Baekdal.com

The Digital Renting Business is Fundamentally Flawed - (by @baekdal)

Wed, 1 Sep 2010 02:34:31 GMT

Later today, Apple is having yet another one of their mystery press events, where they are expected to talk about iTunes. One very strong rumor is that they will extend iTunes into the online renting business, allowing US customers to rent TV shows at 99 cents.

I don't know whether that is true, but I do know this. The digital renting business model is fundamentally flawed, and we need to get rid of it before everyone forgets why we do not need it.

The renting business model makes a ton of sense in the traditional world of manfacuring and distribution. It's a win-win situation for everyone.

The content producers save a ton of money because they don't have to manufacture as many DVDs. There are costs savings on shipping, you don't need as big a warehouse, and most of all, you don't need as many employees handling everything.

The physical shops, like Blockbuster, save a lot of money on shelf space. They can increase their inventory. And, they get a much higher sale when renting a DVD for $2.99 than trying to get people to buy one for $10.99.

The consumer gets access to content they want for a drastically lowered price, with only a very small additional cost of being forced to return it 48 hours later.

Everybody wins!

The renting industry was simply invented to lower the cost and resource requirements of manufacturing, distribution, and storage - to lower the price to a level acceptable to the market. That was the problem they solved.

None of this makes sense in a digital market.

In a digital marketplace, the cost of manufacturing is zero. Once you have created your "prototype," you also have your product. A movie studio doesn't need to manufacture DVDs, because the original digital file can be used directly.

There is a very low cost of distribution, which amounts $0.43 USD/person if you decide to use Amazon S3 (cloud computing). And this amount includes storage costs as well. But that costs would still be $0.43 if the TV and movie studios where to sell a movie instead of renting it.

However, the technical requirements for renting content are enormous. You have to add some kind of DRM to prevent content to be played 48 hours later. It has to work even when you are not connected. You have to create databases that tracks each transaction etc. All which costs money to make?

So what exactly is the renting business model solving?

In the traditional world, the renting business saved costs, lowers the price, and thus increases the market demands.

The digital model does not save money. The cost of manufacturing, distribution and storage are the same as if a TV show were simply sold + you have a higher cost of development.

In the digital world, and from a financial point of view, selling a TV show would be more cost efficient than renting it.

What is really going on here?

Some of you might argue that the TV and movie studios will earn more money because people might rent the same episode twice. But that logic is flawed when you compare the user behavior with how you used to rent movies at your local Blockbuster.

How often have you rented the same movie more than once? Yeah... never!

The real answer is two things.

1: Traditional executives have forgotten why they started renting content in the first place. They are just continuing the status quo, doing what they have always done, and generally failing to understand the economics of the digital world.

2: The few executives who do get it, are trying to drive up a false level of demand, by implying that buying a TV show should be more expensive than renting it. They are being greedy, and are using every trick in the book to get you to play along.

The renting business model is a relic from our non-digital past, and back then it solved a real problem in a rather ingenious way. But, the internet has solved that very problem in a much more efficient way.

There is no longer a need for a renting business model, as the problem of manufacturing, distribution and storage no longer exists.

In the digital world, we now need to turn look at other business models, to better reflect the limitations of our digital future.

Like:

Complexity drives up costs, so it's better to simply stick to the original. Solution: Buy direct access to the original, instead of renting.
An abundance of choices drives up the time it takes to make a decision, which lowers the quantity of a potential sale. Solution: Subscribe to get access to the full library, instead of buy/rent individuals shows.

The digital renting business model does not solve any of these problems. Renting solved a traditional problem, one that no longer exists.

Let's get rid of the renting business model before people forget why it is that we do not need it.

Facebook Users vs. Population = 120% - (by @baekdal)

Sun, 29 Aug 2010 06:16:56 GMT

Earlier today I was reading Pev Research's report on "Older Adults and Social Media," and how that age group has doubled in size. It's a fascinating report.

It then struck me that it would be more interesting to compare the actual population numbers from US Census Bureau, with the latest social media usage numbers - for all age groups.

That's the really interesting number. We always see usage graphs listing the quantity of users, but most of them don't compare it to how many people who are actually alive within each age group.

What I didn't expect to find was that people lie a lot about their age. The numbers being reported by Facebook doesn't add up. According to them, more than 100% of the population, age 15-25, use Facebook. That's not actually possible.

Here are the graphs for USA and UK:

As you can see. In the US, 105% of the women age 15-25 use Facebook. In the UK it's even worse. Age 15-25, 111% of the men and 120% of the women use Facebook.

That's a lot.

But, there is an easy explanation. People lie about their age, especially of you are under 13 years old.

As you might know, you have to be at least 13 years old to sign up for Facebook. But we all know that a lot kids below that age use it too. They simply sign up telling Facebook that they are 17 or 20 years old.

This explains why the 15-25 age group is artificially inflated, and why there is such a significant drop when looking at the age groups below 15.

Note: Facebook is clearly aware of this behavior, as they are using it to defend themselves in a recent lawsuit.

While I believe this is the primary reason, the stats are also skewed by people having more than one account. I have 3 + 5 dummy accounts for clients (used for administration purposes). For each of these, the age is set to match the target market.

Note: A number of people also think this might be caused by old men telling girls they are 18, for unethical reason. But, while that is disgusting, I don't think they make up a significant number (but I have no data to support either claim).

We also have people telling the world that they are younger than what they really are. Like when a 34 year old person say she is only 24.

This clearly indicates just how inaccurate our social stats really are. It's not that Facebook is lying about the numbers; the problem is that people aren't being completely honest about their age.

I think the numbers above 35 are pretty accurate, but it gets complicated below that.

Keep in mind that there is an old saying in the world of marketing, it's not about how old people really are; it's about how old they feel.

The kids below 13 are clearly lying about their age to gain access, and that skews the numbers dramatically. But, if a person who is really 34 is indicating that she is only 24, you must threat her as a 24 your old person. That's how old she feels, and that is the only thing you need to know.

Real age is overrated. And apparently, so is social media statistics.

From Pencil to Print to Pencils - (by @baekdal)

Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:45:50 GMT

Many journalists used to jot down their articles with a pencil, before it was converted into a printed newspaper. These days, the role of the pencil vs. newspaper has been reversed.

Treesmart is a US company, who specializes in turning old newspapers into beautiful pencils. Instead of "from pen to print" we now have "from print to pen."

Apart from the obvious recycling and ecological message, they produce an interesting effect when sharpened. Since this is real newspapers, a new pattern appears each time a pencil is sharpened.

It's fascinating.

What Facebook Places Really Means to You - (by @baekdal)

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 13:53:43 GMT

We are now a few days past the announcement of Facebook Places, and you can read about my initial reaction in "Does Facebook Places Change Anything?"

A much bigger question is what it mean to you? As a person, business, or as a developer? The short answer is; it will take time before any real meaning emerge.

For you as a person

Facebook Places changes very little to you as an individual. You can check into a place, but you have already been able to do that via Foursquare and Gowalla. If you are not already into location based services, chances are that Facebook won't change much.

It does mean that location based adoption rates will go up quite a bit. But, it doesn't mean that all Facebook 500 million users will suddenly check-in where ever they go.

Also remember it's iPhone only for now, which drastically limits the theoretical user base, though it is a popular device.

Facebook places is still too limited to be really useful for anything than telling people where you are, or have been. For most of us that aren't really that exciting.

Location based services only becomes really exciting when it can extend your feelings, experience, or your knowledge linked to a specific location.

Also read: The Future of Foursquare and Gowalla.

What is of some importance is the lack of privacy. Facebook has again completely missed the point of what privacy is all about. As I wrote in "The First Rule of Privacy," I am the only one who can decide what I want to share, not my friends, nor Facebook.

But despite that, Facebook has decided to allow your friends to share your location. They can share it with a place AND with 3rd party site/apps.

This is a serious privacy violation.

I don't mind my friends sharing my location if I have given them permission to do so, but I have to give them my permission first.

Especially because I, like so many others, don't want to tell people when I am away from my home for longer periods of time.

There are three settings you need to take control of. First go to: "Facebook Privacy Settings"

"Places I check in to" can be adjusted by clicking on "customize settings," but by default it is set so only your friends can see where *you* check in. That's OK.
But also under "customize," find the section "things others share," you will find "friends can check me into places." Curious enough it is set to "select one" by default. Set it to "disabled" to prevent people in your friends list to check you in without your permission.
Under "Applications and Settings" and "info accessible through your friends," are all the settings friends can share about you when they use 3rd party apps. Uncheck "places I check into" (and all the others).

The last setting is something that most people miss. To me it is the most damaging of all Facebook privacy violations. Why they even allow your friends to share your personal information with 3rd party apps is beyond me.

Also, notice that it is a rather-complicated operation to change all the privacy settings for Places. Instead of just putting them in a single place, Facebook seems to make it as complicated as possible (they call it "complete freedom to decide on everything")

Note: Facebook has created this "simple" video that explain all the settings.

For you as a business

While Facebook places isn't that important for individuals, it is of vital importance for your business if you operate in a physical location (web shops, service companies etc can ignore it).

If you have a number of physical stores, people will now be able to find and see what other people think about your shop - directly on the most popular channel on the planet.

Facebook is far more popular than magazines, local newspapers etc, so it is of vital importance that you "do something with this."

First thing, of course, is to claim a place. Actually, if I had a physical shop, I would make sure I was the one who created the place in the first place.

When you claim a page, you should merge it with your existing Facebook page. Update your opening hours, pictures, info etc.

One very critical issue is that there will be a place for each of your physical locations. If your company has 300 shops, then there will be 300 Facebook places - each has to be claimed individually.

More important (as far as I can tell), you cannot merge a single Facebook page with 300 places. So each shop will need a separate Facebook page for that specific shop.

This is a really drastic change. Right now, most retail brands focus their resources and energy on a single Facebook page for the brand as a whole. But with Facebook Places, you will suddenly find that you have 300 channels whether you like it or not.

It might sound bad, and it is definitely a drastic change, but keep in mind that this is already happening with Foursquare and Gowalla (most business just don't pay attention to it).

What we have here is actually an incredible opportunity. When it comes to Social ROI, the money doesn't start to flow until you create a direct connection between the engagement that you create and the actual sale.

If you sell products in physical stores, then having a Facebook page is still several steps away from where the sale is happening.

But, if you move your focus from a corporate all-in-one Facebook page, to 300 hyper-local and personal Facebook Page/places, get you store staff to connect and communicate directly, then you have a much higher likelihood of creating real ROI (instead of imaginary numbers that look good at meetings).

If you are smart, you get a good developer to create an automated connection between your local pages, and your main page. So your staff don't have to post things twice, and to better help people find a local shop/connection.

Think of your main Facebook page as your life stream and guide, and each local place/page as the point of your long term interaction.

For you as a developer

As a developer, Facebook Places is just another dataset that you can use to your advantage. We have already seen tons of interesting implementations of Facebook's current Graph API, this just makes it even more useful.

For app developers, this gives you a really big platform to extend your app from. Sure it might cause trouble for Foursquare and Gowalla, but if you want to do e.g. an app for finding art museums, then Facebook Places can provide most of the data, the connections, and the reactions.

Like the huge amount of small Twitter apps and experimentations, Facebook places will facilitate an incredible explosion in location enabled apps.

A few other issues:

Facebook places is currently US only, no word yet when it will be expanded globally. My personal estimate is within a few months.
You can currently only add a place from a supported device (iPhone for now). So if you are a business, and don't have an iPhone... GET ONE!
Places is currently only designed to support physical places (like shops, parks, malls etc), not soft-locations like concerts, events, moving locations, or multiple locations combined into a single "location".
iPhone only for now, but other phones coming (will probably take a lot longer to emerge). You can also use "http://touch.facebook.com"
To claim a page you have to through a rather lengthy process, involving authorization via phone and proof of legal ownership. More in the Places FAQ.
There are some rumors that not all types of places can be claimed. I don't know what that means.
For developers, Facebook Places graph is currently read only. Only selected beta partners can write to a place.
Like with Facebook community pages, Facebook places will be really messy the next 6 months. (yet another reason to claim your place early).
All Facebook places are public (you cannot create a private place e.g. for VIP purposes).

We Can Save Newspapers by Destroying The Web - (by @baekdal)

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 07:44:37 GMT

The crap the old media people put out is simply staggering, especially from the constant barrage from people trying to save the newspapers. The latest is this version of "We need to change copyright laws to save newspapers."

First, Eric Clemons goes on to name the enemy: The news aggregators, you know, Google!

Using aggregators like Google and others, I can access essentially in real time the lead paragraphs of almost any story ... Not surprisingly, traditional print media publications are dying, and not surprisingly their owners' online dotcom alternatives are generating far too little revenue to pick up the slack; why pay for any content when the essence of everything is available immediately, and free, elsewhere.

Why would people indeed!

But, the monstrous failure here are not the news aggregators. The monstrous failure is that he doesn't realize the real enemy is "everything is available immediately, and free, elsewhere."

This is business 101. If two companies make the same product you have a pricing war. If, in the case of newspapers, several thousand newspapers make nearly identical stories, the pricing war reduces the price to zero.

The news aggregators provide free exposure for your stories! If you fail to sell a product, even when you get massive exposure trough tons of channels, then you need to rethink the product you make.

I simply do not understand why the newspaper people don't get this. This is not rocket science, or even complicated math. It's purely common sense.

Eric Clemons then goes on to suggest that the solution is tightening of the copyright laws to:

A first suggestion would be to provide newspaper and other journalistic content special protection, so that no part of any story from any daily periodical could be reposted in an online aggregator, or used online for any use other than commentary on the article, for 24 hours; similarly, no part of any story from any weekly publication could be reposted in an online aggregator or for any use purpose other than commentary, for one week.

Followed up by the most misguided conclusion I have heard yet:

However, the net is a pretty robust institution by now, and if we were suddenly not able to access articles from the Post (Washington or New York) until they were 24 hours old the net would, indeed, survive.

What? ... I... you... ...what???

The net would indeed survive if you blocked content from appearing for 24 hours? The net would survive if people could not point readers to a new story for 24 hours? The net would survive if we could not share a story for 24 hours?

What kind of silly parallel universe does he come from?

This would destroy any form of viral sharing of stories.

Here on baekdal.com, new articles are usually shared by a relatively small group of core readers. They then provide the exposure to get it moving. After a few days, many people are sharing the articles, but it all starts with the core readers.

If the core group of readers weren't allowed to share stories for 24 hours, then they wouldn't share any story at all. Nobody goes back to a site to share something they found yesterday. And with no initial sharing, there is no follow up by a much larger group of readers.

The articles never grow!

You know, let's do it their way

I have a suggestion. Let's agree to do it their way. Lets invent a new meta tag that defines from what point in time content may be shared. Something like:

This says that the content may not be reused in anyway, but it may be shared on e.g. Twitter from a certain date.

And let's put it into copyright law that all sites, news aggregators, and social services must adhere to it.

Then these silly newspapers can dig their own grave by shutting themselves completely off the internet.

Because while they are using the new meta tags to block readers from finding their articles, you and I - who actually know how the internet works - can use the same meta tags to our advantage.

This says that while you may not republish the article in full, it may be used in all other aspects. But, you may not quote the content unless the destination site also adopts the same licensing rules to the target article.

This would mean that newspapers, who block their content from the internet, cannot use content from e.g., blogs. Newspapers would have to write all their article themselves, without taking quotes from other content sources!

This would give us a serious competitive advantage. The sites that allow sharing and aggregation can take advantage of the full power of the internet. While the old newspapers, who want to control consumption, can do so, but at the cost of not being able to use other content sources in their article.

They can't have both strict control over their articles, and freedom to use other peoples content to make them.

We could even have a little fun with the old newspapers by doing this:

Which means that you can quote content from the article, *only* if you adopt the same rules? But, it is fully allowed from September 23th (a month later).

Imagine if Google did this on their blog. Then Techcrunch, Mashable, you, and I could write about it immediately, and include quotes provided by Google to enhance our articles.

But newspapers, with a more restrictive license, would not be allowed to write about it until next month. They could link to it (and give Google free exposure), but not write articles to be sold behind their pay walls.

Let's see how their so-called net would "indeed survive" then.

The bottom line is...

The average newspapers product sucks. It is massive duplication of available content, redrafted press releases, and republished stories, and quotes from other sources. And even when they produce content on their own, what they are really doing is to tap into the world of citizen reporting.

Not all newspapers are doing this. Many news sources have change a lot in recent years, and are focusing more on creating truly unique content.

News aggregators aren't a threat to unique content; it helps us to get massive exposure and sharing. It even helps us to understand the popularity of an article better, providing us with a vital tool for improving our next stories.

News aggregators are only a threat to the newspapers who have nothing to tell, who is merely making noise. If those newspapers want protection from being included in our social news streams, then that's fine by me.

That just means that I will get less noise and more substance. Hurrah for that!

Of course, I hope we do not have to go this far. It's a bit extreme to pass a new copyright law to show the old media that it would just kill them faster...

Advertise on Baekdal.com - (by @baekdal)

Fri, 20 Aug 2010 01:36:13 GMT

Baekdal.com is the perfect place to showcase your products.

Contact Baekdal.com to enquire about advertising - ads@baekdal.com, or visit BuySellAds to buy ad space

Traffic

300.000-400.000 visitors per month (absolute unique visitors)

Demographics

Baekdal is read by people from USA (65%), United Kingdom (7%), Canada (6%), Germany (2%), and Australia (2%), with the rest of the world making up the remaining 18%.

Men accounts for 60% of the traffic and women accounts for 40%. The site is read by people of all ages with 18-34 being the largest demographic.

Advertise on Baekdal.com

Baekdal.com use BuySellAds for our regular ad formats. You can read about the specific formats and pricing here:

Buy advertising space on baekdal.com here

.

Special campaigns

We also offer special advertisers to create special advertisements for campaigns. With a special campaign you will have exclusivity, and you can create much bigger and more prominent ads.

A special campaign starts at $20 CPM

Ad screening

All ads will be screened before they are accepted. Baekdal is about quality, and believes very strongly in only showing relevant ads. These following types of ads will, by default, not be accepted on Baekdal.com:

Spam, Phishing or scam ads
Adult ads of any kind (including ads for dating sites)
Political ads
Obscene, violent or offensive ads
Ads that appear to be endorsed by Baekdal.com
Anything related to casinos, pills etc.

Other ads will generally be accepted, but Baekdal reserve the right to refuse any advertisements for any reason.

Animated ads will only be accepted if they look nice, and doesn't cause uncomfortable distractions. Blinking, spinning, or flashing ads will not be accepted.

Contact

Contact Baekdal.com to enquire about advertising

ads@baekdal.com

Does Facebook Places Change Anything? - (by @baekdal)

Wed, 18 Aug 2010 20:41:50 GMT

Earlier today, Facebook launched its location based service called Facebook Places. We all knew it was coming, and that it would not be highly innovative, but there were still a few surprises.

Facebook Places is basically the core location elements of what we know from Foursquare - without the badges, the majors, the statistics, and the ability for brands to use it for promotions etc. You know all the things that make location based services exciting.

Instead, they are only going to do four things.

You can check in at a place...
You can find where your friends are, or see other people at your location
You can find places around you.
You can "tag" yourself or a friend to a place, just as you can tag your friends in photos. (And by doing so you publish it to the wall of both you, your friends and the place)

It is unimpressive. It is what you can do in Foursquare, *before* you really start to use their app.

Then there was the big disruptive part. Foursquare, Yelp, MyTown, and Gowalla is looking to integrate with Facebook Places.

Boom! That changes everything.

Facebook has effectively positioned themselves as the platform of all location based services. If I were Google or Twitter I would be scared. Really scared!

It was surprising to see them all on stage, and as I tweeted earlier:

Partnering with Foursquare, Yelp and Gowalla... I don't get it. It limits them to become *extenders* instead of platforms. /@baekdal

Badges is a gimmick, it will grow old fairly quickly. So are stamps and most of the other stuff that Gowalla and Foursquare are doing.

What matters is location as a service. Not location as a game, or a check-in.

Interesting enough, after the announcement VentureBeat discussed the future with Dennis Crowley, Foursquare's CEO... and apparently they are not as excited about it as it first appeared.

Crowley said that Foursquare hasn't committed to anything because the team still needs to try out the service.

While Facebook might seem like a giant able to crush Foursquare, Crowley emphasized the different missions of the companies. The core of Foursquare is check-ins " getting people off the couch and into the world to try new things and share with friends " while with Facebook check-ins are just another feature.

I think Dennis missed the big picture here. I do not think Facebook sees this as another feature. I think Facebook sees this as a way to become the platform.

Foursquare and Gowalla have the wrappings, but Facebook provides the substance. That has worked well for Zynga and FarmVille, but only because Facebook themselves have no desire to create games.

Right now Foursquare is facilitating the location based activities (the check-ins), but in the future that will be taken care of directly by the brands and companies. Especially if they have a platform like Facebook to use as the engine.

The future of Foursquare and Gowalla will be limited to extending a location (the gimmicks), instead of being the channel.

But, what is much worse is that Facebook is now free to innovate at their leisure. Each time they launch a new feature, Foursquare and Gowalla will see another piece of the pie disappear.

It's not about the features (they are practically non-existing), it's about Facebook taking control of the *location platform*.

Facebook has all the people, the photos, and what they share (99% of location based interaction). All they needed was the places (the 1% that is the metadata that ties it together to a location).

What they don't have is the "games," - the badges the majors and the stamps. This is what Foursquare and Gowalla brings to the table. They are extensions, the activities and the fun add-ons.

They also do not have the vital connection to companies and brands. Foursquare still holds the keys to this. Facebook displayed a severe lack of brand integration at the announcement.

You doesn't seem that you can integrate into your existing brand's Facebook Page. You can "claim" a place, but it sounds like that will just create another community page (and that is already a nightmare for brands). Another business page for "a place" is, well... not funny.

This is a real shortcoming to Facebook Places. They are looking at it from a perspective of "what people do at a place" (which is very important), but lack the vital metadata about what that place is about.

Update: You can actually merge you Facebook Place with you Facebook Page, and then a place behaves just like a normal page. This just made Facebook Places 1000% more interesting!

It is going to be exciting to see just how far Foursquare and Gowalla are going to "integrate". 500 million people is a tempting offer. But is it so tempting that they are willing to let Facebook control the platform?

How long will it be before we see a "check-in via Facebook", just as we see "sign-in via Facebook"?

The really big question is. If they use Facebook as the platform, do they trust them not to add features that compete with what e.g Foursquare is doing "extra"?

On the upside: This might just be incredible good news for brands and companies. Today it is hard to do location because it so small, and none of the players really dominate. If they all integrate with Facebook places then the brands can just update one site (their Facebook Place page), and it would be visible on both Foursquare, Gowalla and MyTown.

+ Location based interaction via Facebook, where most of your customers already have an account? Now that's interesting!

More on location "The Future of Foursquare/Gowalla" (published earlier), and coming up is "What Facebook Places Really Means to You"

Why Traditional Ads Work, and Digital Ads Don't - (by @baekdal)

Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:15:07 GMT

In the midst of the media's frantic search for a viable business model, we often hear media executives telling us that people *want* to see ads in traditional magazines. And it's true. In traditional magazines, ads actually work.

What the same media executives completely fails to understand is why they work. They think it simply about creating visually stunning ads. But that is not why they work at all.

It is really pretty simple. Ads work when they are extending the content. Ads don't work when they are disrupting the content.

Take the fashion magazine "Elle". Below is a page from the August print issue. On one side you see an article about fancy designer shoes, and on the other there is a highly targeted ad from Jimmy Choo.

Another page is showing "editors picks" of beauty products, on the right there is a highly targeted ad about the same thing.

Or what about this?

Advertising works in traditional magazines because they are extending the content. It is part of the content itself. It provides editorial value.

It doesn't matter if you see new styles from the editors of Elle, or via an ad. Both present you with new products, new looks, and new things to try.

That's why they work. It's not about advertising. It's about content.

Ads that doesn't work

There are also a number of advertisements, in traditional magazines, that don't work. One of them is this one from Gap.

It's not extending the content. It is just graphics. You cannot see the products. This ad doesn't work! It is wasting space, making people to flip to the next page.

Another example is this ad for some kind of wine. You have an article about bags, and then you are showing wine. It's useless. It doesn't provide any value. It just wastes people's time, making them flip the page faster.

Another fallacy is that most traditional marketing people believe in unverifiable data. E.g. Elle has 1.1 million monthly readers, so if you place an ad in the magazine, how many will see it? The correct answer is not 1.1 million people!

People will not see every single ad in every magazine. They are incredibly adapt at spotting advertisements, and will simply block them from memory.

My guess is that less than 1% will be able to remember the name of the wine displayed above. Just look at yourself. You had to look a second time too. You didn't remember it either.

But, advertisements actually work when it extend the content. The Jimmy Choo ad is probably extremely effective. It's mixing editorial content with relevant ad-content.

That's how it should be done.

Ads online

Online advertising, however, is completely missing the point. There is no real connection between the content and the banner ads. And because it is a banner ad, it is not accepted as content.

Take a look at the screenshot from Elle's website. Apart from an already cluttered website, the ads are completely irrelevant. People, who read this article, are interested in "self-tanner tips" not Frappuccino.

The ads on this page are not an extension of the content. It is lowering the value of the page.

Traditional advertising extends the content, and enhances the value. Online advertising disrupts the content, clutters up the page, and lowers the value.

That's why online ads doesn't work.

It wouldn't make any difference if the Frappuccino ads were made bigger and more interactive (like Apple is doing with iAds), because it is *not* extending the content.

Bigger ads would just be more annoying. It's like the Gap ads in the magazine. Two full pages that you have to flip before you can see something interesting.

It is same when it comes to viral videos and social media channels.

The Old Spice campaign worked because it wasn't an advertisement. It was many small socially focused stories. The old spice campaign was *content*.

In comparison, Cisco, who tried to copy Old Spice's concept, failed because they turned it into an advertisement.

They didn't tell a story, they used another company's story to create an ad, and they failed.

Right now, the (online) advertising market is fueled by many clueless marketeers who does not understand why their ads do not work. Followed by clueless media people who mistakenly believe that the size and interactivity of the format are the key element.

You can take advantage of that. You can lower your value to easily digested snacks that attracts many ad impressions. But by doing so it will also be impossible for you to get people to pay money for the articles.

The best strategy is to focus on creating value. Advertising in itself is worthless. Extending the value around your product is worthwhile.

Google and the loss of Net Neutrality - (by @baekdal)

Mon, 9 Aug 2010 16:31:55 GMT

You have probably heard about all the buzz around net neutrality, the concept of equal access to the internet.

ISPs wants to be able to limit bandwidth to certain sites. It officially prevent misuse, but in reality it is to get big companies to pay for exclusive deals to get a competitive edge.

Google, who positioned them as the defenders of net neutrality, has now done a complete 180 on the topic. Instead of promoting net neutrality, they are now saying that it should only apply to wired broadband connections, not wireless.

The set of seven proposals guarantee equal access to the internet and call for the prohibition of wired broadband providers from discriminating between different kinds of internet traffic to ensure that no-one can pay to have their traffic treated more favorably.

When it comes to wireless services, search giant Google and Verizon said the same rules would not be applied.

We both recognize that wireless broadband is different from the traditional wireline world, in part because the mobile marketplace is more competitive and changing rapidly,

(Via "Google and Verizon's vision for open internet" by BBC)

Also read: Google-Verizon Pact: It Gets Worse

This is just pathetic - for two reasons.

1: What do you think the future is about? Wired or Wireless internet?

We all know it is only a matter of time before the wireless internet takes over. Just as we have moved away from land-line phones, we are also going to move away from wired broadband connections.

Google want freedom when it comes to their data centers, and are sacrificing our (the consumers, the startups etc) net neutrality to settle the matter with the ISPs.

It sounds like an Open Internet, but it is much closer to what we have today.

2: Who do you think benefits from priority access when it comes to wireless broadband? Yup, Google!

With this they can pay for premium access, so that when you use GMail, things work really fast. But, when a new startup wants to do something better, they cannot get the same internet throughput.

As Adam Green said

Google, a company that I've long admired and currently hold thousands of dollars of stock in, just 'went evil.

The bottom line is: When I buy a wireless broadband connection from an ISP, I expect them to deliver whatever speed I pay for. They have no right to say: "Well, we know you have paid for a 10mbit connection, but you are only going to get the full speed when you are visiting Google's sites. If you want to use Flickr, then we only give you 5mbit."

The very idea to not have full net neutrality is simply a violation of our internet freedom. I decide what I want to use my internet connection for. No one else.

As Obama said back in February: "I'm a big believer in Net Neutrality ... we don't want to create a bunch of gateways that prevent somebody who doesn't have a lot of money, but has a good idea, from being able to start their next YouTube or their next Google on the Internet."

I'm not a socialist by any means, but I am a strong believer in equal capitalism. If I want to start a new company, I don't want my potential success to be limited because some rich dude has made a special arrangement with my ISP.

Let the best service win. That's what a free market is all about. That's what net neutrality is all about.

That's our basic right!

The Future of Foursquare/Gowalla - (by @baekdal)

Sun, 8 Aug 2010 15:36:05 GMT

After writing "What Matters is the Trend, not the Moment," one question immediately comes to mind; is Foursquare and Gowalla going to last?

In its current form, no they are not. Right now, it is similar to when people on Twitter spent most of their time telling their friends what they had for breakfast.

On Foursquare it's simply *where* people are having breakfast, when they out shopping, standing in line at the post office, or waiting at the train station etc.

It's crap. There is no value in every day activities because they are so common.

The other part, about being rewarded and earning badges, will grow old fairly quickly. Especially when it becomes widespread and the discount and offers will diminish in value (due to size of the audience), or be limited to a very small user base (like only rewards for the Major). The majors are those ones who visit you store anyway. It is not where the real value is. The real value is in the long tail.

WholeFoods is doing the right thing. They are focusing on promotions that apply to everyone. The Major is just one person - a tiny percentage point of your customer base. Anyone checking in five times, that's practically every regular customer.

(photo credit: Dennis Crowley / Foursquare co-founder)

But the offer is insignificant. A small scoop of house-made gelato? Come on! It is interesting now that it is all new and exciting, but in a year, when location based offers are everywhere, it is not worth the effort.

Many stores already have loyalty programs in place. In the past many stores had special card that you could show at the counter. Every time you bought something, you will earn points that could then be used for discounts or special offers.

And you know what? They work, but not so much that they are worth keeping. My local grocery stored did this years ago. They stopped doing it because the rewards were too small to offset the inconvenience of "checking in." Instead of doing it with an app, they just used a card with a barcode on it.

What we are seeing right now is the novelty of the new and the trendy. For brands, that is an important element, but it is not the real of potential of location based services.

It's a new way to explore; it is new data that we didn't have before. But like Twitter, we quickly discovered where the real value was.

It's not about everyday activities, it is about the special things, the knowledge we can share, connections we can create, and people we can follow.

We will see the same evolution with location based services. Twitter is about the value of people and what they think/feel/know. Location based services is about the value of people and the places that matters to them.

What also matters are the customer experience, the feeling of belonging and being treated as a special person. And it matters that it is socially connected to the world. Sharing something is incredibly powerful.

Or think of it this way: It is much more powerful to simply remember your customers by sight. Threat them well when they revisit your store, or give them a bonus when they bring a friend. Don't just look at people as a general mass-market, only distinguished by a badge on their phones.

You don't need Foursquare to give people a great experience. You need Foursquare to market that experience and your customers need Foursquare to share and extend it beyond your control.

Foursquare is the glue, the rewards/discounts/badges are the incentive, but the value is in sharing the experience, and feeling proud that you did.

Nike could easily extend Nike Plus with Foursquare. Allow people to share not only their exercises but also where they took place. They could reward you for running with friends, for checking in at two point a certain distance apart - in under 30 minutes. Take part in Nike sponsored running events etc, and give you special discount based on how fast you got from one check-in to the another.

Fashion shops could partner with each other. So that, if you buy a pair of shoes in one shop, and a matching dress in another, you can get a limited edition scarf in a third. Suddenly you have higher sales across competing shops.

You could make people VIP (by checking in ten times or more) and give them the power to give their friends a special discount. Then it is no longer you who give a discount to a mass-market. But, your fans giving their friend's discounts to your shop.

Use location to create niche-communities. Use it make people feel they have accomplished something, take it up a notch if they share it.

As a business you need this. You have to be a part of the movement. With the mix of social and location, the experience of a place suddenly becomes a very influential element in your level of success.

But don't go out and create $100,000 Foursquare marketing events. Start small and create value. Give people a reason to check in and focus on the person.

And, don't use location based interaction if you don't have a location based business. It makes sense for companies with physical stores, events that's centered around a place, or where people meet.

But, it doesn't make sense for e.g., companies like Hulu or Amazon. Nor does it make sense for newspapers and magazines. For them it is just marketing, there is no real engagement.

It must be "for real."

Also remember that the traditional way of looking at location is very limiting. Location, in a digital context, is more than a physical location tied to a GPS position.

One example: Disneyland is a location but it is not a single location. The traditional mind would focus on each location, not realizing that people can share experiences across the planet in real-time - or even asynchronous.

The digital way of thinking is to look at Disneyland as a single place, shared by people on three continents.

A train or an airplane is shared location, but it constantly on the move. A concert is a shared location, but it moves from country to country while it is on tour.

GPS is only a small part of the real potential of location based services. That's the traditional mind limiting the future to restraints of the past. It's really about sharing an experience - and creating lasting value with that place.

Experiment, try new things!

What Matters is the Trend, not the Moment - (by @baekdal)

Sat, 7 Aug 2010 11:18:03 GMT

You probably remember the chock wave that rippled trough the social media community after Forrester found that the location based market is insanely small (1% of users), and Foursquare is dominated by men (80%).

Not only was the study factual incorrect, according to Foursquare the actual male-female ratio is 60-40%, but it also points to another very important point.

It doesn't matter how many people use it. What matters is the trend.

Every single day a new study is released telling us where something is. E.g. about 1% use location based services, and about 96% have never even heard of them.

And the result is that the media, people, and companies are now telling themselves that this location based thing is just a buzz word, and not worthy of their attention. They should wait to see whether it grows big enough.

That is the quickest way to fail.

Take Facebook. Most companies have just started using Facebook in late-2009/early-2010, many still do not use it. And all of them have been "waiting for it to grow, before acting."

The result is that they are now way behind. It takes a very long time to build a valuable fan base. It easy to get fans, just look at Old Spice. But, it takes a lot of time and dedication to create fan base that creates a lasting ROI.

Companies should have started using Facebook in 2007, back when they only had 15 million users. Then in 2008, companies should have expanded their Facebook usage to an active social strategy with specific ROI goals.

So that now in 2010 (where Facebook has grown into a dominant size) you no longer have to focus all your efforts into getting fans, instead you can focus on meeting their demands. You can focus on what actually creates ROI, instead of it being an expensive channel for attracting attention.

It's exactly the same with location based services. It doesn't matter where something is right now. What matters is where it is going, and where you need to be going too.

Location based services are just getting started. It started in 2009, and now, only one year later, it has reached 1% of the population. By any accounts, that is huge. That's three million people in one year.

But, what's really interesting is where this is going. We do not know the future for certain, we can only predict it, but location based services - or more so - location based integration into other services, looks to be very promising.

Don't make the same mistake that most companies did with Facebook. Start now, not as a huge campaign, but start small. Build trust, engagement, and followers.

It's going to produce a negative ROI for a while, and there is a lot of risk involved. But, if you don't act, you end like all those companies who are now trying to catch up to their competitors on Facebook.

Many companies who started in 2010 will never reach their full potential, because there is now an abundance of Facebook pages to follow. In 2007, you merely had to be there to build fans. Now, being there has no effect. Now you have to cut trough the noise of a million voices.

They started too late.

It's like racing. It doesn't matter that you can drive 1 sec faster than your competitors, if you always start the race 2 hours late.

The Real Pay Wall - (by @baekdal)

Thu, 29 Jul 2010 05:21:32 GMT

Newspapers continue to struggle making their printed newspapers profitable (a losing battle), but here is an idea. Why not turn it into a rather nice looking wall covering? This is probably the only pay wall that actually works!

This, at least, is the concept from Weitzner Limited. They cut the newspapers into strips, and weave them together to form a continues roll wallpaper. It is a new way at looking at sustainability, and recycling. But it also create an interesting backdrop for anyone who is in publishing.

At some point, when the printed newspapers go away, they are probably going to run out of source material. But, right now that isn't a problem. The New York Times alone consumes 154,000 metric tons of newsprint paper per year.

That's a lot of wall coverings!

The New Audi A7 Sportback - (by @baekdal)

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 06:07:03 GMT

Yesterday, Audi revealed their new Audi A7 Sportback. Audi is a master of subtle design (much like Apple), the new A7 isn't drastic in any way, it's design simple, yet it convey a very strong image. The only real change is the design of the back trunk.

Mechanically it has been slightly updated, but in many ways it very traditional. It's fast though 0-60mph in 5.6 seconds, and a limited top speed of 155 mph.

I must admit that I have a bit of a soft spot for Audi's.

Digital Journalism Study 2010 - (by @baekdal)

Tue, 27 Jul 2010 02:37:02 GMT

Every year, Oriella PR is doing a study among journalists on how they see the future of media, and what they focus on.

This year's study, among 770 journalists in 15 countries, is very interesting. Clearly people are starting to "get it." In change management terms, we have moved from a period of denial to a new period of acceptance.

Journalists are more optimistic, and the financial crisis is less dominant.

But, there is also a very clear trend against traditional media. 53% thinks print will be taken off the market, up from 32% last year. More people think the future is digital only (but still at 14%), and only 25% now thinks that people "will return," down from 42% last year.

However, only 44% thinks that print will shrink dramatically, down from 59%. This is quite a conflicting trend. More people think that print will be taken off the market, but fewer people think that print will shrink.

To me this indicates the split we see in the media industry. One group embrace the change; another group does not believe the change is real.

It's the Netflix vs. Blockbuster all over again. Netflix believes that DVD renting will disappear and focus on digital streaming. Blockbuster focus their efforts on their brick and mortar business, and their digital content strategy is almost nonexistent.

everyone agrees that the new media changes will result in a loss of readers and advertising income.

Social media adoption is also interesting. Social media newsrooms are up by 90%, while almost all other channels are down by 20-30%. But the traditional communication channels still dominate.

The media industry is still largely stuck in the traditional world. There is still a lot of uncertainty, and the new channels are growing but not yet dominating. The 30% still believes that new sources of revenue can come via "free access to online content for print subscribers" - good luck with that.

But the media is changing, and there is hope in the horizon.

For a more detailed summary, take a look at the video below. You can also download the full report from here.

And, let me know your interpretations in the comments.

Content is not a Loss Leader - (by @baekdal)

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 08:16:32 GMT

As much as I like the views of Jeff Jarvis, I do not like his views on monetization. He basically says that content has to operated at a loss.

Jeff Jarvis recently wrote (in relation to Conde Nast monetization plans):

[Conde Nast] They're not wrong that they need to get money from consumers but they're not going to get it for content. Sorry guys.

Instead, I suggest they have to get new revenue through commerce through selling the things they once advertised now that advertisers are deserting them to sell direct.

We also hear the same from many other sources. Chris Brogan recently wrote about blogs being operated as at loss. And he compared it to how store creates special discounts, to get people into the stores:

Stores use loss leaders all the time. Sell nylons to ladies at cost and get them to buy the high markup stuff, too. That's how Sam Walton (WalMart fame) made all his money, by the way.

This is where it all starts to go wrong.

WalMart does not operate a certain category of products at a loss. Sure they have promotions. "Buy a Maybelline box, and get a pair of Nylons for free." but that is a limited offer for a limited time. Next week, they do the same thing with other products, but they never operate an entire product category at a loss.

You don't expect nylons to be free forever. You don't expect that all nylons, from any manufacturer should be free. No do you go to other department stores, demanding to get their nylons for nothing.

If we did, the result would be disastrous. If everyone suddenly expected nylons to be free, the nylon industry would practically go out of business. The quality disintegrates into the cheapest nylons China can make

No industry can survive on being run at a loss.

But, this is what is happening to content. We are now close to a point where it is impossible to operate as a content industry.

If content merely becomes a freebie attached to other things, the content industry is reduced to companies like Demand Media, which produces a massive amount of content, at very low quality, and at a very low price.

What's next? TV Shows? Should TV networks operate TV shows at a loss, and instead make their money of online web shops selling products featured in the shows? No. If they did, TV would turn into the Demand Media model too. Low quality crappy TV, but good enough to be used to sell products in associated web shops.

What about books? Should authors write books at a loss too?

Where does it stop?

Content is an industry

I have no issues with Chris Brogan running his blog at a loss, because it helps him secure clients for his media business. That's the freemium model, and works great.

But, I have an issue with people demanding that all content should be run at a loss. That's not healthy. It's not even logical.

If you ask people if they think nylons, milk, gas, broadband etc. should be free, many would say yes. That doesn't mean they are right.

Stop giving your away content for free, and start making money. No matter how you look at it, content must have a positive ROI.

There are many ways you can do that:

If you opt for the freemium model (content as a form of marketing, to attract clients) make sure that your content is actually delivering people to you.
Advertising. This works well if you can attract premium advertisers. To do that you need to be unique, targeted, relevant, and have a global audience of about 2,000,000+ readers/month. Anything less than that, and you are in trouble. You can also do it with fewer readers. You can turn your site into a highly targeted niche site, and totally dominate that area.
Plus, premium content for subscribers - but don't turn it into a pay wall.
Subscription, same as plus, but for all your content. And still, forget the pay wall.
Content as services, specialized advice/analysis/insights for a niche market - you can actually sell this at a premium ($100+ for each article), but it needs to be more than just a simple article. There is also a very lucrative market for tutorials, and teaching people generally.
The Seth Godin model (it's not actually called that). A blog with very short and quick posts for free, monetized by a couple of ebooks per year.
The author appreciation model. Ask people to pay "whatever they want". Only works if you are really good, and really popular, otherwise, you are screwed. Also, the "pay as you want" model will effectively prevent ever getting rich. As soon to earn a lot of money, people revolt by paying less.
The content network model. Group together a bunch of small independent publishers, to create an attractive audience for the premium advertisers.
The content provider model, create unique content for other sites. Basically the Reuters model, but with a twist that you sell only each article once - otherwise, it wouldn't be unique.
Partner with content aggregation services. An example is when people can subscribe to Last.fm, instead of paying each individual artist. At this point, however, no such content aggregation sites exist (they are all non-monetized presently).
Pay-as-you-go / pay for each article. Only works for comprehensive articles, where you have already become knew as influential author. And only works for express checkout (like PayPal). It has no chance of success for regular publishers, or news sites generally?

There are also a number of monetization options not linked directly to the content

Clubs / VIP / Membership sites. E.g., you can become a member of the NBA, and the content is just a small part of an overall experience (mixed with LIVE streaming, standings, community etc.)
ECommerce sites, where blogs and magazines brings context to the shop (what Jeff Jarvis talks about). But editorials goes out the window in favor of selling more products. As time passes, you will only focus on content that produces a sale, leaving editorial quality behind.

And, there are a number of models that is doomed to fail

The pay wall. It restricts rather than enables + it neglects to use the internet for what the internet is good for.
The Demand Media model. It is actually exceptionally profitable, and it works (and will continue to do so for many years). But, I would not be able to look myself in the mirror in the morning. It creates a horrible output, wastes everyones time, and they neglect to pay people a reasonable salary. They are running the digital equivalent of a sweatshop. Underpaying cash-strapped students, and lowering their sense of value.
Pay for mobile, but get web free. Like when several newspapers want you to pay for the iPad version, but still give away the content for free online. That is just a continuation of a traditional mindset, without any understanding of what the internet is about. Sell content, not devices.
Pay for print, get online for free. It never worked, not even 10 years ago.
Destination or packages. Digital publishing is about news, not newspapers.
Reporting what others are reporting. People don't need publishers to republish/rewrite stories; they will just go to the source. Have something to add or write another story?

The bottom line: If you do not have a positive ROI, your content strategy is just a hobby!

The traditional media industry is in the middle of its biggest crisis, but the content industry isn't. The money is still there; people pay more than ever for content. You just need to make the right product.

On the internet supply is infinite. Once an article is posted, everyone can read it. The traditional model of duplicating and republishing content provides "N times infinite" supply online. That's just waste.

It's like being one person and having a thousand bathrooms in your house. You just need one.

The media industry, as a whole, has to come to terms with that. If you are not unique, you don't have a business. Some newspapers do seem to understand this. The Guardian (which Jeff Jarvis writes for) is one of them, The New York Times is another.

But most doesn't seem to get it and continues to produce a package of general copied news.

Digital Outperforming Traditional at a Rapid Pace - (by @baekdal)

Thu, 22 Jul 2010 15:06:09 GMT

There where two interesting stories this week about emerging digital markets. First, we heard from Amazon that the sale of ebooks has now surpassed the sale of hardcover books.

According to The New York Times:

Amazon said, it sold 143 Kindle books for every 100 hardcover books, including hardcovers for which there is no Kindle edition.

The pace of change is quickening, too, Amazon said. In the last four weeks sales rose to 180 digital books for every 100 hardcover copies.

The shift at Amazon is "astonishing when you consider that we've been selling hardcover books for 15 years, and Kindle books for 33 months," the chief executive, Jeffrey P. Bezos, said in a statement.

That's from zero, to market domination in less than 3 years! The printed book has just lost.

Update: Amazon does not specify how paperback sales compare with e-book sales, but paperback sales are thought to still outnumber e-books.

NPD Group also recently came out with a report that digital PC games sales are now close to matching retail sales - and that study was based on 2009 data.

In 2009, 21.3 million PC games were downloaded to computers in the U.S. via online game services such as Valve's Steam, compared with 23.5 million purchased at stores.

And it will surpass retail sales here in 2010.

The trend here is obvious to anyone. People do not want to go to a physical store, if they don't have to. The demand is so high for digital distribution that even with the very limited digital distribution models that exist today, people favor digital.

The digital distribution marked today is actually not that good. We have awful implementations of DRM that locks people to specific devices or outlets. We have artificial delays; we have a lack of usable systems. It is really hard to watch online video on your TV, many books aren't even available as an ebook, many products have geo-targeted restrictions, same with on-demand games, same with TV and movies.

But just think about it. Even with all these restrictions, digital is bigger then physical. The demand is so huge, that we buy everything we can.

Imagine how much the TV, movie, book, magazine, news, and gaming industries could sell if they made *all* their content available for digital consumption.

On the XBOX you have "Game on Demand," but there is an artificial delay, of more than 6 months before titles start to appear. Most never appears. They delay the release of XBOX games to prevent the destruction of their retail markets.

Looking at the trend, this is clearly the wrong strategy.

Business executives needs to understand that they are not selling distribution channels - they are selling products. Sales will not drop if give people what they want, where they want it?

People want digital, so give them digital.

If you make games, make them available for direct download via Steam or XBOX Games on Demand, from day one!

If you make books, make ebooks, and make sure they can buy where ever they want. Don't force people to wait, or use a specific device/platform.

If you make movies, don't add a 28 day delay before people can watch them on Netflix. Give them what they want, where they want it.

Blockbuster is going down, even when the movie studios try to help them (which they blatantly used in their latest ad). They only thing the movie studios accomplish with this is to remind people that they are not listening and they not providing.

People don't want Blockbuster; they want Netflix. This ad just makes it worse. Blockbuster probably thinks it's good for them. But in reality, all it does it to distract them from changing their business model to meet the new digital demand.

Update: The following was removed because it didn't take paperbacks into account, and was thus factually misleading. Sorry about that! The trend however isn't misleading.

There is another thing that comes to mind if you are a book publisher. When only 35% of the sale is via print, and the trend clearly favors a massive shift towards ebooks, why do you even still print books?

You need to start asking why do you still print books? Obviously, there as lot factors that comes into play. If I where J. K. Rowling, I would still make the Harry Potter books available for print. But for many other authors, it would financially probably be a lot better to simply force people to buy the ebook.

Help people change instead of giving them excuses to stay behind.

You couldn't do this 3 years ago, because back then ebooks meant having to read on your PC. But, we have solved that problem.

Same for games. If you create games for the XBOX, there is no reason to keep manufacturing DVDs, same with the PC/Mac via Steam.

Instead of focusing your entire marketing campaign on "Go to the store and buy this now!" - simply say "Get Steam, and play now!"

It's a much more effective strategy. It's a more direct path to the sale. People can share it, link to it and post it on Facebook... + your cost of manufacturing and shipping just dropped to zero!

We are past the point where it is a discussion about a future trend. It's here, now!

Old Spice's Social Success and Failure - (by @baekdal)

Sun, 18 Jul 2010 03:11:08 GMT

Unless you have been living under a rock, you have probably heard about the very successful social advertising campaign from Old Spice.

It started pretty simple. Old Spice's advertising agency tabbed into the age-old formula of putting a half-naked model under a shower, and have them flirt with you in front of a camera. They even added a small twist in asking you to compare the model's physical proportions to your existing boyfriend.

Not surprisingly a lot of (desperate) women instantly became a fan of the ad. And because of male insecurity many men watched it too, in the hope that if they covered themselves in Old Spice deodorant, girls would suddenly see them as muscular models (hint: it doesn't actually work that way... but hey!)

You can easily get the same effect with male fans. Simply create a similar campaign with Megan Fox, scantily dressed in a bathroom, flirting with you. She would probably attract even more male fans than Old Spice did with women.

(Image credits: Megan Fox in FHM USA)

Old Spice - listen and respond

The campaign was brilliantly managed. They obviously uploaded it on a branded YouTube and Facebook channel. That is pretty much the default action of any company, so no point here.

But then they listened.

Instead of just thinking of this as a traditional advertising campaign, they use social channels as a way to get the communication started. They monitored how people reacted to the ad, what they said, and the questions they asked - and then they put out a lot of video responses, answering those very questions.

Brilliant move. This is definitely the right way to use social media. Focus on communication, as opposed to presentation.

In a very short time, the Old Spice videos where some of the most popular on the planet, and the Old Spice Facebook page skyrocketed with fans.

Not everything was brilliant though...

There was just one big problem. Because this was essentially a marketing campaign, Old Spice never intended to keep things going. So a few days ago Old Spice published this video saying; "It was fun, but we have to go now."

They failed at the number one thing you must do in the social world: keep the relationship.

They essentially created a one-night-stand. Huge amount of affection, but the next morning there is a note saying: "It was fun, but that was all it was."

The thing with one-night-stands is that it can be really exciting, or a terrible experience afterwards. It all depends on people's expectations going into it. Old Spice forgot to meet people's expectations, and let many people down.

Mike Donnelly described this brilliantly in his presentation "Coke's Fan First Approach in Social Communities".

Traditional marketing campaigns focus on the event, but once it is over, they just turn their back and leave. Whereas social campaigns focused the long lasting relationship and just keeps growing.

Old Spice has firmly positioned their campaign as a traditional one. Sure they use the social channels for optimal effect. But now, they have to start from scratch when Old Spice, in a few months, will launch a new campaign.

They are obviously not going to lose all their 600.000 fans on Facebook. But, a few days ago those 600.000 people where "real fans." Now they might be listed as such, but their engagement level and their passion have dropped significantly.

Old Spice has to reconvince those people to, once again, become real fans with their next campaign.

Who is a fan of whom?

There is, however, one solution for all you women out there wanting to keep the relationship going. Instead of following Old Spice, why don't you follow the man. The actor in the Old Spice campaign is ex-football player Isaiah Mustafa. Why don't you just follow him directly?

This brings us to another point. When companies use celebrities to present their brand, you have to ask who is people actually become a fan of. In Old Spice's case, most of their new 600.000+ fans are women, which aren't actually in the target market for a male deodorant.

These women are clearly not fan of Old Spice, they like the actor - the celebrity.

It's going to be very hard for Old Spice to do another successful campaign, unless they continue to use Isaiah Mustafa.

This disconnect, between the brand and the person representing it, also has drastic impact on your social ROI. If people do not follow you because of your brand and/or products, they are unlikely to help you generate a positive social ROI.

You want people to connect with you. Not with a facade.

Celebrities and models can work well if you stick with them. Instead of using models as "window dressing," turn them into spokes models and brand advocates.

If you cannot do that (usually because of budget restraints), use "real people," from within your company. Or hire brand advocates (Like what Rackspace did when they hired Robert Scoble).

Old Spice did many things right. They maximized their use of social channels, and created a huge amount of attention. But, they failed miserably when it came to sustaining their social relationship.

In the short run, this was a huge success. But in the long run Old Spice just wasted their money, and kept the status quo.

A social strategy must be about keeping the momentum in the long run. It is too hard, to expensive, and too resource intensive to build up true fans, from scratch, at each campaign.

The Digital Content Business Model - (by @baekdal)

Thu, 15 Jul 2010 12:47:00 GMT

There was a great comment in my article "How to really stop piracy" from Paulius, who commented on another commenters suggestions that movies should only cost $1.

He wrote:

"Movies cost millions to make and millions to market. For example, after marketing, etc 'Avatar' cost around 500 million to make.

$1 for a HD download? Even if they could somehow get hosting and bandwidth completely for free that would mean, they'd have to sell half a billion copies of the movie just to break even.

If we're looking at it realistically, a HD movie clocks in at around two gigabytes. Given that from box office takings alone 40 million people saw Avatar, that's 78,125 TERABYTES in transfer, and bandwidth isn't free.

Do I agree that movies should be cheaper, especially when downloaded? Absolutely. Is a dollar a download reasonable? No."

Paulius makes a very important point. This "free" internet has created an unhealthy disconnect between people's perception of what it costs to make something, and the actual price.

Selling a movie for $1 would devastate the movie industry, and... worse... make it impossible for independent producers to operate at all. The only ones who would be able to make any kind of money, are the really big guys, who miraculously create a blockbuster movie, on a really tiny budget.

It is not just about movies, but all kinds of products; ebooks, articles, news, games, eggs, pillows, and iPad cases. Not only does it remove the financial foundation of businesses, it also lowers the quality and value of each individual item.

This disconnect is also hurting many small businesses. One example: My mom owns an online shop selling yarns and knitting recipes (+ baby clothes).

In the past, her business was to produce unique knitting instructions, for a price + selling the yarn that you needed to produce the clothes or scarfs.

Today, her customers "demand" that she give them the knitting recipes for free, otherwise, they will not pay for the yarn. So what used to be two unique products is now being forced into a freemium model. Give us the recipes, or lose the sale altogether.

That isn't right. People have labeled a whole group of products as something that should be free - even though they are far from free to make.

The common element is that people are willing to pay for physical things. People pay for potatoes, pillows, printed magazines, art, concerts, iPhones, printed books etc. All things that have to be manufactured physically.

People are not willing to pay for recipes, ebooks, digital articles, digital art, music, movies etc. All products that don't have a physical presence.

We are stuck in the traditional mindset. We are not willing to pay the farmer for the time it takes him to grow a potato. They are not willing to pay him for great articles he posts on his blog about how to grow better potatoes, or how to use them in a delicious salad. But, people are perfectly willing to pay for the actual potato, because that a thing.

This is a problem!

This free culture, or free-for-something culture, eliminates all levels of creativity and people's willingness to make something special. If you cannot get paid for your time, why spend so much of it? We reduce the internet to a hobby - or a marketing channel.

If a farmer cannot get paid for giving advice, but can get paid for his potatoes, why spend time writing articles, or creating podcasts about it?

Social media people (myself included at times) will point out, that he should make a blog and give advice away for free. We tell him that it is an incredible effective way to build a community - which in turn will generate higher sales. We talk about Social ROI, and how doing all these digital things really work.

But it doesn't work - not really. It works if you have a "physical thing" to sell. It works because the farmer makes potatoes.

The business models that works right now are:

Sale of physical things, combined with creating a digital community for free (Social Media).
Online Tools and services (like online backup, Evernote etc.)
Apps, especially if they are on mobile devices.
Providing free content paid by advertising for the above companies - but this only works if you have a big site, small sites cannot cover the cost of creating content with advertising.
Possibly grouping a lot of small people together in one big group, levering the scale of the group to bring the big advertising dollars (like GrowthSpur and TBD)

...and that's pretty much it. There are always exceptions, but they are rare.

We still lack the most important business model of all: Sale of digital content, combined with a digital community.

We need to change the culture. Right now, the internet is mostly a hobby or a marketing channel for physical products. But, if we want a successful digital future, we need to make the internet self-sustainable.

The solution isn't the pay-wall. While it reintroduced financial sense, it also block all the reasons why people use the internet in the first place.

We need a business model where we can sell digital content, combined with a digital community. The pay-wall is "sell digital content, while blocking the community" and that doesn't work. It just make things worse.

But, we need to stop giving away our content for free, which means that the business model must be if you buy my product, you also get all the advantages of the internet community.

Pay, and you get unique and relevant content.
Pay, and you can read it wherever you like.
Pay, and you can share this article with all your friends.
Pay, and you can contribute.
Pay, and I will help you grow your personal brand.
Pay, and every time you share something, you get to be known as the one who helps others.
Pay, and I will make you a part of the community.
Pay, and you will become part of the tripe
Pay and share my articles, and I will help you become more influential.

Don't pay me, and you don't get to read or share the article, unless you know someone from the tribe (who can share the article with you).

That's the business model of "Sale of digital content, combined with a digital community."

If you want to sell digital content online, you have to do it trough what the internet is all about. The internet is about the link, the act of sharing, the social engagement, the feeling of being a part of something, the feeling that you can show this to your friends, and the feeling of you are getting smarter because of it.

We Need Another W3C - (by @baekdal)

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 03:52:51 GMT

These days, everyone talks about HTML5. All the big guys like Apple, Google, and Microsoft put a lot of effort into making it happen. Google is especially focused on bringing HTML5 and web apps into the world.

But at this moment, the HTML5 specification is a "working draft," not anywhere near completion. So how long will it take for the W3C to complete the HTML5 specs?

I would say "let's give them a few more months"... but Ian Hickson, Editor for the W3C HTML5 working group says "in 2022"

2022??? Huh? .. wait, what?!

Here is the semi-official schedule for HTML5, as reported by Tech Republic

Work started in 2003
First W3C Working Draft in October 2007.
Last Call Working Draft in October 2009.
Call for contributions for the test suite in 2011.
Candidate Recommendation in 2012.
First draft of test suite in 2012.
Second draft of test suite in 2015.
Final version of test suite in 2019.
Reissued Last Call Working Draft in 2020.
Proposed Recommendation in 2022.

That's 19 years! In comparison, HTML4 took less than 3 years to complete.

Granted, HTML5 is the most advanced specification yet, but this is ridicules. We are already at a point now, where Google and Apple is implementing things that aren't exactly in the HTML5 specs. And, we got an even worse problem with CSS3.

By 2022 HTML5 will be completely obsolete, mostly because it is still a "hypertext markup language", not a "semantic dynamic web app language" (what we really need).

I think its time we took away the web spec work from W3C. They are clearly not performing.

Let's start a competitor to the W3C, because that is what they need - some competition.

What do you think?

--- UPDATE ---

(The following was added after reading Eric Eggert's reply in the comments. You should read it too.)

As @yatil and @shojberg pointed out to me, the HTML5 'final date' is when it reaches 'candidate recommendation' in 2012. (Although in any other business, defining "final" as the point in time before a product is tested would be a disaster.) But, even 'candidate recommendation' is 9 years after they started. That's just insane.

When reading: A Brief History of Markup it's clear that the entire HTML5 project doesn't work. It's an inefficient "body", that never gets the job done in time. Some of the things they do are good (some are not), but the problem is that they do not get the job done.

HTML4 was a disaster (we all know that), but solving the problem by getting 600 people to work as a "committee" doesn't seem like the solution to me. It sounds rather inefficient :)

Also, as I see it HTML5 is flawed to begin with. We need some way to define data, some way to define the rendering of this data, some way to define behavior (this part is surely lacking today), and some way to define application constructs.

For data we already have a fully extensible language, called XML. Adding HTML5 on top of that just complicates things. We have CSS to define rendering (although it needs work), we don't have a good way to define behavior yet - only workarounds via Javascript or webkit transforms, and exceptionally little has been done to support the application layer (mostly because HTML5 still sees everything is a page).

Each of these elements should separate from each other (most likely so should their subparts), instead of being mixed in huge spec that is never finished.

Not only would this simplify the project enormously, it would split it into manageable groups, that you can then assign a fast-action teams to conceptualize and solve.

--- UPDATE 2 ---

A lot of people have told me to "blame the browser" for the slow progress. That is a line of reasoning that I cannot follow.

With HTML4, the W3C finalized the specs, and then we watched the browsers manufacturers failure to implement the new standard. The browser where clearly to blame here, because they didn't adapt the standard, and made a mess of the internet.

With HTML5, the W3C hasn't finished the specs at all (and it nowhere near doing that), so the browsers do not yet have a final set of specs to implement. Instead the browsers have lost patience too, and have proactively started to implement HTML5 before it is actually released by W3C.

W3C job is to formulate, create and finalize the specs for HTML. The browser manufacturers job is then to implement those specs - once they are final. The only party here that isn't doing their job is W3C. After 7 years they are still "working on it" - and they will continue to work on it for years to come.

From Distribution To The Link Economy - (by @baekdal)

Sat, 10 Jul 2010 16:13:37 GMT

Admit all the changes faced by news organizations, like the lack of monopoly, real-time reporting, creating original content, and the disappearance of print, there seems to be one element that most news people still do not understand. There is no distribution market on the internet - it's a link economy.

Yesterday, I read an article about yet another proposed form of micro-payments, which is nothing new. The newspapers seem to be stuck on only three forms of business models; ads, pay-walls, and the mystical unicorn of micro-payments.

So far, none of them seem to be any good.

But what struck me in that article was this proposed "what-if":

"What if news content owners and creators adopted a variation on the long-established ASCAP-BMI performance rights organization system as a model by which they could collect payment for some of their content when it is distributed outside the boundaries of their own publications and websites?" ...

"Publishers have complained about the perceived misuse of their content by aggregators of all stripes and sizes" ... "But at the same time, many publishers recognize that it's to their advantage to have their content distributed beyond the bounds of their own sites, especially if they can get paid for it.

Everything about this is wrong. It is a print mindset; there is no trace of the internet in those paragraphs.

When it comes too content online, there are three concepts every traditional news organization need to understand:

Redistribution/republishing
Quoting
The power of the link

Today, most traditional news people focus on the first one, and they frown upon the two others But that kind of thinking doesn't work online.

Redistribution/republishing

Redistribution in a link economy is waste. All it does is to make duplicates of the same content, and take it away from you. You don't want your content redistributed to another site, or some person's blog. You want the other sites or blogs to *link* to you.

This is the reason I generally do not allow people to republish content form my site, because the path to success is "do what you do best, link to the rest."

"Copying" lowers the value of that content, because it removes it from the source - a critical element in a link economy.

In a link economy, you also get a stream economy, where people become followers of the original source of news. You want people to follow you. You don't want them to follow someone else, using your content (even if they pay for it).

Quoting

Quoting is an essential element of news. In fact, it is one of the most important elements of any news article. So it's rather odd when news organizations try to prevent quoting.

Quoting isn't a bad thing, because it extends the editorial content, it furthers discussion, and it brings with it new perspective and insights that you might have missed.

Newspapers should embrace linked quoting, not just for themselves, but also via others. When you write an article, some of the best insights are how people respond and extend it. Insights that can often lead to another article (easy investigative reporting) - and a stronger community.

If you look at all the internet media sites, this is a big part of why they are successful.

One example: A few days ago, The Guardian posted an article based solely on people's reactions to earlier news about the new James Bond movie being put on hold.

This is the quote economy.

News is published (by the studio) that a movie is on hold
Several news sites quote that story in a series of articles.
People quote the news story and start to discuss its importance.
The Guardian quotes the people, writing a new story.
People quote the quotes of the quotes... and etc.

Everyone wins! And the news just keep growing.

BTW: The second largest Danish newspapers then decided to "republish" the full article from The Guardian, without even a link back to the original article - at which point we have to ask, who is the villain again? The people who quote, and helps you grow - or the people who steal... erhm... sorry, republish... and takes away your readers?

The Power of the Link

The real power of the internet is the link in its many variations. Traditional news organizations frown upon Google News, but that is one of the most insignificant news aggregators around.

The most powerful news aggregator online is the ones maintained by people. The biggest ones are Facebook, Twitter, StumbleUpon and Digg. Not to mention the entire blogosphere. Each one of these are far bigger than Google News - much more powerful, and more disruptive.

We also have sites like Alltop and SmartBrief, which bring us a more editorial form of news aggregation. And finally we have a large number of automated news aggregators, like Tweetmeme, Mediagazer, Techmeme, and of course Google News.

All these, regardless of it is done by individuals or automatic systems, provides an exceptional service. They give free exposure to your content... Free!!

Without the link, you have to do all the hard work of attracting an audience yourself.

Just compare a website for a traditional newspaper, with digital newspapers who embrace the link.

Traditional sites have a relatively large share of direct visitors (because that is the only way to really find them), a varying level of traffic from search engines, and a relatively small amount of link traffic.

Compared to sites like Mashable.com. Not only is it a niche site, for a limited audience, but it is run by only 25 people. Despite that, Mashable has about 14 million readers per month - far more than most traditional news sites.

How can fewer people, in a limited market, beat the socks off big traditional mass-market newspapers? It's simple. They embrace the link, and get a ton of free exposure. That exposure turns into new readers, it helps them position them as valuable to their community, and that helps them grow even further.

Another example is this site. While I'm not even close to be the size of Mashable (I had 340,000 readers in June), 95% came via links. And I estimate that 99.9% of my growth is facilitated by people linking to my content.

The Business Models

This is a wake-up call for traditional media. The reason the internet is so big and so disruptive, is because of the link.

You don't want business models that focuses on licensing and republishing. That's the old print way of doing things, where destinations, and distribution determines your success. We don't have those limitations online, so why base your business on giving other sites your readers?

You want people to connect with you. You want to bring your content to where your readers are. You want to facilitate linking and sharing. But, you do not want to give that to a middleman (another news site).

Republishing (the old way) is bad because it takes away your readers. News aggregation is great because it helps you grow via the link.

Nor do you want to create artificial barriers. The worst example is the pay wall or the iPad apps. When you create a barrier that eliminates the link, you are effectively reducing your potential to only the people you can attract yourself.

Traditional news organizations think this is a viable solution for two reasons.

1: They create newspapers, not news. Because newspapers have long been focused on reaching a general mass-market, they know that they cannot possibly satisfy each individual reader (and thus each individual news article cannot be sold separately).

To solve this, they turn to the art of selling mystery packages. This is a very effective way to sell lower-value products in a limited market.

If a company has a bunch a stuff they cannot sell as individual items, a good approach is to put it all in a box and sell them as a package for a low price. That is how newspapers are sold. Mystery packages of random news, most of which isn't worth the price? But hey, there so much of it.

This model completely fails online, because you need scarcity to sell a box of low value products - but there is nothing scarce online. We have an abundance of content.

2: Limiting yourself to your direct readers, only works if you already have high traffic levels. The Times estimates that 5% will accept the pay wall (not likely though), and that might work for them because they already have 20 million readers/month.

It doesn't work if you have only 25,000 readers/month, because without sharing, you will not be able to grow. Even print magazines know this. A big reason for print growth is the ability for people to share a magazine with their friends.

One example. The greatest printed science magazine is Denmark is "Illustratreret Videnskab". It has a circulation of 60,000 copies/mounth, but it is read by about 630,000 readers per month.

How can 60,000 printed magazines be read by more than 10 times the people? Easy, people share printed magazines. That's how print magazines grow.

By putting up a pay-wall (or by moving your content to closed apps), you have no links - no sharing. Thus, you have no influx of new readers coming to your site. And because people cannot link from it either, your engagement level drops like a stone.

Sharing is essential to your business both online and offline. On the internet, sharing is about the link. Without it, you don't have an online business. The pay-wall market is limited to the laggards, the people who do not change. That's the people who still buy CDs.

And they are a dying breed.

Business models that are about licensing your content to other sites, pay walls, closed iPad apps etc. are doomed.

The potential business models online have to be about the link. That has to be a central element, along with unique and targeted content.

Advertising is a proven model for that, but it isn't inversely scalable (you have to be really big before advertising starts to make sense).

But there is a huge potential for business models that focus on a stream of valuable and sharable content. Business models that are not about having people to login into a destination, but giving people access to your content on whatever channel they are on.

It's the sharable pay-stream!

The iPhone Movie: Apple of my Eye - (by @baekdal)

Mon, 5 Jul 2010 06:23:30 GMT

The new iPhone 4 is spectacular for many reasons, one of them being the camera. My favorite video camera is the Flip Mino HD, which I like a lot. But with the iPhone 4, you can do everything the Flip can, and much, much more.

The best example of that is "Apple of My Eye," a sort video created by Michael Koerbel. It is shot, edited and published entirely with the iPhone 4.

And here is how it was done.

There is no expensive equipment. All they used was an iPhone 4, a couple of cheap steady cam rigs (e.g. I own this one - price $14 - or build something yourself). Just a great idea, a great location, and to repeat the best quote I heard for a while...

"How did you edit it?" ... "I used my fingers"

(photos via Michael Koerbel Flickr stream, videos via YouTube/Vimeo - shot at Allied Model Trains)

Anyone can cook

This short movie is amazing for many different reasons. The most important one is that it illustrates how easy it is to be great. The entry level for being remarkable has never been lower.

Now you can record, edit, and publish beautiful HD quality video directly from the phone you got in your pocket.

You don't need a million dollars; you don't need expensive computers with Final Cut Pro. You don't need special training, or a big enterprise to cover your back.

You still need planning, you still need the great idea - and you definitely still need time and motivation. But even with that, this video took only a total of 48 hours to make.

Obviously, it would have been easier to transfer the video files to you MacBook, and edit it on your 24" Cinema Display, in iMovie. That was certainly what I would have done.

But consider the possibilities here. Being able to edit and publish videos like these, also means that you don't need to have an office. This is cheap, high-quality, *virtual* movie production.

...also consider that this video has been watched more than 700,000 times in just little over a week (across several social channels).

A good way to explain this, is with the words said by the critic in Pixar's Ratatouille:

"To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook."

"But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France."

"I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more."

Social, Mobile Internet, Friends and Summer - (by @baekdal)

Sat, 3 Jul 2010 02:27:47 GMT

It is not unusual for many websites to lose 20-50% of their traffic during the hot summer months. It happens every year, because people rather want to be outside with their friends, having fun barbecuing, than sit inside in front of a computer.

Many companies adapt to this by slowing down too. They are not releasing anything new, they send their employees on vacation, and they prepare for autumn.

Why try to engage people via digital channels, when your audience are spending all their time outside instead? Right?

But, this "seasonal internet" is about to change.

Social network, location based marketing, and sharing is a perfect match for the hot summer days. We are naturally drawn outside, we go to more events, we visit parks, we have barbecues - all combined with a much higher level of social engagement.

And when you mix that with the mobile internet, which is expected to surpass desktop internet within the next 3 years, you end up with an explosive cocktail.

Take... a sunny day, ice cream, great friends, vacation, fun events, BBQs, long days - mixed with Foursquare, Gowalla, Facebook, Twitter - mixed with mobile devices that can capture and share every moment, look up friends, check out things to do, wherever, and whenever...

...and what do you get? Right? And incredible amount of internet activity.

The internet is no longer an inside-and-mostly-during-winter thing. It's mobile, it's out there, it connecting people, and it is perfect for summer.

You shouldn't slow down your digital strategy during the summer. You need to take advantage of the new mobile internet, and that people are naturally more active and socially engaged when it's hot and sunny.

You need to take advantage of location based marketing. Give people something to do, places to go, and things to share.

(photo credit: Scott Raymond, Gowalla co-founder - taken by Robert Scoble)

Sunny days are for snacking, cold rainy days are for contemplating

It is important to remember that people will have a completely different behavior when they are outside with their friends.

They not going visit your website, or read lengthy articles. They might relax with a good ebook, or an even better Audiobook. They might play Farmville on the iPhone (a brilliant move by Zynga). But they won't spend a long time "on a computer."

You need to design and plan for this. Create short socially active in-the-moment things to do.

Think fast, easy, and consider-it-done!

Think location, specials, meetups - and extend that beyond geography.

People will not spend an hour uploading their vacation photos, when their friends are having fun outside. But, they are very likely to share a bazillion pictures published *live* from their mobiles.

(photo credit: We capture every moment - taken by Wendy Piersall)

People will not read through catalogues for things to see, buy, or do. But, they will use location-based services to find out where the action is right now.

It doesn't have to be short, but it does have to be effortless. Create a lot of snacks!

2010 might be the first true "internet-summer" - but remember it's not going to happen on a computer.

Setting up Baekdal.com for the new Digg 4 - (by @baekdal)

Sun, 27 Jun 2010 15:23:52 GMT

Want to try out the new Digg 4 - go here http://new.digg.com (limited access - be quick)

Update: Early invite period is over, but you can still request an invitation from link above. You will just not get immediate access. The early invite period was only open for a little over an hour.

Going to test it out this week, but so far it looks very promising. Read about my initial reaction to the concept.

Screenshots below :)

The End of FLV. Hello h.264 - (by @baekdal)

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:14:38 GMT

Earlier today On2, the company behind the video codec used in the FLV video format (used by Flash), told us that they will discontinue their Flix video product line.

As you might remember, Google bought the company back in 2009, and have since announced the creating of the open HTML5 video format WebM based on their video codecs.

While FLV isn't officially dead yet, it is in all practical terms of the word. Anyone still relying on FLV (an the VP6 codec) needs to switch now to h.264.

The advantages of h.264 are many. It works with pretty much everything - including flash. Even Adobe recommends that you use h.264 in Flash over the now outdated FLV format.

What about WebM you ask? Well, I don't see much of a future for it. H.264 is already widely adopted as the defacto standard for video both on the web, offline and in Flash.

It is supported natively in every browser except Firefox and is the format of choice by all the big content providers. With the only exception of YouTube, that will support both h.264 and WebM.

This puts Mozilla in the rather curious position of ending up like IE. As the browser who doesn't want to play with others. I think it is only a matter of time before they will have to give in.

Of course, Mozilla sees it quite differently, claiming that they cannot support it because it's a closed format that they have to license.

But, the winners of this battle will be the content producers and people viewing it - and the far majority does not care about licensing deals vs. an open source philosophy.

Also, h.264 works just fine in Firefox via the Flash player, which means that h.264 is already working in every browser, on every platform - even on the iPad.

Apple: Pay Full Price For an Ebook You Already Bought - (by @baekdal)

Tue, 22 Jun 2010 09:06:54 GMT

Yesterday, I updated to iOS 4 on my iPhone (like everyone else), and downloaded iBooks. The iOS 4 is nice, pretty fast, and a welcome upgrade. But iBook was a disaster.

First off, the iBook app was completely empty. Isn't it supposed to come with Winnie the Pooh or something? Isn't it supposed to already be filled with the other books I bought? What about all the epub books I have added manually to iTunes? There was just nothing there.

I could go into the store, go into the "Purchases" tap, and redownload my books. It was a little annoying to have to do that manually, for each book, but I could probably manage.

But, when I did so, I got this message "You've already purchased this but it isn't available for redownload. To purchase it again at full price, tap OK"

I... what??? AT FULL PRICE!!! Are you freaking kidding me?!?!? Apple, are you insane?

This is yet another of the many reasons why everyone thinks that Amazon Kindle will win this battle. With the Kindle I can read my books on any device, because the Kindle is available pretty much everywhere. On the Kindle all my books, notes, and bookmarks are instantly synced with the cloud. And, I never even have to redownload anything - because it is just there to begin with.

Apple simply doesn't understand the cloud or that people have multiple devices, although many people have several MacBooks, iPods, iPhones, and iPads.

You might think this story would end here, but it doesn't. Because then I thought, "Okay, I will just sync it with iTunes, via a cable to my MacBook," which I did. That did indeed sync all the books bought via the iBookstore, but it didn't sync any of the epub books I made myself via Calibre - books that works fine on the iPad.

Why can I sync books to my iPad, but not to the iPhone? It's standard DRM-free epub files, I don't get it.

Update: Books from http://www.epubbooks.com/ syncs just fine - now I'm confused...

As everyone know, I am a big Apple fan, and really like Apple's devices, but my experience with the iBook app reminds me of a quote over at Techcrunch by Jacob Weisberg, Chairman of The Slate Group

"I'm not sure I would bet on it as the dominant device because I think Apple does have the tendency to make the same mistake again and again, which is that it likes closed systems.It doesn't like the messiness of the internet but unfortunately messiness is part of what makes the internet the internet."

And again, the problem is not with the iPhone, iOS or the iPad - the problem is with Apple itself. Amazon Kindle works just fine via the cloud, and Amazon's free reader "Stanza" has none of the problems or limitations of iBooks.

So here is a top tip: Forget about iBook, and use Amazon Kindle and Stanza for your reading needs.