employee-Consultant Confidentiality and Intellectual Property Agreement, which is included in the RIM Business Standards and Principles. The RIM Business Standards and Principles must be adhered to at all times.

A quick check of LinkedIn found that hundreds of RIM employees have posted profiles there. I told her she was being singled her out because RIM doesn’t want recruiters poaching her.

Seems a bit artificial to restrict access to LinkedIn. RIM’s success and employee satisfaction should naturally be enough to retain talent. If you have to put fences up, what does that say?

I guess announcing blockbuster partnerships and continuing stock price strength isn’t enough for the co-CEOs. Now they want to hoard all the good people to themselves…

Marketing smarts or dangerous bedfellows?

There was a time when media organizations reveled in their independence. Slowly, consolidation in the media industry meant cross pollination and media organizations taking a more corporate-like approach to their business and marketing. That has morphed into outright aggressive partnerships with a corporate world that media owners once acted largely as watchdog over.

Today’s announcement of the Globe & Mail’s sponsorship of the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver is the latest media partnership announcement (CanWest had already jumped on board, with reviews from its own papers…).

Media, which at times mocked and belittled the corporate marketing speak, are now part of the mix, “extending brands” and “leveraging partnerships” to “reach more stakeholders.”

If the Globe is ponying up money to back the Olympics, can it remain editorially independent? Publisher Philip Crawley says so. Editorial independence is not necessarily demonstrated by what and how events and situations are covered. It’s what is not covered that reveals the invisible hand of the suits behind the editors. No, it’s not commonplace, but yes, it’s more subtly recognized within media circles than the general public.

From VANOC’s perspective, media partnerships are a great marketing move that will almost guarantee them extensive coverage and arguably minimize any sustained negative coverage. As Mr. Corleone once said: “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.” Better still, partner with them so they have a financial interest.

Last rites, or rebirth, of newspapers?

Circulation is down. Ad revenues are down. Ad Age is running a special series on the U.S. industry entitled Newspaper Deathwatch in which one media analyst says: “When an offline reader of a paper dies, he or she is not being replaced by a new reader.” It doesn’t look good for the ink-stained fourth estate.

The Internet has been a threat (mostly) and opportunity for newspapers. Unfortunately, most organizations thought slapping up an online version of their printed edition constituted a successful play in “new media.” Woops. Others have seen the light sooner. Their online presence goes beyond historical one-way communication (Here’s the news: now read it and go away until tomorrow…) to employ an architecture, forums and content that attract eyeballs, encourages participation and builds loyalty.

First, more newspapers are outfitting staff with video and digital cameras in addition to notepads. Capturing interviews or events, in their entirety, has little to no space limitations online compared to the real estate limitations of the printed page. Video content is the future, plain and simple. Plus, it can be great entertainment (Chef Ramsay, the toast is on fire!).

Second, online editions are springboards for more detailed information or directly to the source. Readers may link somewhere else, but they’ll keep coming back because you give them access and direction to richer content.

And third, some newspapers are taking the leap into the user-generated content (UGC) world. It’s a huge leap of faith: at its core, UGC is the anti-thesis of newspapers’ traditional role as the authoritative voice of its particular community. It’s one thing to allow comments at the end of online stories. It’s another to allow the public to generate those stories and other content on your site.

A few papers are walking this talk, in part because UGC supplements shrinking newsroom resources (yes, UCG is unpaid and arguably impacts paid staffing levels, but that’s another blog…). In Canada, the Montreal Gazette has opened up the kimono with West Island Plus, featuring reader-generated stories, photos and local event postings alongside Gazette staff-generated content. Providing those forums and content complements the expertise and content provided trained journalists (i.e. posting a local hockey team tryout time isn’t the same as investigating the suspiciously high mortality rate among seniors at a nursing home). The Chicago Tribune’s Triblocal and Washington Post’s Loudounextra are also making this play to engage (keep!) readers. It gets readers to participate. The next step is to see newspapers creating mini social networks that allow readers to create their own conversations unfettered. Should the city be using taxpayers’ money to build that sports stadium? What can we do to revive downtown? How do we get more kids involved in volunteer work?

Ultimately, keeping readers is about keeping ad revenue (a newspaper sales rep once opined that I and my fellow journos just filled in the gray space around his ads). Keeping revenue keeps the lights on. Will building stronger online capabilities, applications and ultimately loyal eyeballs attract enough people to immediately offset the shrinking print ad revenue? No. But if newspapers are going to survive and thrive, it will make the transition quicker and less painful.

Can newspapers evolve quickly enough? If not, how long before their eulogy?

Jason, Freddy and security on social networks: which is scarier?

What level of security breach or scandal will make social networkers more cautious about giving up personal information on Facebook, MySpace, et al? (Full disclosure: my agency represents MySpace Canada.)

Or are people so comfortable and eager to live their lives online that their risk tolerance is minimal to non existent?

Facebook’s Beacon is probably the best litmus test as to how far (or not) a social network can go before people start getting antsy. But with thousands of Facebook applications being downloaded daily, all with the ability to gather information on users, have people accepted the potential privacy issues?

A story from Associated Press today looks at that contradiction and implications, pointing out that nefarious use of personal information by Facebook application developers is randomly, but not constantly, policed by Facebook. It’s basically an honor system (yikes!). The story finds that targeted ads are too invasive for New Yorker Jonathan Gaugler:

“Getting married? Do your registry here!” read one recent ad that showed up. Another on his fiancee’s page was advertising for egg donors for fertility clinics. “Creepy,” Gaugler says.

Maybe a security (software or hardware) company should conduct a comprehensive attitudes and preferences survey that benchmarks people’s risk tolerance for privacy and then tracks those changes over time. Will people become too comfortable until something catastrophic happens? Or do the benefits and sheer momentum of social networking outweigh the potential dangers?

What do you think?