I’ve been seeing a lot written about “the social media bubble” in places like the NY Times, NPR, and Atlantic Monthly. A theme you’ll find across their coverage is that the sale of Instagram is a mark of the social media end times.

I’m the first person to point out the folly of assigning universal values to followers and friends. Really, doesn’t it matter just who those friends are, and what your plans are for them? Besides, there are bigger forces, such as the end of the PC era that will do more to shift customer experience and business models than social media. So, what other signs of social media’s value might we find?

This week the Huffington Post became the first blog to ever win a Pulitzer Prize.

The prize for HuffPo’s David Wood’s is stunning 10-part series “Beyond the Battlefield,” which describes the lives of severely injured Afghanistan and Iraq War veterans. The blog invested in a long term effort, allowing Wood to interview veterans over an eight month period. The reporting is paired with striking photo journalism. Take a look. (above)

Matt Wuerker, Politico’s editorial cartoonist and illustrator also won a Pultizer for “his consistently fresh, funny cartoons, especially memorable for lampooning the partisan conflict that engulfed Washington”. You can see a carousel of his work here. Though Politico is printed for distribution in DC, most people know it as a blog.

Okay, both publications and the Pulitzer committee may all be in the bubble. But that’s not the point. There’s real revenue being racked-up, and value being established. Sure there’s uncertainty, but that’s not a bubble, its just good old risk. (if you want a real bubble, find a place where government financing is falsely buoying prices: college tuition and corn seem more bubbelicious to me than Pinterest with its 22 employees.

Bubble or Sale?
Not long ago Ad Age summed up this whole social media and digital media shift: “Marketers: Digital offers us more for less“. We’re in a tight economy, many big firms are cutting advertising to protect margins. They’re moving part of it to digital, and depending on its greater efficiency to make up for over all ad cuts. Cuts in one area of marketing are fueling the development of new owned and earned media channels. When Facebook ads are selling at $1 CPM, the bubble feels far from full; it feels like a sale. Knowing that Facebook is steaming toward a possible $100B IPO, raises the negotiating floor for any strategic purchase it makes. America is leading in digital marketing, and the investment world is fueling a ton of innovation in this “bubble”. (There are tons of examples: ExactTarget’s IPO, Schoolology – a Blackboard competitor in the .edu space, and Path come to mind.)

Sure, there is an irrational exuberance among those who thoughtlessly pursue the endless string of bright shiny objects in digital marketing. Darwin punishes stupid change as surely as those who fail to innovate. But in this environment, you’re either in motion or out of the game. More than ever, change isn’t optional, bubble or not.

This post originally appeared on the Econsultancy digital marketing blog, where there is an active discussion of Pinterest’s Business Model.

The third and final part of our series on Pinterest brings us to  the making-money part of the story.

After all, that’s what separates a “cool feature” from a business. And by Pinterest’s own admission, they’re still figuring out their business model. And a sceptical as I am by nature, my response is “so what?”

Twitter looks like a viable social media titan, but does anyone think they’ve cracked the code on their revenue model? And with just over 20 staff, and 10 million users – with brands now running campaigns on Pinterest, there’s a difference between “not having” a model, and waiting to select the right business model.

We’ve talked about what Pinterest is and why anyone should care, and the amazing copyright judo that’s taking place to make the site possible.

So it’s come to this: the making-money part, which is what separates a “cool feature” from a business.

By Pinterest’s own admission they aren’t quite there yet on their business model.

Here’s how they say it in their own FAQ:

But Are Business Models All That?

Take a look at Lindt Chocolate’s Pin4Autism campaign. It’s solid cause marketing in the service of building brand and list power on Pinterest. Last week Elliot Ross posted a great case study of how Toys R Us is driving pinning right from promotional emails.

Does this mean Pinterest has a business model? Not quite. But it’s substantiation that real marketing elements are in play.

And let’s face it, building a 21 million member network in two years is a pretty good qualifier of demand. Pinterest is currently a 22-person company with a prized demographic, amazing time-on-site measures, a high growth curve, hype among investors, and a better photo interface than Facebook.

Waiting to Pick Their Shot?

So, could you build a good business based on Pinterest’s set of givens. Sure, there are copyright issues which have been finessed. Just as Google Adwords did on Adsense. And yes, there is irrational hype. But as many of you pointed in earlier comments, there’s a lot of reality to Pinterest.

Perhaps there’s s a difference between not having a business model, and waiting to build the right one. Isn’t that what early stage funding is for?

There’s a discussion over at Quora on all the ways Pinterest could grow revenue.

a)      Charging advertisers through branded campaigns, outbound links and traditional ads.
b)      Charging ecommerce partners for affiliate links
c)       Charging users (virtual goods, printed collections, better tools)
d)      Selling user data/analytics

I expect there’ll be a raft of “me-too” media sharing networks. (I’m pitching ideas for them already.) This is a great model, expect new competitors.

The next revolution will be image-based.

Just as mobile has driven home the understanding that interactive experiences are way beyond hyperlinks, so is Pinterest a wake-up call that content really is no longer just text on a screen.

I really don’t know if Pinterest will be the next great social network or not. Nobody does.

But I sure believe the next big winner will help people wield rich media and graphics. That makes the future more like Pinterest than perhaps anything else.

This post originally appeared on the Econsultancy digital marketing blog, where there is an active discussion of Copyright, Pinterest at its terms of use. It also was cited by the Washington Post as an example of how technical and legal architecture is often in conflict..

MIT Tech Review hails Pinterest’s terms of use as a genius-level copyright dodge. And while that may be so, its position is disingenuous to the point of irony.

The problem is that “sharing whatever you like” and copyright infringement are, well, sort of the same thing. Especially as Pinterest encourages people to use “nice big versions” of what they find, and to “share from more than one source”.

On one hand Pinterest makes it easy to grab images from all over the Internet, even though the terms of use say that’s something users will never do.

I’ve already started a pin board to track the legal issues ahead for Pinterest. But thanks to the terms, using Pinterest could end-up landing me in court for doing so. And that has a few smart users backing off from this hot new social network.

If you’d like an overview of Pinterest, see my earlier post: What Is Pinterest? And Why Should I Care?

But if you have a legal orientation, or care about copyright because you’re an artist, or are managing the visual elements of trademark, don’t go away. This is where Pinterest becomes intriguing.

The site does not take the expected step to argue that the images on Pinterest are commentary, and part of a discussion that should be protected by the Fair Use doctrine. There would be all kinds of inconsistent rulings, and Pinterest would have a weak hand.

So far the site has done everything it can to finesse the copyright issue. 

The set up: Pinterest wants you to use others’ images
From the very start, Pinterest encourages you to share. In the welcome note it says you should share images from “more than one source”. It talks about being “nice” and repinning others’ images. It makes a tool so you can easily post images you like from all over the web. As I’ve said however, this, and copyright infringement, is the same thing.

Shocked, shocked to find copyright infringement
So instead, it relies on its terms of use to ‘ensure’ — and by that I mean a wink and nod — that all images are owned by the users who post them.

So millions of users, using browser add-its for grabbing photos, are of course just doing this on their own websites, right? And if they’re not, Pinterest would be shocked. Just as Captain Renault in Casablanca was shocked to find that gambling was going on within the casino. 

By clicking “Accept”, users are saying they “either are the sole and exclusive owner of all Member Content that they make available through the Site, Application and Services or they have all rights, licenses, consents and releases that are necessary.”

Furthermore, if you do have those rights, you just kissed them goodbye by posting the image to the site, as per this section of the terms:

By making available any Member Content through the Site, Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Brew Labs a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to sublicense, to use, copy, adapt, modify, distribute, license, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, stream, broadcast, access, view, and otherwise exploit such Member Content only on, through or by means of the Site, Application or Services.

And then the terms turn to your responsibility if ANYONE sues Pinterest for an image you posted. The terms put you, the user, on the hook to “defend and indemnify” Pinterest and its owner.

So, the instructions may be wrapped up in the guise of sweetness and sharing, but the terms of use are the exact opposite. Fortunately for Pinterest, the terms are far less prominent than the bookmarklet that quickly turns ‘newbies’ into copyright-infringing terminators.

Start the first pinboard for Pinterest lawsuits
Galen Moore at the Boston Business Journal wrote about his foray into Pinterest, in an aptly named article How your business could get sued for using Pinterest. He posted images that real estate firms had sent to the paper of new buildings in Boston. But on reading the terms, he noted that though he had the “use” of the photos, he wasn’t their owner and couldn’t grant others the right to sub-license them. 

Of course, even if Mr. Moore had taken the photos himself, images of creative works such as a buildings or paintings can have underlying copyright issues that would suck us down a new wormhole. Let’s just agree than many (and by that I mean most) images on Pinterest aren’t being posted by their copyright holders.

Kirsten Kowalski who is a lawyer and professional photographer, wrote an even better titled post: Why I Tearfully Deleted my Pinterest Inspiration Boards. Her review of the terms of use, and concluded that “repinning” the images of others falls under this “grant of license” – so that while the service encourages you to repin other’s work, their TOU forbids it without permission.

Is taking down your Pinboard is an over reaction? You can decide. But if you think about this for more than 90 seconds, that puts you among a very small portion of Pinterest users.

Pinterest’s disingenuous copyright bet
So what if Pinterest users are infringing copyright, in spite of the terms of use that says users own image rights? 

Pinterest has developed “nopin” tags to help those that want to keep their work/content off of Pinterest. The site is gambling that only a small minority of content owners will notice any infringement and request removal of their work.

In most cases, Pinterest is spreading the fame of things people like, and often providing SEO-rich links back to the sites they’re taken from.

All of this is based on finesse, born from a shambolic set of terms that has users and Pinterest both subscribing to the total fiction that users own their own copyright.

The entire Pinterest user experience promotes unlicensed use of images, something its terms prohibit absolutely. Do Pinterest’s legal people ever even look at the site? Sure, that’s where the winks come in.

Since users don’t read the terms, they go on generally missing the alternative reality of the agreement they’ve entered into.

And the presumption seems to be that most content owners will be glad to have their work curated on the service. Perhaps they’ll get a link, some traffic, some fame, or even karma.

Besides, who can the sue? Isn’t Pinterest a start-up with no clear revenue plan? We’ll cover that in my next post, which considers whether all this pinning is good business…

MIT Tech Review hails Pinterest’s terms of use as a genius-level copyright dodge. And while that may be so, its position is disingenuous to the point of irony.

The problem is that “sharing whatever you like” and copyright infringement are, well, sort of the same thing. Especially as Pinterest encourages people to use “nice big versions” of what they find, and to “share from more than one source”.

On one hand Pinterest makes it easy to grab images from all over the Internet, even though the terms of use say that’s something users will never do.

I’ve already started a pin board to track the legal issues ahead for Pinterest. But thanks to the terms, using Pinterest could end-up landing me in court for doing so. And that has a few smart users backing off from this hot new social network.

If you’d like an overview of Pinterest, see my earlier post: What Is Pinterest? And Why Should I Care?

But if you have a legal orientation, or care about copyright because you’re an artist, or are managing the visual elements of trademark, don’t go away. This is where Pinterest becomes intriguing.

The site does not take the expected step to argue that the images on Pinterest are commentary, and part of a discussion that should be protected by the Fair Use doctrine. There would be all kinds of inconsistent rulings, and Pinterest would have a weak hand.

So far the site has done everything it can to finesse the copyright issue. 

The set up: Pinterest wants you to use others’ images

From the very start, Pinterest encourages you to share. In the welcome note it says you should share images from “more than one source”. It talks about being “nice” and repinning others’ images. It makes a tool so you can easily post images you like from all over the web. As I’ve said however, this, and copyright infringement, is the same thing.

Shocked, shocked to find copyright infringement

So instead, it relies on its terms of use to ‘ensure’ — and by that I mean a wink and nod — that all images are owned by the users who post them.

So millions of users, using browser add-its for grabbing photos, are of course just doing this on their own websites, right? And if they’re not, Pinterest would be shocked. Just as Captain Renault in Casablanca was shocked to find that gambling was going on within the casino. 

By clicking “Accept”, users are saying they “either are the sole and exclusive owner of all Member Content that they make available through the Site, Application and Services or they have all rights, licenses, consents and releases that are necessary.”

Furthermore, if you do have those rights, you just kissed them goodbye by posting the image to the site, as per this section of the terms:

By making available any Member Content through the Site, Application or Services, you hereby grant to Cold Brew Labs a worldwide, irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, royalty-free license, with the right to sublicense, to use, copy, adapt, modify, distribute, license, sell, transfer, publicly display, publicly perform, transmit, stream, broadcast, access, view, and otherwise exploit such Member Content only on, through or by means of the Site, Application or Services.

And then the terms turn to your responsibility if ANYONE sues Pinterest for an image you posted. The terms put you, the user, on the hook to “defend and indemnify” Pinterest and its owner.

So, the instructions may be wrapped up in the guise of sweetness and sharing, but the terms of use are the exact opposite. Fortunately for Pinterest, the terms are far less prominent than the bookmarklet that quickly turns ‘newbies’ into copyright-infringing terminators.

Start the first pinboard for Pinterest lawsuits

Galen Moore at the Boston Business Journal wrote about his foray into Pinterest, in an aptly named article How your business could get sued for using Pinterest. He posted images that real estate firms had sent to the paper of new buildings in Boston. But on reading the terms, he noted that though he had the “use” of the photos, he wasn’t their owner and couldn’t grant others the right to sub-license them. 

Of course, even if Mr. Moore had taken the photos himself, images of creative works such as a buildings or paintings can have underlying copyright issues that would suck us down a new wormhole. Let’s just agree than many (and by that I mean most) images on Pinterest aren’t being posted by their copyright holders.

Kirsten Kowalski who is a lawyer and professional photographer, wrote an even better titled post: Why I Tearfully Deleted my Pinterest Inspiration Boards. Her review of the terms of use, and concluded that “repinning” the images of others falls under this “grant of license” – so that while the service encourages you to repin other’s work, their TOU forbids it without permission.

Is taking down your Pinboard is an over reaction? You can decide. But if you think about this for more than 90 seconds, that puts you among a very small portion of Pinterest users.

Pinterest’s disingenuous copyright bet

So what if Pinterest users are infringing copyright, in spite of the terms of use that says users own image rights? 

Pinterest has developed “nopin” tags to help those that want to keep their work/content off of Pinterest. The site is gambling that only a small minority of content owners will notice any infringement and request removal of their work.

In most cases, Pinterest is spreading the fame of things people like, and often providing SEO-rich links back to the sites they’re taken from.

All of this is based on finesse, born from a shambolic set of terms that has users and Pinterest both subscribing to the total fiction that users own their own copyright.

The entire Pinterest user experience promotes unlicensed use of images, something its terms prohibit absolutely. Do Pinterest’s legal people ever even look at the site? Sure, that’s where the winks come in.

Since users don’t read the terms, they go on generally missing the alternative reality of the agreement they’ve entered into.

And the presumption seems to be that most content owners will be glad to have their work curated on the service. Perhaps they’ll get a link, some traffic, some fame, or even karma.

Besides, who can the sue? Isn’t Pinterest a start-up with no clear revenue plan? We’ll cover that in my next post, which considers whether all this pinning is good business…

This post originally appeared on the Econsultancy digital marketing blog, where there is an active discussion of what Pintrest means for digital marketers. I recommend them for their conferences, blogs, research and best of all for being the kind of community of marketers of which I’m proud to be a member.

Pinterest’s potential isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition. But if you’re a digital manager, you need a clear point of view on this for those you advise.

Sure, there’s hype, but Pinterest is the front edge of at least two important digital marketing trends.

This is the first in a series of three posts taking a strategic view of what’s shaping-up to be 2012′s breakthrough new social network.

What’s Pinterest?
Pinterest, in case you haven’t heard of it, is Tumblr with some different features. Like Tumblr, it allows you to post your own stuff, as well as stuff you find around the internet, with the click of a button.

Where Tumblr is a blog variant, Pinterest lets you set up sub-blogs built around a particular interest or topic. So you can post all the cute pictures of pugs on one board and all the pictures about the economy on another. It also lets you search everyone else’s boards easily.

That’s really about it. One friend described it as “Delicious for pictures”. Of course, delicious is text-driven and used by guys, while Pinterest is a scrapbook designed to drive relentless word-of-mouth referrals among women and apparently, Silicon Valley investors.

The size of Pinterest’s splash
So why is there so much buzz around this? The numbers: The site beta-launched in March 2010 and is still invite-only.

Despite this, the user base surpassed 10m in December, and according to Google DoubleClick, now has 21m worldwide unique visitors per month.

Pinterest, in case you haven’t heard of it, is Tumblr with some different features. Like Tumblr, it allows you to post your own stuff, as well as stuff you find around the internet, with the click of a button. Where Tumblr is a blog variant, Pinterest lets you set up sub-blogs built around a particular interest or topic. So you can post all the cute pictures of pugs on one board and all the pictures about the economy on another. It also lets you search everyone else’s boards easily.

That’s really about it. One friend described it as “Delicious for pictures,” noting that Delicious is text-driven and used by guys, while Pinterest is a scrapbook designed to create a user-experience that women would love.

The Size of Pinterest’s Splash
So why is there so much buzz around this? The numbers: The site beta-launched in March 2010 and is still invite-only.

Despite this, the user base surpassed 10m in December, and according to Google DoubleClick, now has 21m worldwide unique visitors per month.

Forrester analyst Darika Ahrens sums up Pinterest’s allure below:

“Pinterest is well known for having a demographic of 18-34-year-old, upper-income women from the Midwest – if that’s not who you sell to, then Pinterest may not be for you,’’ she said. “I’d ask, can you afford to be playing with pretty pictures when there are other, more urgent, interactive marketing priorities?’’

Of course, as women make a huge range of purchase decisions for themselves and others (think travel, health care, home goods, food) having first-mover advertage can be an attractive proposition to many brands.

One of the things I appreciate about Pinterest is who uses it. When I look at the people I’m connected to on Google+, most of the posts I see are from a small number of tech-savvy ‘early adopter’ social media windbags.

They post a lot. But I don’t see ordinary people on G+. Not as they are on Facebook, and Pinterest. There are many more ordinary people in this world. Unlike G+ and Twitter, Pinterest didn’t have to jump a chasm to get to a majority market, its where they started.

And Pinterest is easy to use. Lots of people don’t get Twitter, or the value of an unstructured stream of 140 character utterances. But organizing collections of inspiring images is a natural, even reflexive task. Its social media, but with only the need to curate images you like. That’s a low barrier to participation.

Suddenly, the social media hype cycle is suggesting the solar system has a new axis called Pinterest.

• SJ Mercury News: Pinterest, not Facebook, is Silicon Valley’s hottest social network. (Guess it’s too late to get in on Facebooks’s IPO.)
• CNBC: “He credits the fast-growing site Pinterest for amplifying his online sales to 50 percent of his current business. On the site, he can let his art speak for itself.” (Was it speaking for someone else on another site?)
• Tire Review (not making that up): Is Pinterest of Any Interest for the Tire Industry?
• There’s already a service which claims to analyze one’s influence through Pinterest.
• Heck, the U.S. Army has even put out a manual on using the site. (File under: You know you have too much money when…)

Is Pinterest for Real?
This just has the feel of Color– remember Color? Less than a year ago it scored $41 million of investment for its photo-sharing app from Sequoia and Bain Capital. And in social media and the Ad Club it was everywhere — for all of two weeks. Then everyone forgot about it after realizing its business model was the classic “Make something cool and hope Google buys it.” (And believe me, I have nothing against that business model. All offers cheerfully considered, Mr. Brin.)

Pinterest’s Strategic Role: TOFU Supreme
It turns out Pinterest is staking out a highly valuable position in the marketing universe.

Hannibal Lecter, the fantastic bad guy in Silence of the Lambs reminds us of a marketing truth when he asked his interrogator, “And how do we begin to covet, Clarice? Do we seek out things to covet? No. We begin by coveting what we see every day…Don’t your eyes seek out the things you want?”

Before someone heads to Google to search with intent, they have to discover what they want. Sites like Pinterest start up to the Top of Funnel (TOFU) where sentiment gets formed.

Picture your friends making up lists right now of the best things they want. The list of the things they want can inspire others. If even a fraction of this demand can be directed to merchants, then there’s a new conduit of demand, one that circumvents search. That’s why marketers should care.

But the tide that brought attention to Pinterest can quickly shift. It would shift especially quickly if people start getting cranky about copyright issues. And then there are those pesky questions about Pinterest needing a business model.

So next we’ll talk about the clever legal finesse behind Pinterest, which is what it takes to handle a potential copyright bomb.

Facebook user John Graham, a 42-year-old Leawood lawyer from Kansas, is suing the leading social network in representation of the 150 million Facebook users in the United States.

According to Graham, Facebook is in violation of wiretap laws as it uses a tracking cookie to record web browsing history after users have already logged off of Facebook.

Read full article on Thenextweb.

Its that time, when a few hundred online types gather for Boston’s social media un-conference, Podcamp.  Yes, there are topics — but these are looser than at regular conferences, and they’re 100% driven by the audience.  Its fun, personal, cheap, and it really is the place to click-in with a core group of Massachusetts digital doers.

The New Schedule is Here!
 Here are a few sessions I”m looking forward to at this year’s #PCB6. Hope to see you there.

And, if you’re new to Boston’s digital scene, this is a key place to come and plug in.  Here’s just a taste of the digital awesome ahead.

Saturday, September 24th
     (We might get to hear from founders, Brogan & Penn, before the games begins.)

9am –
Join me for The 7 Deadly Sins of Digital Business Innovation
While nobody can tell you exactly how to build your next innovative digital business, the deterrents to digital success are well known. Taking lessons from my work helping firms remake themselves through digital technology, I’ll share some common patterns that create obstacles, and ways firms have successfully taken them on.

10am –
Chris Brogan (in photo above), Why Google+? Then What?
Are social media enthusiasts finding Google+ to be a useful medium. Or is this a fantastically designed bridge to nowhere. Pocamp founder and man-about-the speaking circuit, Chris Brogan has a point of view at the ready.

David Cutler (also in photo above), Selling Out
Let’s face it, nothing happens until someone sells something. And that’s what Mr. Cutler has been doing since before we were both geezers. Nobody is more interactive than Culter. And I’m hoping that he’ll play some harmonica between sessions. Please, join me in hounding him about this.

Tom Catalini – Improve your blog’s image with images!
I really want to see this. Fortunately, Podcamp is governed by the rule of two feet, which allows wandering between sessions. This way I can satisfy my desire to be three places and once, and to continue to cultivate mid-life ADD.

11am –
Tamsen McMahon, Breaking the Bell Curve: Standing out in a sea of same
Tamsen, a self-described intellectual magpie, is a ton of  fun and great ideas. She leads digital strategy for a fine agency in our fair city.

2:15 –
Doug Haslam, Cutlure Clash of Personal and Professional Brands, & Why It’s Necessary
Doug was early to the intersection of digital and public relations. And hearing what’s on his mind is a great view on the promises and challenges of digital PR.

3:15 –
Christopher Penn – Designing Social Media Influence
Chris is a Podcamp founder, and extraordinarily nice guy who will have a honed presentation.

Ja-Nae Duane has been on a Revolutionary Roadtrip spreading social media savvy, much as the Scooby gang once toured our nation uncovering ghostly hoaxes in abandoned amusement parks. She is head of social marketing for a local agency, an opera singer, and a fine ghost investigator in her own right.

Paul Lyzun, Interview Techniques – no not for a new job, silly. Paul teaches video skills, and his presentations are a great way to learn hands on skills. Fortunately he’s presenting twice, but if you need to do on camera interviews, get in here.

Sunday, September 25th

10:00 –
Sara Streeter, Fluency Through Listening
Sara ran New-B camp in Providence, and is smart, fun, and relentless up to good.

Lane Sutton, Locking Yourself Up… Online from the Unknown
Though Lane is quite young (somewhere below 18 still I believe) he’s earned a voice as a philosopher of why being online is good for us.

11:00 –
Georgiana Cohen, Get Smart About Content
She just nailed with a question in my Web3.0 session last year, and since then, I’ve seen Georgiana all over the place sharing ideas on content strategy. She manages web communications for a local university, and I hear she’ll be keynoting at Gilbane Boston this Fall. Don’t miss, she’s awesome!

Chel Wolverton, Social Inbox Zero
If anyone knows about managing chaos its Chel, who has been lead organizer of the last two Podcamps. She’s also out sharing her views about the online world, and anyone who can help get people to Zero in any inbox has “the power”.

2:15 –
Come join me for Applying Digital Strategy Across Your Business
You will leave this workshop with the tools to assemble single page maps to renovate existing businesses approaches, or show how your new approach will obsolete competitors.

3:15 –
Mari Anne Snow – Teaching social media to the next generation of social media professionals.
Besides being the best professor on social media that I know, she’s also an accomplished business advisor. I’ve attended several of her courses, and highly recommend hearing how she structures a fantastic learning experience that is far from ordinary.

You can see the full Podcamp Boston schedule here, and $30 registration tickets (good for the whole weekend) are available, this way.

Google +1  is the critical priority of the year for our friends at Google. Accordingly, they’ve invested their most prized asset in this effort: space on every single paid and organic search result.

(To get a quick explanation of +1, see the video below.)

Why So Much Urgency?
I see two large drivers for the urgency behind this launch, which makes this akin to Apple launching a new iPad.

Google is Desperate to Be a Social Platform
Google has tried a series of social initiatives: starring results, blocking results, side-wiki and Google Buzz, but none have achieved mass success. Twitter, Facebook, FourSquare and others have cracked the code on the social Web 2.0 networked world. Google is still the hub of Web 1.0 webpages. But the social graph lives on platforms that others control, and that’s a threat to Google.

Google Seeks to Restore Integrity to its Search Results via Social Markers
As I noted a few weeks ago, crappy organic search results are a threat to the value position of Google’s paid results. That’s the lion’s share of their revenue.

Google has been off inventing cars that drive themselves and devices that could replace television networks, but along the way they let SEO gamers lower the integrity of their organic search results. Adding social signals to the search formula is a step away from factors that SEO gamers control, such as link farms and exact match domains.

This Beta Is Still Half-baked, But It Deserves Your Attention Now
The rush to release the beta is evident, as all the elements in +1 which take place off the search engine results pages (SERPs) aren’t yet ready.  That’s too bad, because without them, +1 fails; that’s why its a beta.  After all, the purpose of a search page is to get people to content, not to survey them to see if they like what’s described in the search result.

The place where +1 will fly or fail is on the websites of potentially millions of users who will install the +1 button. Yet, just like the iPad2, if you’d like to add a +1 button to your website, “there’s a line for that.”

The other missing element is the special tab in your Google profile that shows people what you’ve +1’ed.  This may be soon to come, but until it does, this beta isn’t very social. Once people can Tweet and link to their list of +1s, and promote the program on their own sites, it will be legitimately social. For the time being, this is just a design shift on SERP pages, and a glimpse of what’s ahead.

In the Long Term, Google +1 Is Promising to Marketers
This promises social proof to validate firms’ search results. Further, there’s the potential of future influence on natural search engine rankings or the quality score of ads (SEO agencies, start your engines).  And if profile pages become social hubs, marketers can gain additional awareness and traffic through social sharing on these.

+1 Is Also Promising to Google’s Future
1. It gives searchers a reason to use Google when they’re signed in, rather than anonymously. This means Google can build richer records of individuals’ use of search and better target ads.
2. It expands the public use for the Google profile page, which can be built into a future social networking play.
3. It is an answer to Facebook’s Like button, which is already on about 2 million websites.
4. It is an innovation that moves the public spotlight off Google’s struggle with link farms and SEO gamesmanship.

Unanswered Questions and Unintended Consequences

Will This Initially Decrease Conversion Rates?
If you follow the UsefulArts Twitter feed,  SEO pro Andy Komack @akomack raised the question of the unintended conversion distraction that Google+1 introduces.  Currently the +1 box is a distraction from the core purpose of search pages: channeling traffic to content.  If a social opportunity interrupts the search experience, click-throughs could in fact decline. This might change over time, but I agree with his concern.

How Will Participation Change Search Engine Results?
Will sites with the +1 box on their pages gain an advantage in SERP rankings? Will sites with more +1s move up in rankings, or end up paying less for PPC placement?

Bold Prediction: This is the start of Google the Social Network
I see this as a move in a more expansive social play, in which Google will combine its Profile Pages, the +1 Button, Google Buzz, Google Chat, Google Phone, Gmail and its RSS Reader into an integrated social network. I suspect we will see these point services substantially repackaged into an aggregated offering. What do you think?

That’s my take on this now day-old initiative.
I’d love to hear your view, so please comment away here or email me your take.

Post update: April 1, 2011, 9pm: after an instance of the +1 button was found “in the wild” running on a non-google website, Google announced it would withdraw the public test of the button. All information in this post continues to be accurate – and this illustrates again Google’s urgency to accelerate this launch while attempting to manage marketers interest in this initiative. (details)

2011 has been the year when social media has become a central story in international politics.

This grew through a global series of online protests in 2008, the “Twitter revolution” in Moldova in 2009, and Wikileaks in 2010.  Suddenly Mark Zuckerberg is the hero of the Arab people (see the 60 Minutes‘ Bob Simon interview with Tunisians), and Egyptians are naming children after Facebook. This is real transformative power, and that’s not lost on political leaders in China.

The Web as Political Magic or Western Manipulation?

Both western and Arab observers see Tunisia and Egypt as examples of the political magic that comes when people are connected and enabled by networks and mobile devices.  But party hardliners in China see this as an unambiguous threat. They’ve used the “great firewall of China” to block content about Arab countries in revolution. To them, the story is not about the empowerment of people by information technology; it’s about the national interests that social media serves – specifically, the United States.

China Bolsters Public Sentiment Against Western Digital Media
The Chinese press, and yes I am speaking of it as a consolidated entity, is building a familiar “online threat from the West” story arc, intended to galvanize national sentiment against the West, which is set on world conquest through a monopoly trade in dangerous products.  Not opium; information. On Friday, “web user” Zheng Yan wrote an article which appeared on the CCP’s official People’s Daily, and since has been cross-posted to 300 websites in China including including Xinhua Online, QQ.com, China Youth Daily Online and Sina.com.

The articles thesis is that “Google is not just a search engine tool — it is a tool to extend American hegemony.” Zheng calls the California-based search goliath “America’s British East India Company.”  Just as the American press featured thematic coverage on the dangers of crime and internet sex abuse on the emerging Internet, the Chinese press is starting a story arc of digital nationalism. As this theme of digital nationalism is expanded, you might enjoy the useful grid (okay, infographic) developed by Ogilvy that compares US social media to their Chinese competitors.

The story has both Google and the US as the bad guys, and a brave defender as a national hero: Chinese search engine Baidu.

Enjoy the read…

“From the East India Company to Google”
People’s Daily
March 4, 2011
By Zheng Yan (??)

As an American company, Google’s enthusiasm for the politics of other nations goes beyond what is right.

Recently, Google, Facebook, Twitter and other American Internet giants have participated directly in the social storm that has engulfed the Middle East. They have played a key role in manufacturing social disorder, serving a role entirely inappropriate to their status. Wael Ghonim, Google’s chief representative in the Middle Eastern and North African markets even rendered assistance to Mohamed ElBaradei in driving forward the anti-government movement [in Egypt], becoming the chief agent behind Egyptian demonstrations. The facts have shown that Google is not purely a company, that it seeks not only to make the money of other nations, but also meddles in the political affairs of other countries. It is not just a search engine tool — it is a tool to extend American hegemony.

In the Internet age, whoever dominates the Internet dominates the world. As the world’s leading hegemonic power, America has always prioritized the Internet and sought to use the Internet as a means of promoting America’s national interests around the world. Google has been very cooperative with this strategic motive of the United States government, and [its cooperation] has been active.

The enterprise with the world’s highest online traffic, Google monopolizes the online search engine markets for the vast majority of nations and regions in the world, and it has the capacity to dominate online information, widely propagate lies and influence [the information] climate. When a number of countries in the Middle East experienced signs of instability due to inflation and other problems, Google immediately went on the offensive, even allowing a senior company manager to directly establish the online general headquarters of the anti-government movement, fostering successive protest movements and nakedly interfering with the internal politics of other nations. These actions of Google’s are astonishing, and they lead people naturally to recall the British East India Company.

In the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, the British East India Company, through the monopolization of trade, the sale of opium and open plunder, accomplished great works for England in its development of an “empire on which the sun never sets.” Marx once said concerning the British East India Company that there was a 200-year history of the British government carrying out wars in the name of this company, until this reached the natural boundaries of India.

In the colonial era, the British East India Company used the monopolization of trade in the colonies to traffic opium and assist Britain in building its hegemony. In the Internet era, Google uses its monopoly of Internet information search to traffic American values and assist American in building its hegemony.

While there are differences in the ways the two [companies] served hegemony, they are uncannily alike in the way they rely upon hegemonic governments to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations and attain monopoly positions globally. It can be said that today’s Google is America’s British East India Company.

At its heart, Google is quite similar to the British East India Company. But in managing its outward appearance it is far more skillful than the British East India Company ever was. Google does not burn, kill and pillage, but rather is a master of disguises. Against the modus operandi of the British East India Company, which was to “carry out trade when necessary and plunder when possible,” Google’s slogan is far more bewitching: “Do no evil.” The problem is that no company on earth “does evil” as a matter of creed, and it is a bit hypocritical for Google to say it “does no evil.” The facts show that this “Do no evil” is actually an admission of guilt through a protestation of innocence.

This company that claims to “do no evil” has cooperated with America’s National Security Agency to monitor the private information of American citizens. It has been taken to court by publishing companies in France, Germany, Belgium and many countries for violations of copyright. It has been compelled by China and other countries to clean up its act because it disseminates pornographic content. And most recently it has also openly released subversive information, fomenting unrest in other countries. Before the facts, Google’s creed of “Do no evil” is like a joke. Is it any wonder that Apple CEO Steve Jobs once said that Google’s “Do no evil” creed was complete nonsense?

A company that hold a monopoly position in its industry is of course formidable, but Google is not without its enemies under heaven. In China, it was strongly blocked by Baidu. According to statistics from the China Internet Network Information Center, Baidu held 75.5 percent of China’s domestic search engine market in the fourth quarter of 2010, and Google’s share of the market, which had fallen for four consecutive quarters, stood at just 19.6 percent . . . Losing its competitive advantage, this Google which had swept across the entire world market, was furious with shame and started playing the political card.

[This portion includes a summary of Google's pullout from China, and how China remained determined to "govern the Internet in accordance with the law" despite Google's arrogant exceptionalism.] But this momentary setback could not deter a company like this from its ways. Seizing on social unrest in the Middle East, it once again raised its ugly head and again it sought to play the political card against China. China has no illusions about such a company. It disregards basic truth and international law to wantonly interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. China has the right to monitor and control it in accordance with Chinese laws and regulations.

During the Opium Wars more than a century ago, the British East India Company forced open the doors of China with its own gunships, sending China into a century of chaos and leaving Chinese with a bitter history of humiliation. Today, China will not stand by and let a new British East India Company repeat the events of history.

J. Scott Evans is hands down the person to turn to on emerging domain and online IP law issues. He’s moderating a panel discussion with David Taylor of Hogan Lovells International, and Scot Minden of  Symantec.

Is a gTLD expensive compared to dot.com?
Taylor offered that generic terms as regular doamins have recently sold for high prices:

• Flowers.com: $1.5 million
• Vodka.com: $3 million
• Diamond.com: $5.5million

That’s a lot, considering the underlying registration costs $10 per year.

gTLDs for domains such as “.coke” require a $185,000 registration fee, and likely a .5M outlay for hosting. That’s still a long way from being cheap, and it potentially is a material burden on even large brand holders.

Taylor also commented on China’s shift in domain law which prohibits individual domain ownership, and its strict verification of companies registering for .cn domains. This has resulted in a sharp decrease of registered .cn domains from 13 million names to under 9 million names.  .CN now has fewer domains that Germany.

Regulation across the EU is uneven, and is playing out through its 27 jurisdictions.

J. Scott Evans highlighted case law.

Themes  included the importance getting your registration details cleaned-up. Make sure your contact information is correct, and that there’s a clean chain of title for the domain.  In Germany, several courts have held administrative contacts on domains to be liable for the domains infringement. Take away, get your records cleaned up.

Scott Minden sees Symantec’s participantion in social media as increasing. They’ve hired several social media staff, and gone about reserving their marks and networks, while removing accounts registered by impostors. This would be similar to LaRussa v. Twitter (June 2009) which was won on Right of Publicity and Oneok v. Twitter (Sept. 2009). A customer registered the name and posted information about the company.

Like many others, he’s been successful in getting Twitter accounts taken down but not transferred. He’s used the networks policies as his point of concern, and found good responsiveness by the networks.  The group agreed having a reputation as a good actor, who is polite and judicious, will result in favorable treatment.

Advice for Social Media Use

• Register your trademarks as usernames.
• Moniotor venues for abuse
• Send abuse compaliants when appropriate
• Establish guidelines about
  • Who is authorized to post on behalf of the brand.
  • How must the identify themselves?
  • What should not be disclosed, or undertaken.
    (ie. endorsements, reviews, astroturfing.)

Set Domain Strategy for the  gTLD Shake-up in 2011
The burden of registering marks defensively on many different new gTLDS has resulted in the proposal of a trademark clearning house.

There have been 21 requests to create domains in non-roman characters. There are billions of people who don’t use roman characeters, so this change will happen.  That means brands need to set strategy at a high level. Will your firm go to the right of the dot for .5M?  Dot.com may not always be the only gold standard.  And what about defensive buys across country domains?

Emerging Issue:
Facebook Communty Pages: When people enter their interests, Facebook creates community pages sort of like Wikipedia about subjects, some of which are brands. This may be a new frontier for brand protection.

A few weeks ago, I observed that part of a lawyers work involves dealing with misery: explosions, poisonings, fraud, catastrophic medical errors, and — toughest of all — kids whose lives will be framed by the careless act of another.

Those are the issues clients bring to us, and any lawyer who has done it for long enough gets to know the failings of systems that should protect us.

So I’m proud that my firm, Sokolove Law, is helping prevent some of those injuries before they ruin lives. We’re the first firm I know of to sponsor a viral video contest. It gets people to make video about the need to ban asbestos, which is still legal and causing cancer deaths that strike close to home. That’s right: the effort will prevent people from needing to become litigants. And I’m glad about that.

Just last week I was at a friend’s house for a party, and one of the guests recounted an asbestos threat from construction work in his office building in Boston. Everyone was told that if they found dust on their desks they should call special contractors on site who would show up with safety gear to take it away.

“Everyone knew it was asbestos,” he told me. You can imagine his family’s relief when he moved to a new office.

Obviously, the right time to fix this problem is before cancer-causing agents are built into homes and workplaces. And certainly before victims or their families have to resort to lawyers. Law firms that focus on representing victims see this. So working to prevent injuries just seems like the ethically right direction to take, given the knowledge that unfortunately comes our way as we help litigants.

I hope you’ll visit the Ban Asbestos website — both to advocate against this poison, and also to give a hat tip to Sokolove Law, which is trying to do a good thing in an innovative way. And while you’re there, clicking on “send a letter to Congress” would add your voice to this effort.