This what Bob Hoffman ponders after a recent comScore study found that 54% of display ads paid for by advertisers the past year were seen by absolutely no one. Sure, they may have technically appeared on a page, but were never actually visible to a human eye. Yet by all means of measurement, these are counted impressions as shown in thousands of CPM display analytic reports on the desks of chief marketing officers everywhere.

Penning it the ‘$7.5 Billion Ad Swindle‘, Hoffman isn’t shocked by any means (he’s a staunch advocate against the effectiveness of display advertising on the web altogether) but finds the silence in the industry to these facts as the most disturbing part. Essentially, half of client’s ad budgets are being stolen out from under them, either through fraud or incompetence, yet no one even wants to acknowledge it. It’s the steroids in baseball dilemma of 1998. In a time when digital ad budgets are increasing in all verticals, it would be in no one’s best interest (at least for agencies and exchanges) to kill the golden goose.

While the ‘Ad Contrarian’ has a penchant to conjure up default blame in nefarious, shyster activity by unscrupulous marketing firms, I tend to veer in the other direction – that most of these people just don’t have a fucking clue. To compound the issue, the clients of these hapless folks have even less of a clue. Even worse, the client doesn’t actually give a damn and holds no one to any sense of accountability at all. And you wonder how half these ad budgets disappear into the ether?

I may just be a small player dealing with small ‘mom & pop’ businesses with small budgets on a small scale, but I’m constantly amazed at the shenanigans, intentional or not, that are perpetrated on unsuspecting clients who place a ton of trust in agencies with little care in conducting any due diligence. In no way am I even talking about advanced-level work with multi-faceted strategies and many moving tactical parts. It’s the basic, fundamental shit that’s being botched.

I’ve seen phantom SEO work with doctored monthly reports. I’ve seen free WordPress themes as-is peddled as two-thousand dollar products. I’ve seen PPC accounts set up so poorly and mismanaged (if managed at all) that thousands of dollars of a client’s money is practically flushed down the toilet.

I’ve seen web development companies charge co-location prices for “hosting and maintenance” for what turns out to be shared hosting reseller accounts. I’ve seen expensive industry-specific web platforms with e-mail marketing funnels that have a deliverability rate under 20%. I’ve seen a marketing agency downright steal a fucking domain name from a client and charge them over a thousand bucks a year to simply keep their website from disappearing.

Sure, some of these instances were knowingly pure scams, no doubt about it. Some, however, are just a case of total ineptitude or poor sub-contractor accountability (which is a whole ‘nother story – as clients rarely know behind the scenes how much work is being arbitraged to third-world countries). But in all cases, the business being served wasn’t even aware that anything was out of the ordinary. They’re not experts in the technical sense by any means and just assume it’s the normal ‘cost of doing business’ and the way things are done. Until someone with a speck of domain experience actually takes more than a passing glance at what’s happening under the hood, the charade will continue with them being none the wiser.

Although I’m typically not involved with display media buying (yes, I am very much aligned with Bob Hoffman in its ineffectiveness), it’s not a surprise at all that so many counted ad impressions are going unverified with both the agency and client in the dark. Yet it’s too easy to blame just the marketers for this. At some point, clients must hold their agencies, vendors, partners, consultants and any other party in the process accountable – both in the proposal stage and initial sign-on as well as on a regular basis throughout the course of the relationship. [1]

Trust me, I’m not trying to make excuses for shitty third-party work and scapegoat the client to blame fully. But really, do you think such shenanigans – like a few billion dollars of display ad budgets being ‘scammed’ away – would be able to continue if businesses kept up more closely in what was being executed on their behalf?

I highly doubt it. That is how the problem gets solved. Survival of the fittest ensues. The industry regulating itself? That’s a lost fucking cause.

1. This is why my agency’s marketing services are always on a month-to-month basis, no yearly contracts. We have to sell ourselves and show our value every single month when meeting with our clients.

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about the leaked NSA secret spy program, the real reason why Edward Snowden outed himself, how the public overestimates the government’s competence executing anything tech-related, how congressional oversight is only a game of “cover your ass”, and question if terrorism is truly worth fighting at all.

In addition, I quickly run through Apple’s power user-friendly announcements at WWDC and bemoan the spoiled fanboys focusing on design over functionality, try to understand the point of Google’s billion dollar acquisition of Waze, and in the midst of recently released smartphone ownership figures, explain that the reason many people do not purchase apps is due to the built-in expectation of a product.

Links from this episode:

We Are Shocked
Majority Views NSA Phone Tracking as Acceptable Anti-terror Tactic
The Irrationality of Giving Up This Much Liberty to Fight Terror
Why Google Wanted Waze: The Local Ad Market Is Going Mobile
Thoughts On iOS 7 “Why Wasn’t I Consulted?” Edition
56% of American adults are now smartphone owners
Customers need to help fix the App Store economy

While I do have respect for those skilled in the photographic arts, it’s this perception, true or not, that’s financially devaluing the profession – leading to outfits such as the Chicago Tribune laying off their entire photo staff (yet they’re continuing to employ them on a freelance basis). I can’t blame them, though.

Except for the very rare poignantly-taken iconic photograph, I really can’t tell the difference between a good amateur shot and a professional one. Even worse for the industry, I frankly don’t give a shit.

The public doesn’t either – at least when it comes to news. Do I really care what image is used when reading about the U.S. arming Syrian rebels or what shot is plastered on the Amy’s Baking Company train wreck I rubbernecked for a few days?

Print newspapers naturally have a fixed space available for stories. Even less for smaller, local happenings. Having photos to frame these narratives properly are important when you’re limited to four-hundred words of text allotted for it. The visual imagery also helps veer reader’s eyes towards worthy pieces amongst the pages of newsprint vying for attention. In this method and medium, an amateur iPhone shot won’t do. But both are becoming deprecated at an extremely quick pace.

For journalism on the web, there’s infinite space available for stories. From important world news to the local high school’s bake sale, outlets can cover anything on any day and it all “makes the paper”. Instead of only three stories able to be featured on the cover, hundreds can be showcased on a site’s home page. Readers aren’t bound anymore to the confines of a print package with the news organization guiding the way. In this case, the image included in a particular piece is drastically minimized in importance. Actually, many times it can hinder the reading experience.

Never mind the fact that even on the web, other than the top stories showcased in each category, visitors won’t even see the image of the piece until actually clicking to view the article. Based on the sheer quantity and choice of content daily, with a few hits and a ton of misses, most of these photos (no matter how great they may be) are just disappearing into the ether barely viewed. Can you then really blame a news outlet from cutting back on professional photography when it goes under-utilized, under-appreciated and does nothing to increase readership or the bottom line?

Photographers can whine all they want, but I guarantee that I won’t be able to tell the difference between their work and shots taken by journalists on their iPhone. Don’t blame the newspapers. Blame me. Blame the public.

While one profession is on the decline, another should see a proportional upturn. With the shift inside news organizations towards digital-first journalism, the money is better spent on copywriters. Like it or not, a picture may speak a thousand words, but a headline speaks a thousand clicks.

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about the recent Tumblr acquisition, why the platform has not come anywhere close yet to being fully matured regardless of the perception by early adopter types, how it doesn’t make Yahoo “cool”, and why the majority of users frankly don’t give a damn who owns or makes the products they use.

In addition, I laud Microsoft’s half-ass attempt to spur Windows 8 adoption rates, explain why the XBox One will not be the device that owns the living room despite its lofty claim, expose the hypocritical perception that Google operates nefariously, and comment on the latest round of feminist bloggers attacking male comedians.

Links from this episode:

How Yahoo Will Wring $1.1B Out of Tumblr
Marissa Mayer Has Already Made One Big Mistake With Tumblr
Tumblr, you should have taken my money
Microsoft Gives In To The Old Guard
Windows isn’t a feature, it’s a liability
Xbox One: Microsoft’s new console, Kinect, and a big bet on TV
The Future Of Television Isn’t About the Hardware
Why we can’t quite seem to make up our minds about Google
Google, The Villain
Facebook Should Not be in the Business of Censoring Speech, Even Hate Speech
Feminst writer calls comedy clubs ‘dark basements full of angry men’

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about Adobe killing Creative Suite for it’s cloud subscription service, how it’s a win-win-win for casuals, professionals and the company itself, and that anyone complaining must be pirating the software to begin with and not admitting it.

In addition, I explore the reasoning behind YouTube’s new paid subscription channels, why there’s way too much content out there for “extras” to succeed, and describe a utopia that no mainstream media company would ever allow to happen.

Plus I explain how the nationwide online sales tax will end up backfiring royally on brick-and-mortar establishments and share the real reason certain folks are outraged over the recent comments made by Abercrombie & Fitch’s CEO.

Links from this episode:

Adobe: 5 Reasons We Killed The Creative Suite
Adobe’s Subscription Model & Why Platform Owners Should Care
Can YouTube succeed with its paid channel subscriptions?
YouTube to advertisers: We’re the new TV, because we’re nothing like TV
Senate passes nationwide online sales tax bill
Abercrombie, Fat Chicks & Polarization in Marketing

If you sell a low-priced app in the App Store with no free version, you make money from every tire kicker.

Free “tastes” work out best financially only when the cost of purchase (or lifetime customer value) is high and target market size (or sales conversion rate) is low. Consider the difference between Mac apps like Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, Logic Pro and their cheaper/lighter brethren Elements, iMovie and Garage Band.

Almost all potential customers would want to see what they’re getting before plunking down several hundred bucks for the former – the advanced, pro products. Yet if they do like what they see and go on to purchase it, you’re getting a huge chunk of profit from each conversion regardless if the overall rate is fairly low.

For the latter applications that are feature-light and cheaper, you’re relying on a larger market of much more casual users. Yet if they have any mitigating need for the solution you’re offering, a high percentage of this group would indeed pay for it given the right price point.

Developers are doing themselves a disservice to their bank accounts by offering any free trial period at this level for one of two reasons:

1. When given the choice, a large portion of users that would have paid outright will opt for the free trial instead, many of which never converting past that taste test.

It’s like if a car salesman who has just filed all the paperwork, financing, insurance; the customer is in the middle of writing the down payment check; and right before they sign, convinces them to go take a test drive. The biggest sin in sales is not knowing when to shut up and take the money.

2. Most opting for a free trial will not pay regardless of how cheap or great the app is.

Studies in behavioral economics have shown that the psychological difference between $0.00 and $0.01 is enormous. The mere act of opening up one’s wallet is a giant leap that certain people will just not take.

Anyone who fits this demographic will never be your customer. Never. Stop trying to get them. It’s a lost cause. These folks aren’t tire kickers. They don’t even own a car in which to kick said tires. Fuck ‘em.

Selling a thousand dollar piece of software with no free trial period or not even a lower priced feature-light version? You’re probably doing it wrong. If not, that must be one insanely valuable, life-changing, orgasm-inducing app.

Selling a 99 cent app that has a free trial period? You’re probably doing it wrong. Actually, you probably, have a really low threshold for failure, deep-seeded self-esteem issues and should go see a therapist immediately.

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about new publishing platforms, why their mission statements mean nothing, how once the mainstream media gets on-board that it’s all over for the ‘little guys’ and worst of all, how we the users stupidly get duped by them time and time again.

In addition, I quickly review Google Now for iOS, comment on the recent hands-on reviews of Google Glass, extol on the utter futility of regaining a supposedly “lost” humanity by spending a year without the internet, and rant about the haters who don’t understand what Kickstarter essentially is when lauding celebrity projects.

Links from this episode:

The Company That’s Buying Up All the Key Pieces of the Online-News Ecosystem
The Medium Compromise
Guys Like This Could Kill Google Glass Before It Ever Gets Off the Ground
Everything is Amazing and Robert Scoble is Happy
Google Now on iOS is neither Google nor Now
I’m still here: back online after a year without the internet
Washington state slams T-Mobile for “deceptive ‘No-Contract’” ads
Kickstarter abuse: Why are you giving your money to wealthy celebrities?

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about the reaction on social media to the Boston Marathon bombing, how most put their ‘perceived selves’ on a pedestal in light of actually grieving a tragedy, the expectations we have towards journalistic outfits compared to the social web, why the news media continually gets facts wrong and how we’re all to blame for it.

In addition, I quickly review Twitter #Music, explain why an individual’s music tastes can’t be crowdsourced, and give streaming music services the most effective marketing message they should lead with in their advertising to the public.

Links from this episode:

The Repetitive Cycle of Tragedy and Social Media
The Best Twitter Response to Tragedy: Shut Up
CNN Gets It Wrong — Why We Don’t Really Mind
Rule #1: Don’t Be A Profiteering Asshole
Breaking News Is Broken
Here’s what we don’t know at this hour
Twitter Music Is Great For Artists; Less So For Fans
Twitter Music: More Noise, Less Signal
Splashy ads and free streaming promotions don’t work

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about why Facebook was smart not to make their own device or operating system, the real reason why the PC market is taking a massive downturn, how to fix Foursquare (and two other platforms at the same time), why most of the industry and press is in denial over Aereo’s true business intentions, and who Fox is even trying to scare by threatening to pull their signal off the public airwaves.

In addition, I go off on game developers’ inability to admit they fucked up, how most of the April Fools “jokes” didn’t live up to the day’s true purpose, and with no culinary experience, give some tips to future contestants of Hell’s Kitchen.

Links from this episode:

Who’s Going To Buy The Facebook Phone?
Why Facebook should have built its own phone
The PC market is a horror show right now
Foursquare Checks In As The Mayor Of Debt Town
Would Fox Really Yank Its Broadcast Signal?
Yes, you should care about Bitcoin, and here’s why
We Can Do Better
April Fools Day should be about jokes

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about Facebook users changing their profile pictures to raise awareness for causes everyone already knows about anyways, how T-Mobile’s new no-contract smartphone plan is just a creative accounting trick and why no one is ever going to read your curated Flipboard “magazine”.

In addition, I explain how showrooming is due to retailers’ poor ability to close a sale, why Walmart’s misguided plans to innovate the buying experience should still be applauded, how Redbox is profiting over the industry’s infatuation with what’s next, and why people in office pools really pick upsets in their NCAA bracket.

Links from this episode:

Facebook users changed their profile pictures in favor of gay marriage at 120% rate
T-Mobile Killed The Smartphone Contract, But It Doesn’t Save You Money
Flipboard 2.0 now lets everyone run their own magazine
Hold up, Flipboard – what are you calling a “magazine”?
The dumbest way to fight showrooming: Charge customers $5 just for browsing
How To Curtail Showrooming: Charge Admission
Walmart to trial Amazon-style lockers for web purchases
Walmart considers asking customers to deliver its packages
Why Walmart Wishes It Were a Startup
Redbox clings to the dying DVD, and it could pay off

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about the mass of technocrats scurrying to find alternatives to Google Reader, digital extremists who seek to control all of their data, how Google’s ecosystem is built for ordinary consumers and why it’s impossible to completely rid yourself of proprietary monocultures.

In addition, I poke fun at how untrustworthy the venture capitalist space must be, corporate retailers who implement company-wise systems without a care about customer experience, why digital narcissism is more of an issue in tech ciclces than sexism, and the difference in the expectations of people who utilize technology in their everyday lives versus those who are not accustomed to it.

Links from this episode:

Sorry Google; you can Keep it to yourself
Your favorite Thursday sandwich
The Handshake Deal Protocol
Why Starbucks isn’t the energy shot Square needed
Digital Era Redefining Etiquette
Does Continual Googling Really Make You Stupid?
Adria Richards, PyCon, and How We All Lost

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about the death of Google Reader, the sky-is-falling reaction by the technorati after the announcement, how big media publishers don’t want the public to control their own news consumption, and why the the venture capital mindset kills sustainable niche businesses and revenue models.

In addition, I vehemently declare that Groupon was built and operates like a ponzi scheme, explain the psychology behind Amazon Prime’s overwhelming success and why price is the only effective differentiation between retail mediocrity.

Lastly, I poke fun at the vapid Samsung Galaxy S4 launch event, how it highlights that we’ve reached peak smartphone innovation, and why the Sim City release debacle shows that game developers don’t believe they’re in the service industry.

Links from this episode:

Google Reader lived on borrowed time
Tools, platforms, and Google Reader
Why the death of Google Reader doesn’t bother me that much
Greed is Groupon: Can anyone save the company from itself?
Why Amazon Prime Could Soon Cost You Next to Nothing
A Truly Depressing Visit to JCPenney
There Is No Such Thing As A Great Launch Event
Will SimCity Launch Disaster Stop Online-Only DRM?

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about Facebook’s newly revamped design, why detractors of their news feed algorithm are missing the plot, how Google’s search results are judged by a double-standard, and why there are so many Facebook ads that contain cleavage shots.

In addition, I get livid over journalists who ignore the economic realities when whining about pay, how we take for granted tools that allow talented luddites to overcome technical hurdles, and why Marissa Mayer’s decision to end telecommuting at Yahoo has nothing to do with you.

Links from this episode:

Separating truth from fiction about Facebook
We do not own our audience’s attention
Seriously, Facebook, What Is Up With These Obnoxious, Sexist Ads?
Twitter Reaction to Events Often at Odds with Overall Public Opinion
A Day in the Life of a Freelance Journalist
A Day in the Life of a Digital Editor
Micropublishing is about more than just The Magazine
Why Banning Telecommuters Is A Sign Your Company Is Screwed
The Yahoo Kerfuffle

Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor very aggressively tried to find alternatives to the label-dominated methods of selling and distributing music in 2007 after he dumped his record company. In 2008, Reznor financed a similar song giveaway as Radiohead’s for rapper Saul Williams. After the results were in, Reznor said he was “disheartened” that only 18 percent of the more than 150,000 people who downloaded Williams’ songs chose to pay for them.

Welcome to reality, buddy. Truthfully, 18% isn’t all too bad. New age “freemium” businesses like Evernote and Dropbox are valued in the high nine-figures with conversion rates a tenth of this. The fact that Reznor isn’t aware of the release’s true success in this landscape shows his inexperience at best, or at worst, a sharp sense of entitlement you can cut with a knife. How dare all these people deem this obvious brilliance not worthy of payment?

These former major label superstars, many who had platinum-selling albums in the 90′s, seem to think they can replicate success going “indie” in the same fashion they were accustomed to inside the corporate music machine. Just put out a great album and people will buy it, right? As any digital publisher of the past decade could attest, “build it and they will come” couldn’t be further from the truth. But this is really all these artists have ever known.

Besides making the music and performing live, they barely had to touch any of the infrastructure that truly fueled their popularity. The millions pumped into the billboards, MTV videos, radio spots and other traditional marketing initiatives. The managers, agents, lawyers, bookers, planners and support staff all looking to capitalize on every opportunity. While the artist’s music itself definitely allowed the “machine” to be effective, the cream rarely rises to the top on its own. Yet it’s because of this disconnect, distance and admitted disdain musicians had working with their corporate overlords that gives them the skewed perspective shown by Reznor in the above quoted piece.

These artists actually think their success was solely due to their own genius. Now that their hit single isn’t being played on the radio every hour, MTV isn’t even airing videos at all, Billboard readership is halved and the public has access to a thousand times the amount of content as before, reality has hit them square in the face. They’re not special anymore. Maybe to true fans, but not to a mass audience. Very few are.

Yet they continue to operate their careers as if the “masses” still exist. That a million albums sold is normal. That packed out arenas are commonplace. That everyone who has ever synced their hit song to an iPod is a fan. These notions exist because the corporate music industry were absolute experts in optimally monetizing weak-tie relationships between artists and consumers. The person who picked up a CD as an impulse buy at Wal-Mart paid the same price as the dedicated fan who camped out in front of Tower Records on release day.

Combined with the public’s limited bandwidth for music exposure and the inherent scarcity of physical media, the industry had no incentive to treat one consumer different from another. Soundscan reports it all the same. Why take the effort and expense to cultivate deeper, long-term, sustainable connections with people when you can pump out an album (usually with only one or two good songs), blitzkrieg the marketplace and suck $20 a pop out of anyone who even slightly fancies the artist? Hey, I can’t really blame them. It’s good business.

But it’s the only business that musicians know. That’s why it’s no surprise they’ve retreated back to major labels. Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead chose to think outside the box and experiment with a new distribution model, yet their career mindset is still as rigid as the “suits” grasping for dear life hoping for the good ol’ days to return. While the digital elite can trot them out as poster-child case studies, it’s apparent that they still yearn for a middle man to crank the engine. They still yearn for someone else to take care of the marketing as if getting more reach is the issue. They still yearn for access to the masses they once thought they had, and still expect. Alongside the industry itself, they still yearn for all consumers far and wide to be homogeneous.

In October, during an event to promote a book by rocker David Byrne, Reznor explained the decision for releasing An Omen with a major label. Reznor told the audience that How to Destroy Angels retains creative control, but when it came to marketing the band members believed they could use some help.

“No one else can write the songs I can write,” Reznor told the audience, “But there’s other people that can do some of that (marketing) stuff.

He’s absolutely correct that no one can write the songs he writes. But everyone else can easily get on my radar now. Putting out the most amazing album in the world won’t change that. It’s this attention economy he can’t seem to grasp, hence the dismay and confusion at how so few percentage of the public are actual swear-to-god true fans willing to pay. These are the only folks actively seeking the music even throughout all the noise. These are the only folks buying $50 concert tickets every time an act comes through town. These are the only folks who will spread good word of mouth to others ambitiously on an artist’s behalf.

The choice now is whether to embrace these true believers, super-serve their needs and nurture a continued value exchange – or go back to futile attempts of enticing casual bystanders to plunk down a buck at a carnival of infinite booths. Trent, you’re not special anymore. You never were. The industry, by design, made you believe the masses loved your music, but it was a lie. The majority of people never really gave a shit. They bought an album in a time when media was scarce, choices were limited and exposure was expensive to attain.

The direct-to-fan distribution model isn’t what’s broken. The perception of the number of actual fans you have is. But still, a hundred thousand of them not good enough for you? Go fuck yourself.

I’ve stayed on Facebook after its repeated privacy violations partly because I foolishly believed there was some sort of democratic approach to sharing freely with others. I feel as if the company persuaded us to share under that premise and is now turning it inside out by requiring us to pay for people to see what we post.

Facebook takes a different view, saying that it is still finding the right balance for the algorithm that decides what people see in their news feeds.

As I’ve taken social media marketers to task several times before, the notion of having a so-called “right” to appear in Facebook news feeds is based upon a false assumption that everyone who subscribes to your updates (or “likes” your page) actually gives a fuck about everything you post. Get it through your goddamn egomaniacal heads already. They don’t.

Despite what these bellyachers claim, the Edgerank algorithm wasn’t designed to bilk a few bucks out of the pockets of brands, businesses and bloviators with large followings. In a similar way that Google displays search results, this mechanism is in place to ensure optimal relevancy and interest of news feed items for an end-user. You know, a normal fucking person. Someone who probably cares more about how their father’s surgery went, what a colleague thought of a new movie, or seeing their friend’s photos from the bridal shower that weekend than reading a half-witted column from a journalist who they’ve never met, spoken or interacted with whatsoever.

Why are they subscribed to your updates then, Nick? They probably liked something you wrote. Many probably read your column on occasion. Maybe some female readers of the Times thought you were cute and just enjoy glaring wistfully at your cover photo. Who knows? All I can most definitely say is that you’re not in any way at the center of their fucking world. Not even close.

While technology douchebags like Bilton (and myself) might operate efficiently in a world of information overload, an average person who doesn’t live and breathe every minutiae, tidbit of news or colloquial musing, frankly needs outside intervention from this deluge – or risks having their proverbial head explode and shutting it all off completely. This, and not a glut of advertising in the stream, is Facebook’s nightmare inflection point.

What makes it even more problematic for the company is that the issue is typically self-inflicted by users themselves (by friending and liking too many things) unbeknownst to the ramifications of that behavior. Is Facebook going to throttle people from doing so and set limitations for their own good? Yeah, let’s see how that flies. Hence their route of providing safeguards so that no matter what, the user experience every time will be as relevant to your interests as possible.

With any algorithm, it’s not perfect. Not by a long shot. Shit, even the eggheads at Google have continually tweaked theirs for over 15 years. Debunking those that believe Edgerank serves primarily as a tool to charge for feed visibility, how can these cyber-celebrities at the same time applaud the online advertising innovation of Google’s Adwords platform which charges for search page visibility in practically the same manner? Aren’t Facebook’s “promoted posts” an extension of that very successful and widely accepted concept? Sounds like hypocrisy to me.

But the issue being addressed in these tantrums have nothing to do with algorithms or business models. It all has to do with a lack of perspective. It all has to do with the unrealistic inflation of self-importance that social technologies appear to provide. And it’s the unwillingness to accept the deflated truth of your actual and limited place in other people’s minds that causes pieces such as Nick Bilton’s to be written. Keep grasping for a scapegoat, dude. It won’t change anything.

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about how Google Glass and smart watches will run into the same societal issues as bluetooth earpieces, why wearable technology is not about style or design but how others are disturbed by it, and that none will be successful when its usage makes you look like a crazy person.

In addition, I explain why the demographic who’d best utilize a Chromebook Pixel can’t afford it, how many people live without unlimited supply of bandwidth, and that Facebook is losing popularity with teens due to social media’s inherent cycle of narcissism and depression.

Lastly, I get meta by commenting on many of the bloggers writing about App.net, how the use case of tech journalists often differs from their readers, and why it all could be a contributing factor to the perception that the community is void of active users.

Links from this episode:

The Google Glass feature no one is talking about
The Fate of Google Glass
Candidly Speaking, An iWatch Is A Dumb Idea
The Chromebook Pixel Is The Most Brilliant Laptop You’ll Never Buy
The Enduring Myth of the ‘Free’ Internet
Over-Wired Americans Are Richer Than They Realize
Why Facebook might be losing teens
App.net’s push for renewals starts with free accounts

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

Rescinding my decision of never having guests on the podcast, I welcome Jason Rehmus of Sweating Commas to discuss editing for the web, ghost writing suicide notes, and while attempting to bait him into talking shit, how popularity in the blogosphere doesn’t necessarily correlate with the quality of writing.

In addition, we rant against self-important coffee aficionados, people who argue over fonts, why to-do lists suck, how productivity blogs instill a cycle of fear, and relish in the tech circle minority by sharing our mutual fandom of e-mail.

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about the overhyped launch of the Mailbox iOS app, why the “waiting list” approach may backfire on them and question whether or not e-mail is even broken to begin with. Also, how it’s baffling that Microsoft seems to be artificially limiting supply for the Surface Pro even though the demand doesn’t warrant it.

In addition, I explain the fallacies of virtual currency in light of Amazon’s recently announced “coins”, plus why many pundits are getting Netflix’s bulk-release strategy wrong when looking at it from a wider scope of their future programming.

Links from this episode:

Mailbox CEO says insane 380K person wait list kept app from crashing today
Wham, bam, thank you Mailbox
Surface Pro Scarcity: Colossal Fail Or Planned Demand?
Microsoft Launching Another Pathetic Smear Campaign Against Google
Why Amazon wants its own currency
Will Netflix original programming threaten “linear TV”?

While I did not see the commercial live on air during the Super Bowl, it took me three viewings of it on YouTube and I’m still at a loss on what the hubbub is all about. Was it awkward? Sure. Was it derivative? Absolutely. Was it something so dastardly that we should be up in arms over it? Not one bit. In fact, in comparison to past GoDaddy spots, it was quite tame. So what the fuck is the problem then?

Prejudice and jealousy. Those are the issues here.

All the uproar I see over the “disgusting” kissing commercial is coming from a vocal minority who have practically written off GoDaddy already in so many other ways before. Putting aside the company’s penchant for racy ads, it has seen scandals from elephant hunting CEO, a boycott over their pro-SOPA stance, all combined with a disregard for quality customer support and user experience in favor of ruthless upselling of services.

With this baggage being towed behind them, there’s no winning with the digerati elite who proliferate social media channels. GoDaddy could have trotted out cute kittens, talking babies waving the goddamn American flag and the commercial would’ve been lauded. But here’s the thing, folks. The spot wasn’t for you. It wasn’t for the tech-savvy. It wasn’t for the marketing douchebags. It was for small business owners and Joe Blows. You know, the normal people.

No one complains about the endless amount of Budweiser commercials even though it would never be considered by any self-respecting beer lover a good brew. But no matter its taste, they sell a metric fucking ton of bottles and cans every single day. That’s what continual brand awareness buys you. Not the outliers. Not the aficionados. You win the middle majority, the average people.

And this is where jealousy rears its ugly head. The digerati, even though they wouldn’t imagine being swayed by a commercial in the ilk that GoDaddy trotted out, we know that it works. The righteous indignation being put on display is merely a defense mechanism. It’s a way of screaming out “I won’t be one of the mindless sheep” even though deep down inside we know it’s fruitless.

Never mind the fact that we’re the only folks who really give a shit about who handles our domain registration and web hosting. While the technophiles can see the value differentiation between providers, it’s essentially a commoditized marketplace in the minds of normal people.

Actually, it’s a distracting hurdle for most small business owners. In dealing with this sector on a regular basis for a living, I can tell you first-hand that it makes no damn difference to them as long as it’s done. With that prevailing attitude, what company would expect to fare best? The one that they’ve heard of.

This is why GoDaddy spent nearly four million dollars a spot during the Super Bowl. This is why they continually choose edgy, racy and bordline offensive ads over a more product-focused, cutesy and clever approach. Their goal is to be known, top-of-mind, the only brand of recall, regardless what it takes. Competitors can’t match their marketing war chest to this extent or reach, so it works like a fucking charm.

Call the “kissing” commercial offensive, disgusting, sexist or worse all you want. Mercilessly tweet and write your stupid holier-than-thou blog posts. Get it out of your system. Just realize it won’t make a fucking dent. Even with SOPA galvanizing the internet, GoDaddy saw an uptick in business that year regardless of the digerati’s massive exodus. You think an outcry over a commercial will do any better?

I despise GoDaddy as much as the next guy. Even so, I applaud their marketing savvy. The commercials work, hands down. Don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about Blackberry hiring Alicia Keys as a figurehead ‘creative director’, why critics are wrong about the 128gb iPad, how Vine is more of an add-on utility than a network itself, and why the success of ‘social video’ comes down to a viewer’s expectation of mental commitment.

In addition, I question the absurd trend of companies advertising to promote their own Super Bowl commercials, plus why if you eliminated geographic bases for professional sports teams that the entire industry would fall apart.

Links from this episode:

Why on Earth did BlackBerry hire Alicia Keys?
The 128 GB iPad is Here. Get Over It.
Vine isn’t perfect, but it’s perfect for Twitter
Vine, Identity, And Corporate Twitter
Marketing The Marketing: The Social Media Backfire
Don’t Be Fooled, Hockey Fans: There’s No Such Thing as ‘Your Team’

Foursquare released a new app for business tracking, analytics and local updates, Get Satisfaction launched a new service for social media engagement, and mighty Google announced a webinar series to teach these small business folks sound digital marketing strategies using their products (obviously).

Combined with Groupon’s recent pledge to give retailers wider access to data, the obscenely narrow trend has been towards supplying small business owners with the necessary tools, resources and information to effectively market themselves in the digital landscape. While these offerings can absolutely benefit any local business, it completely ignores the fundamental issues faced by them on a day-to-day basis. These technology-focused companies are creating technology-focused solutions when there’s no truly technology-focused problem to solve.

Give these small businesses as much information and as easy-to-use applications as you’d like, it still won’t make a dent. Nothing will make up for the physical time and effort needed to actually utilize it. That’s true even for those business owners who are indeed tech-savvy, so it’s not a matter of these tools still being user-unfriendly and complicated to learn. They just don’t have the fucking time.

These ‘mom and pop’ shops many times are literally just Mom and Pop. Even those with over fifty employees are typically stretched thin on man hours. Sales and marketing is usually one department. Hell, sometimes it’s only one person. With the amount of work already on their plate day-to-day, where do these innovative new tools and glut of information available to them fit in? They don’t. Nor do businesses at this size have the budget to hire someone in-house to focus on utilizing them. Essentially, they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Go to any small business owner with your new-fangled application and most will respond the same exact way. “Fuck the tools. Just do it for me.”

Take a look at enterprise-level software companies and you’ll see the same sentiment at a larger scale. Many of these technology companies don’t show the most revenue off their actual product offerings. Their balance sheet is padded by their insanely expensive consultancy wing and support divisions. Most clients don’t want software-in-box. They want custom solutions and the people to implement, utilize and tweak them accordingly. Without a knowledgable and experienced human being at the helm, the software is useless.

These companies building marketing platforms for small businesses really need to get out of their lofts in the Valley and actually walk in an owner’s shoes. See what it’s like to run a restaurant, auto body shop, nail salon, dental practice. See what it’s like to get their hands dirty, understaffed and dealing with retail customers. See what it’s like when the only person in the office with any sparse amount of free time is the secretary, maybe. Then hopefully they’ll see that another tool, another resource, another shiny object won’t accomplish a goddamn thing.

Small businesses don’t want your software. They want you.
Yes, it’s not scalable. Yes, it’s not replicable. But it’s what they need.

Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes if you give a damn!

I rant about the delusional paradox of Apple’s latest earnings report and stock price dip, the useless debates and pointless arguments about the reasons behind Android’s popularity, and question the business model of magazines charging more for their digital versions versus print.

In addition, I ponder if the new Myspace is just a really ingenious advertising ploy to promote Justin Timberlake’s career, and why blogging doesn’t need to be saved no matter how much some old-schoolers and early adopter types cry.

Links from this episode:

With Apple, What A Difference A Week Makes
Android Is Popular Because It’s Cheap, Not Because It’s Good
Lost On New Myspace. Can’t Escape Justin. Send Help
Why Magazines Are Using Digital To Boost Prices, Not Bolster Innovation
How To Save Blogging From Itself

We’re an early-adopting, forward-thinking, and politically-versatile group, but when someone interferes with our data and our products and our use-cases, we grow disproportionately angry. We don’t use Instagram to take photos of friends, nor do we use Snapchat to fill our spare time. We hate Twitter for pandering to a newer, larger audience of people and we find Facebook beguiling for its increasingly intrusive behavior.

Sitting on the front porch of our quaint weblogs and latte-art-filled Instagram accounts, we’re collectively yelling at the kids playing in the street using these platforms in newer, happier, and increasingly care-free ways. These kids have been born into a world of social networking and privacy concerns are literally the last things on their minds. They’re just looking for the next best way to chat, flirt, and sext their way into each other’s bedrooms, whilst we continue to perpetuate unwritten societal rules of etiquette for Twitter and Facebook.

As technophiles, we live on the cusp of many communicative advances before reaching the general populace, yet continue to pigeonhole applications so narrowly within our own warped world view. So much so that when a truly impactful shift in societal behavior occurs, we dismiss it outright as irrational with cries of “you’re doing it wrong”.

It turns out we’re the ones doing it wrong. We build products and get in on the ground floor under the auspice of “changing the world” and then when it actually happens, we denounce it. How fucked up is that?

Practically none of the folks I know in tech-geek circles are on Facebook anymore. Some have even jumped off of Twitter after their developer API crackdowns and media-centric focus. Tumblr is thought pretty much as a haven for memes and immature nonsense. Pinterest is pointless and full of bored housewives. Instagram is just a bunch of horrible wannabe photographers. Some have even sworn off Google for search engines like Blekko and DuckDuckGo on the notion the Mountain View company has betrayed their “don’t be evil” mission statement. In all these instances, they’re jumping off the ship at the same time the entire fucking world is coming aboard.

It’s as if we’re all petulant teenagers who think our favorite band ‘sold out’ just for the sake a lot more people like them now. We may claim the music has changed for the worse. We may claim money has negatively influenced the band. In truth, we’re really just upset that “casual” listeners (who may only know the singles) have greatly overtaken the fan base in numbers, which will cause the band to cater in some fashion to this increasing “poser” audience more and more.

The problem with this attitude is that technology draws no posers. The general public doesn’t view these platforms on their creative merit. It’s just a utility to them. It’s a means to an end. While we’re obsessed with the effects of a small terms of service change, a new feature’s business model implications and arguments over the minutiae of embedded media formatting, everyone else is just using the goddamn thing in whatever way they see fit.

Yet with all our bickering over things we’re in the minority on and essentially can’t change regardless, we’re the ones to call them stupid? How fucking arrogant. Millions of people are clearly enriching their lives through these platforms and we have the gall to systematically judge and dismiss the merits of their use case?

It’s almost a shame, really. As an early-adopting herd of unbelievably intelligent people, we stifle our experiences out of a perceived ruleset of the digital world. Out of these societal norms we’ve created which are, in fact, utterly out of step with the society for which these tools and platforms are actually built.

From our ivory tower, we’ll dismiss change, whilst, from beneath, a new generation will use these apps and services as they were meant to be used: to enhance their tangible lives. They’ll find new ways to interact with people and to bring people closer together.

We’re no better than the close-minded folk who rally against same-sex marriage. The mere thought that their existing spousal partnership is of the same valid standing as the supposedly sinful just drives them to sanctimonious outrage. Their identity as self is essentially being threatened since they define themselves primarily by these familial relationships. Take that away and in their eyes, they’re nothing. Homosexuals view marriage like most seculars – simply as a fragment of their lives, compared to many evangelicals who view marriage as the focus of life. It’s this disconnect in world views that drives this vehement opposition.

It’s a similar scenario with these new platforms between the mainstream general public and us, the early adopter ‘elite’. They use technology. We’re defined by the technology we use. And at some point we may have to admit, hey, maybe it’s those folks who’ve got it right. Maybe it’s those folks who have things properly in perspective. Maybe we need to stop basing so much of our self-worth on being first, being clever, or being innovative. Maybe we need to shut the fuck up and use these tools bestowed upon us as they were intended – in any way we seem fit as individuals.

In some ways, these standalone social business tools were great. The interface mimicked consumer platforms that were quickly becoming ubiquitous, like Facebook and Twitter, ensuring rapid adoption. Instantly, workers around the world had a space, outside of email and personal social networks, where they could communicate and share ideas with colleagues. Those were the days when activity feeds seemed somehow magical—and proved useful.

And then, suddenly, it happened. Noise began to fill the once-glorious activity feed as coworkers started to chat idly about their cats or favorite lunchtime sandwich. Suddenly, the useful business conversations that the platform was purchased to foster were made obsolete.

Well, what the fuck did you expect to happen? We have plenty of companies these days banning Facebook at work, yet the same exact ones installing software like Yammer or Salesforce Chatter which mimic the very same user experience. If it looks like a duck, acts like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

Companies are primarily sold by these social business software firms on the fact that having a familiar interface will increase employee adoption and usage, but with functionality that supposedly “empowers the enterprise”. From what I’ve seen however, these are essentially tacked-on features, none of which are intuitive or work too well individually, but as an aggregate look like an impressive suite to chief executives (who of course, in sweet irony, won’t be the ones actually using it anyways).

With these differentiating platform features being so wonky, or mediocre to use at best, you shouldn’t be shocked when employees bail on them fairly quickly and devolve to core functionality. No matter how noisy it gets and unproductive it may seem to throw all activity into one bucket, users will always fall back to things they understand.

Fuck Dropbox. Fuck Google Docs. Fuck anything that actually works, is highly dependable, proven scalable, and your employees probably already use. At face value, it sounds illogical not to go these routes, but for those who have ventured inside the void, they’ll tell you the enterprise is not a realm of rational thought whatsoever.

That’s why the biggest selling point of social business software to these douchebags in suits is that the company has full control over the entire platform. As I’ve said previously about upper management, this gives the illusion of supervision over every facet of the day-to-day business operations. Send an employee an e-mail about a project and only two know its status. Edit a Google spreadsheet and only those specifically sharing it know its been updated. But having a fully documented activity trail that’s publicly accessible to many, well, that’s an high-target asset for covering your ass.

You see, none of the goddamn execs usually even bother to use these internal systems. Some will even specifically tell employees, “shoot me an e-mail if it’s important, I only look at my [social crapware] inbox once a week”. Sure, they have the tools at their disposal to practically spy on everyone working inside the company, but it’s rare anyone in management bothers to do so. People could be trading porn with each other and it would probably take weeks before being noticed. The only times execs utilize these platforms is when something goes wrong or is past deadline. Oh, then they have no issue ‘rolling back the tape’ looking for who dropped the ball in a corporate ‘Hot Potato’ game of blame.

All the warped mentalities, politics and ego that drives much of the decision-making in the corporate space makes Alastair’s prediction unrealistic that standalone social software is on the way out due to business ROI concerns.

Primarily, it’s because social software facilitates communication but doesn’t facilitate action, making it difficult for businesses to determine ROI. Business action, that is, workers getting work done, is typically how businesses determine ROI. As content (documents, files, multimedia, webpages, and so on) is central to all of the work we do, effective collaboration must unite conversations and content to create context.

Communication is only as useful as the context that exists to enable workers to act upon it. Elvis Presley summed it up perfectly when he said, “A little less conversation, a little more action please.”

Executives valuing action over communication? You’re talking about folks who operate at glacial speeds where it takes countless meetings to decide on some of the most minimal, unimportant things. No matter what they claim outwardly about sticking solely to the merit of facts, figures and the bottom line, what the truly motivating factor that pushes a decision over the edge is psychological and primal. Neither can be itemized on a balance sheet.

For these inherently human-flawed reasons, social business software purchases will continue to thrive in environments where the corporate culture rewards looking good over being good. Unfortunately, this is the norm much more than it is the exception. Until that shifts in the enterprise, employees are not likely to be given an internal workflow that is satisfactorily productive and therefore, not a boon on the aforementioned ROI for the business in general.

I admit that there’s definitely an hockey stick-like upswing in tablet and smartphone usage while sitting in front of the boob tube, but as I’ve satirized before, folks are rarely doing so to interact exclusively with this television programming. It’s e-mail. Facebook. Instagram. Essentially ubiquitous platforms of general purpose.

Sure, some activity will be tied specifically to the on-screen content, but much of which will not at all. That’s why these ‘walled garden’ apps are destined for the digital scrap heap.

It sounds like common sense to me, but apparently television executives live in a bizarro world. As highlighted by a recent Engadget piece ‘Will TV Companion Apps Proliferate Or Dwindle?‘, we have a Vice President from Fox that is in serious need of a one-way plane ticket back to fucking reality.

“Well, from a purely business perspective, I want everybody in a Fox app,” said Hardie Tankersley, vice president of digital platforms at Fox Broadcasting. “I want to control the experience, I want to manage the advertising. If I could get everybody who watches Fox to be in the Fox app, in the Fox world, I would definitely do that. I’m going to try to create a premium experience inside the branded Fox world,” Tankersley said.

Sounds good in theory, Hard Tank. Unfortunately, no one wants to be in your branded Fox world! You think people give a shit about your ‘brand’ enough to close their Twitter app just to see the same #bullshithashtag tweets, useless extras and of course, some combination of obtrusive ad blocks and network show promos? Go fuck yourself.

Sad to say, he’s not alone thinking this shit. All these television execs seem to exist as self-important twits who not only eat their own dog food, but believe the entire public lives and dies by it. Hey, schmucks. We can get on without you just fine. We have plenty of options at our disposal already, all of which suit our purposes to a tee. We don’t need your goddamn second screen ‘branded’ apps, ok?

According to Tankersley, Fox is currently providing second screen content for six shows, with live programming requiring a fleet of people working every week. In American Idol’s case, a team of roughly 15 people tailors the second screen experience for each week’s contest developments.

Ok, let me get this straight. You’re expecting us to have folders upon folders of show-specific apps, TV network apps and cable provider apps on our mobile devices? All for maybe a one hour usage a week, if we even remember to open it. Hell, we barely remember what show is on what channel anymore. You actually think people give enough of a crap about some of these shows where they’d want to dive more down the rabbit hole? No way.

Keep the fucking app. I’ll fire up Twitter and be just fine with that ‘social TV’ experience. I’d say most people are as well.