Hey Facebook, put that back!

Facebook officially announced its new programming systems yesterday at its f8 conference. The software will attempt to spread the Facebook platform across a multitude of Web sites with the click of the "Like" button. TechCrunch breaks down the announcement and its potential implications.

When I first heard the rumors about this announcement a couple weeks ago, I was skeptical because spreading this Open Graph program to sites outside of Facebook gives it the potential to collect incredible amounts of data on its users and to be quite honest, I don't really trust them with all that juice. But then as a marketer, I thought this could be a great way to get people to interact with a brand across Web sites that they are on anyway. And then when the consumer broadcasts the fact that she likes a brand to all her Facebook friends you've got a whole new network of people that suddenly trust your brand because they like what their friend likes.

So I was coming to terms with this Facebook take-over until I started seeing the changes on my personal Facebook page. I logged in just a few minutes ago and immediately got a pop-up screen telling me to select networks and pages that I liked, based on information I had on my page before the big switch. Now, I'm not one to take the "About Me" section too seriously, but I thought mine was clever in an only-slightly-obnoxious kind of way, and it actually was about me.

But then when I went to update the "Pages I Like" section that Facebook forced me to click on, I realized that all the funny little things I had were erased. My activities used to include "making up unsubstantiated theories about everything" and my interests used to be "puns, double entendres and run-on sentences." But since those aren't Web pages or fan pages apparently I'm not allowed to be interested in them.

I tried to re-enter the information I could remember, but when I clicked save and viewed my profile, it was deleted again! I can't even be goofy and irreverent on my own Facebook page? Everything I do has to advance the cause of Facebook graphing my every movement on the Web?

Since I don't want to give a laundry list of my favorite things to every random person from high school who friend requests me just to see if I've gained weight or had a baby, my Facebook page is left looking like this:



Empty.

Obviously, my Facebook page doesn't even come close to showing who I actually am, even when it was slightly more full than it is now, but the fact that Facebook is dictating the kinds of things I can put in sections that are about me is irritating. And that's not even taking into account the utterly creepy part that Facebook can so easily control the content that is uploaded to the site.

I'm not exactly sure yet what I'm going to do about this. Probably making a Facebook group about boycotting Facebook and then liking a bunch of I hate Facebook groups and blog articles is the best way to go. Then at least there will be record of my complaint in the Facebook database.

The internet makes us feel like rock stars

It's not out of the ordinary these days to see a television commercial end with "Find Us on Facebook" or "Follow Us on Twitter." If ever there was a question about the true integration of communication efforts across mediums these days, you don't have to look to hard to find the answers. I'm always weary, however, of brands jumping on the bandwagon into a space that I think of as personal.

But I'm a huge advocate for brands entering the social media space because I think it offers a truly unique opportunity to have a real voice in a marketplace that can be stifling for the brand and confusing for the consumer.

Professionally, I can, and have, made the argument for integrating social media into a communications campaign. But personally, I haven't really gotten there yet.

Until last night.

I was at a concert at and was surprised to find myself making this comparison throughout the show. The first act I saw, K'Naan, started telling a story in the middle of his set about a girl he was really inspired by on YouTube. Just by doing a quick search of one of his songs he was able to find this young artist's cover of his song "Fatima." He was so moved by her performance of his song that he investigated further and found that she had posted a video of her singing and playing acoustic guitar to all the songs from his most recent album, Troubadour.

But here's the amazing part -- he then brought her on stage to perform one of her original works for the packed house! This girl could not have been more than 13 years old. She stood on the stage with her guitar as the band played in the background and K'Naan provided the melodies. THEN he kept her on stage to sing a duet of the first song he saw her play on YouTube, "Fatima." AND NOW the video of their performance together is on YouTube as well.

I couldn't believe this. All thanks to YouTube.

It's true that the internet provides everyone a voice, the opportunity to be published and chance to indulge in the unique aspects of each of our personalities. And perhaps stories like this performance last night are becoming more common, but this was an incredibly concrete representation of the internet's true power for me, and I've never personally witnessed anything like it.

Before the next performer's set, a member of his...shall we say "posee"...stood on the corner of the stage with a cell phone in hand. My friend guessed that he was updating his Twitter status and hopped on over to the site from his Blackberry to check out the performer's page. Sure enough, he had updated his status to read "Live @Metro in Chicago ANOTHER sold out show!! I love ya'll Chicago."

Now as silly as this might seem, I felt such an irrational love for the artist, the venue and this city after reading that. I felt like this person who's music I appreciate was actually appreciative of me too.

This story might not make a perfect transition into an argument for social media in a board room, but this is why social media, and the internet at large, is the perfect place for brands to connect with their audiences. I felt like I was a genuine part of these artists' brands, and I liked them a lot more for it.

It might seem like an obvious relationship, because people already feel such a deep personal connection to artists, but brands and companies impact our daily lives just as much. And if the interaction is real and makes that leap across the void of one-way communication, then the connection will be strong, lasting and mutually beneficial.

Regulatory agencies can't regulate?

On April 6 the U.S. Court of Appeals for Washington D.C. ruled in favor of Comcast in their fight to control broadband connections to regulate BitTorrent use. But, as with all important court cases, the ripple effects don't stop there.

The ruling challenges the FCC's ability to enforce what they've termed "net-neutrality." The Washington Post explains that net-neutrality means "big high-speed Internet companies...must treat content that flows through their pipelines equally, whether it's digitally lightweight e-mail or hefty movie files, by pushing it all through at the same speed."

I imagine communication companies have always had the ability to influence connections over their networks. But there is a big difference between dropping a phone call and slowing down an internet connection to an interminable level. The internet is our lifeblood these days, and for better or for worse, that's not going to change. So someone or something needs to have some sort of oversight powers above these huge companies. But according to yesterday's ruling, it doesn't seem like that will be the FCC anytime soon.

Austin Schlick explained the situation over at the FCC blog. At first he doesn't seem too concerned. But then there is that little part at the end that goes something like this:

"...yesterday’s decision may affect a significant number of important Plan recommendations. Among them are recommendations aimed at accelerating broadband access and adoption in rural America; connecting low-income Americans, Native American communities, and Americans with disabilities; supporting robust use of broadband by small businesses to drive productivity, growth and ongoing innovation; lowering barriers that hinder broadband deployment; strengthening public safety communications; cybersecurity; consumer protection, including transparency and disclosure; and consumer privacy."

So just when the FCC has rolled out a plan to address huge digital issues that are perpetuating the digital divide in our country, are we stuck going back to square one, or worse, facing a lifetime of drawn-out courtroom battles?

Well, TechCrunch explains the FCC has some, potentially costly and politically dangerous, options.

Granted, this decision is no cause for mass panic quite yet, but I do think we should all be a little concerned that the once forever free and clear internet is slowly becoming, well, a little foggy.

A silly little video

I'm writing this blog partly as an assignment for my public relations writing class. Last week we were talking about writing for video. Coincidentally, I'm also taking an intro to video production class. I just finished working on a little assignment for next week, and although there aren't any actual words in this one, I did come up with the concept and filmed and edited it, so I thought it would be fun to post. Do turn your volume up, the music is really fun.

Google says no to censorship

It's official. Google is done with China. At least their search function is. For the technical details of Google's decision to re-route traffic to Hong Kong, check out this article in the Christian Science Monitor.

A Wired Magazine article a few days ago noted that Google still has two research and development operations in China mostly related to the Android operating system. For now, those operations remain intact.

With this decision, Google re-affirms my belief in a corporation's ability to make decisions for the common good, while looking beyond immediate profit gains. It's no secret that China's collective "buying power" (if you will) is the largest in the world. The Christian Science Monitor article points out there are "400 million users -- the world's biggest web audience." That's a lot of eye balls on your banner ads.

It would have been really easy for Google to compromise it's unwritten (but well known) "do no evil" philosophy in the name of "market potential." But the culture of the internet, that which has allowed Google to flourish, is one of open sourcing and contributing to the good of the whole. It's not about control of information or limitations on freedom. It's about creating a world where information can be found, learned, understood and proliferated in order to spread knowledge and benefit everyone.

According to the article, David Drummond, Google's chief legal officer said:
“We want as many people in the world as possible to have access to our services, including users in mainland China, yet the Chinese government has been crystal clear throughout our discussions that self-censorship is a non-negotiable legal requirement."

The moment a powerful and hugely important multi-national corporation begins to back down on the fundamental principles that made it successful is the moment when not only the company begins to fail, but the community as a whole begins a dangerous downward trajectory. Because if Google had agreed to censor itself in China because the market was simply too big to be left alone, then there would be no limit to the control governments or other global actors would have on not only Google, but the internet as a whole.

We can all pretend like we are scared Google will one day take over the world because it will have accumulated so much knowledge about us throughout the course of your online lives that it will have no choice but to dominate the entire globe. But this decision has reassured me that success and power does not have to equal compromise and corruption in this globalized world. People and corporations do still stand behind their beliefs and that makes me more comfortable supporting them.

Sure, China still has to respond, and I'm sure the negotiations will continue and maybe some other compromise will be reached down the line, but for now, this is a big step.

Google maps' new biking features

The first time I rode my bike in Chicago I took a trip down the lakefront path from Rogers Park to Navy Pier. With the brisk lake air kissing my cheeks and my heart steadily beating to the tune of the gears, I had never been so happy to be outside and exercising at the same time.

I was happy until I almost hit a dog-walker, fumbled past a stroller, lost an impromptu race against an 8-year-old and argued with an angry pedestrian about who has the right-of-way on a one-way lane.

I was not happy anymore, but I was stuck on the path because I didn't know where else I could ride, since I hadn't been on a bike since MTV played music videos.

If only Google had developed itsbiking features on their maps software nine months ago.

The level of specificity on the new tool sounds incredible. Not only does it offer itineraries and travel times but it factors in levels of fatigue which is particularly helpful for a noob like me. So now I can avoid the mobs of ambling dog-walkers, energetic baby mamas, competitive children and pugnacious pedestrians without being scared I'm going to pass out from exhaustion in a dark alley somewhere between Rogers Park and Logan Square.

And it gets better. Not only does it point out the bike-friendly routes, but it has a features that show shops and restaurants along the way. Now not only is my mind at ease, but my stomach can quit worrying too. Because what's a bike trip without a slight detour to a local eatery to reward myself with an ice cream cone for working so hard?

Now that summer's almost here, you can find me riding through the streets without that scared look on my face -- you know, the one people get when they're lost and hungry.

"Why metrics are" "Predictably Irrational"

I began my evening reading an article on AdAge titled "Why metrics are killing creativity in advertising." Patrick Sarkissian explains that economic hard-times are forcing clients to put more emphasis on metrics, which in turn is forcing agencies to prove, in concrete and measurable terms, how an off-the-wall idea is absolutely going to make the client millions.

Well, Patrick argues that "you cannot truly quantify creativity" and reminds us that "brand preference is built on emotional connections." I get that this is coming from a creative, but it resonates with me. I also get that a corporate CEO is going to have an entirely different take on the idea. And that's completely fair and understandable. If it was my money, I'd be careful with it too.

But, then I hopped over to BoingBoing and saw the headline "Predictably Irrational: subjecting the 'rational consumer' hypothesis to scientific scrutiny." And this is why I love blogs.

As if hearing the wails from my torn heart after reading the AdAge article, Cory Doctorow's review of Dan Ariely's lovely little book whispers the possible answer to my question over where I fall in the creativity vs. metrics tug-of-war. He explains:

"Predictably Irrational presents a fatal blow to the idea that we can run a system on the assumption that people will take courses of action based on rational calculus, unclouded by cognitive blind-spots that make it practically impossible to find the best course of action."

He goes on to say that this is an accepted concept in the business world and the book ultimately challenges economic theory that "the whole system behaves in a rational, Newtonian fashion and can be treated as such." But what's interesting to me is that this theory of irrationality adds validity to Patrick's point that creativity can't, and shouldn't be, quantified because consumers can't be predicted. Numbers ultimately present a trend and an assumed course of action, but Ariely's book seems to prove that we shouldn't just stop at the numbers on our journey to the wonderful world of Oz where the deepest motivations of consumers lie hidden but waiting to be discovered. If people act irrationally no matter what, then why not keep on running down the yellow brick road and trust those quirky creatives and their seemingly outrageous campaigns?