Mereja

Author: Jeff John Roberts

  • US writers on the take: how demand for more media content leads to more corruption

    Conservative opinion writers at prominent publications like the Huffington Post, National Review and Red State all received money from the government of Malaysia as part of a sophisticated propaganda plan to smear an opposition leader. Details of the scheme were reported on Friday by BuzzFeed and include a regulatory filing that discloses the names of the columnists.

    The plan in which 10 columnists received $2,000 to $36,000 each to write about Malaysia was carried out by Joshua Trevino, an opinion writer and the operation’s bagman. Trevino himself, who was a columnist for the Guardian until the paper dropped him in 2012 over conflict-of-interest issues, received $389,724 from the government of Malaysia.

    The Malaysian government’s goal was to discredit Anwar Ibrahim, an opposition leader and the target of a politically charged sodomy trial that was decried by human rights groups.

    The upshot is that prominent American media outlets printed propaganda from a semi-totalitarian foreign government. While the scheme is disturbing, it is not entirely new; nasty regimes have long used Washington PR firms to spread disinformation.

    What is new, however, is how much easier it’s become to place such propaganda thanks to online journalism’s insatiable appetite for content. Today, publications of every stripe are eagerly sucking up outside contributions to fill their websites. The contributions are tarted up with a variety of names — such as “expert opinions” or “guest voices” — but they amount to the same thing: additional content that is often free.

    But in their rush to pump up their content, sites may be dropping their screening standards. Unlike like the New York Times, which has long had strict systems to prevent conflicts of interest, many online publications may not have the time or the energy to rigorously watch for bad apples.

    In response to an email query, the Huffington Post offered the following statement: ”This is a clear violation of HuffPost’s blogging policy that requires disclosure of payments and conflicts of interest. As soon as we learned of this conflict, we removed the posts from our site. In addition to a very clear policy, we have a team of blog editors who are trained to spot potential conflicts as they review each blog that gets submitted. Posts are routinely declined.”

    Jack Fowler, the publisher of National Review, did not have an immediate on Friday; I will update if I hear back.

    While after-the-fact measures may mitigate the damage, it doesn’t change the fact that, in this wild-west clamor for content, it’s become easier for the likes of Malaysia’s leaders to ooze their voice into American media. (Likewise, some companies have succumbed to the temptation of hiring sock-puppet journalists to shill for their side.)

    Overall, it’s perhaps inevitable that more content has brought more corruption to the media. The good news, however, is that the growth of online media outlets also affords the opportunity for more whistle blowers; my colleague, Mathew Ingram, in the case of social media sites like Twitter, likens the process to a self-cleaning oven.

    The Malaysia episode also reflects an other example of how BuzzFeed, best known for cat photos and titillating viral fare, is rapidly climbing the serious media firmament.

    (Disclosure: the Guardian News & Media is an investor in paidContent’s owner, Giga Omni Media).

    (Image by Straight 8 Photography via Shutterstock)

    Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
    Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

  • Marketing to men: Break Media and the business of bro videos

    Break Media, through sites like break.com, is building a growing content empire around “bro videos” — short clips that show things like a blacksmith making swords or elephants fighting crocodiles. Some content is crass or sexist (like this clip of a guy playing “butt drums”) but, for better or worse, bro videos are now a permanent fixture of the internet.

    While Break is not the only one feeding the demand for bro fare, the L.A. company has done more than most to move these videos into the professional realm. In doing so, Break is also tapping into a deep pool of research to reshape perceptions about how brands should market to men — portraying them as “good guys” rather than doofuses or metrosexuals.

    The result, on the surface, is thousands of clips about beer, boobs and bravery. More deeply, the bro video phenomenon is part of an emerging low-cost studio system that is changing men’s entertainment and advertising.

    From college capers to consumer content

    Break’s office, located in LA’s Miracle Mile, contains a small studio and employs 30 full-time content creators as well as numerous freelancers to feed its video content machine. The place has a few dude touches — a mustache wall and action figures scattered about — but otherwise is a serious business that, according to CEO Keith Richman, brought in $45 million in revenue last year.Break Media

    The company is also attracting top level talent such as actor Christopher Walken, who recently riffed on trailer park toddler Honey Boo Boo. Last year, Break created a five-part series involving San Francisco Giants pitcher Brian Wilson and a Sasquatch; the show was a content marketing play by Beef Jerky, but the videos went viral all the same.

    This star presence on Break is a considerable leap up the value chain for the company that, in its early days, relied almost entirely on homemade videos. ”We started with user-provided, lower quality content. As our audience and sales expanded, we started producing our own,” said Richman.

    Now, Break is at the point where it’s producing its own weekly shown like “Man at Arms” in which a blacksmith shows how he makes famous weapons like Jamie Lannister’s sword on Game of Thrones (see video below) or the lethal hat worn by James Bond villain Odd Job.

    The shows, which are usually between five and 10 minutes, are cheap to make – Richman says the average price is $700/minute or $3,000-$5,000 per episode – and Break is able to make lots of them because of demands for the company’s male-based ad offerings.

    Binders of Men

    Marketing to women is a huge and sophisticated industry but, when it comes to men, brands frequently treat them as caricatures – one-dimensional clowns or louts. Break is trying to pitch a more subtle approach based on reams of survey data it collects on the site.

    Keith Richman of Break MediaAccording to its research, men are more receptive to positive messages that show them as good guys, friends and fathers. Break has even published a “definitive guide to men” that cites an evolution from Bruce Willis type “guy’s guys” to self-aware types like Tim Allen to, last decade, metro-sexuals. And now?

    “Today’s man is striving to be a “mensch” – a Yiddish word for “good guy,” or someone to admire and emulate,” says the report, which was produced by Break’s SVP Marketing, Andy Tu. He explained that many of the findings come from panels of men that Break consults on a regular basis.

    Do all men really want to be mensches? Who knows. But Tu says marketers love using the surveys and data Break provides in designing their campaigns. Sony, FootLocker, Pepsi and Burger King are among their bigger brand partners.

    For its campaigns, Break often produces original content for its clients and, on some occasions, as well. It also places display ads alongside videos across its networks (many of the videos are still user-generated or plucked from other sites).

    A new studio economy

    Research is one explanation for Break Media’s ability to make higher-quality bro videos. Another is the low cost of failure. Compared to traditional TV or movie studios, sunk production costs are tiny for Break and its competitors like College Humor. ”Video is a shots-on-goal business,” says Richman. “If you’re good, you’re going to score. We’re going to have big loser bombs at some point but it won’t kill us.”

    In this sense, Break and its bro videos are part of an emerging online ecosystem in which smaller video companies are ramping up their production Break Media Studiocycles and, like traditional movies and TV, even adding on-location shoots. The ecosystem is also rapidly expanding as distribution options proliferate (Break shows its videos on its own sites and on YouTube channels) and as consumers become connected to more devices with better broadband.

    According to Richman, a tipping point occurred that means brands are now treating online video as a serious alternative to traditional TV. Richman credits the shift with Google’s decision in 2011 to invest $100 million in original YouTube content.

    If you want to see an example, here’s the “Man at Arms” piece. But be warned: you first have to watch a manly Khalua (?!) commercial and listen to some power chords before you can see the blacksmith do his thing:

    (Image by Anton Todorov via Shutterstock)

    Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
    Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

  • What the Atlantic learned from Scientology: native advertising is harder for news brands

    You have to feel for the Atlantic. One poor decision has made it a case study in how not to embrace a popular advertising trend — even though many other publications could have gotten away with the same ad.

    At an ad industry event in New York on Wednesday, an Atlantic Digital executive explained what the company had learned from a January debacle involving the Church of Scientology. (In case you missed it, the Atlantic pushed the boundaries of so-called “native advertising” by publishing a feel-good “sponsored story” about the religion — or cult, if you prefer — that included only positive reader comments.)

    “The biggest mistake in retrospect was that it wasn’t harmonious to our site and it didn’t bring any value to our readers,” said VP and General Manager Kimberly Lau, at the event, which was hosted by native ad shop Sharethrough. “The second mistake was allowing the marketing team to moderate comments in a way that wasn’t transparent.”

    Lau’s comments echo the Atlantic’s earlier apologies for the incident which, by all appearances, was a one-off mistake. But her remarks stand out because of where she made them: on a panel with representatives from Gawker, Vice and College Humor — three publications that regularly mix advertising into their editorial process and that expressed sympathy for the Atlantic’s predicament.

    “There’s no other way to make money without doing this kind of advertising,” said Vice’s CCO Eddy Moretti, who added that Vice would have run the Scientology story. Meanwhile, Jason Del of Gawker (“a full-service content, event and video shop”) suggested that part of the blowback to the Scientology story came about because the sponsored format was novel to its readers.

    So is all this unfair to the Atlantic —  so-called native advertising is a lifeline for publishers, why can’t it cash in like everyone else? The problem, as Lau explained, is:

    “It goes back to the difference between entertainment and journalism,” she said. “There’s a higher bar for a brand like the Atlantic.”

    This goes to the crux of the matter — sites that cater to comedy, entertainment or celebrity news can inject sponsored fare into their streams with relative safety. Serious news and intellectual publications, however, must take extra care to preserve the integrity of their editorial content.

    In the bigger picture, this extra scrutiny of news brands may limit their ability to garner new online income. But the good news, for the Atlantic at least, is that the company has been profitable for several years and, according to Lau, 59 percent of its overall advertising revenue is digital.

    Speaking of native advertising, be sure to attend paidContent Live this April where Andrew Sullivan and other leading media figures will discuss their business strategies, including native advertising.

    (Image by Phuriphat via Shutterstock)

    Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
    Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

  • New York Times gives Starbucks visitors 15 free stories a day

    Caffeine-addicted New York Times fans are in luck — the paper is offering 15 free articles a day to those who surf its website while sitting in a Starbucks. This is just the latest example of how news brands are using the public’s insatiable appetite for free WiFi as a vehicle to promote their content.

    Under the Times‘ Starbucks plan, which went into effect last week but was announced today, readers will be entitled to read three articles a day from each of the News, Business, Technology and Most Emailed sections. The Times will also offer three more articles from a rotating list of other sections like Sports.

    The Starbucks offer comes at a time when the Times is tightening loopholes around its so-called “metered paywall” which caps readers at 10 free articles a month.

    Times spokesperson, Linda Zebian, confirmed by phone that the 15 articles available through Starbucks are in addition to the 10 free monthly ones. The catch, however, is that the Times’ chooses the free Starbuck stories. It offers them on a special landing page that looks like this:

    New York Times Starbucks promotion

    Zebian would not provide specifics about the business arrangements between the Times and Starbucks, and only noted that the Times has long sold its newspapers through the coffee chain. Most Starbucks locations across the country provide free WiFi.

    The Starbucks gambit is just one way that news brands are using WiFi to promote and distribute their digital content. In August, the Wall Street Journal announced a plan to provide free WiFi access in more than 1300 hotspots in New York and San Francisco; the only requirement is for readers to log-in to the Journal’s website. These WiFi schemes provide the news companies not only with exposure, but also allow them to glean valuable customer data such as where and when readers visit their sites.

    Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
    Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

  • Mark Cuban-backed start-up launches “HootSuite for YouTube”

    VidIQ has spent the last year quietly working with companies like AOL to help them manage and monitor their growing catalogue of YouTube videos. On Tuesday, backed by some prominent investors including Mark Cuban, the company opened shop to the general public.

    According to VidIQ CEO Robert Sandie, big companies have learned the power of Twitter and Facebook as marketing tools but are overlooking YouTube, which he describes as the world’s “second biggest social network.”

    To fill this gap, VidIQ is offering tools that let companies monitor and manage their videos and apply some SEO zest to help their videos rise in search rankings. He explained that most companies are failing to apply even basic search strategies to their YouTube content, meaning it’s still relatively easy to achieve big improvements in YouTube visibility.

    “It means an organic boost in video traffic,” said Sandie in a phone interview. “Like the early days of the web, when you could get a headstart on Google or Yahoo or Alta Vista, it’s still early on in YouTube.”

    VidIQ’s primary SEO tool is a box that prompts users to add more keywords to their videos. It also provides guidance about the optimal time to publish new videos.

    The company also offers analytics tools that Sandie says can deliver important demographic information such as the ratio of male to female viewers. And, like HootSuite does for Twitter and other social media, VidIQ lets users monitor comments and buzz about their YouTube videos.  Other broader social media management companies, like Unified Social, also offer some social marketing services for YouTube but Sandie says VidIQ offers a unique YouTube listening platform to monitor and engage influencers.

    To start, VidIQ is offering two versions of its products: a free one that small users can apply to manage single YouTube channel and a more sophisticated enterprise package for a fee.

    VidIQ says it has so far raised more than $800,000 from Mark Cuban, Scott Banister, David Cohen, and others.

    Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
    Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

  • New York Times backs AP in lawsuit against news collector Meltwater

    The New York Times is supporting the Associated Press in a controversial copyright case against Meltwater, a service that monitors the news and reproduces headlines and story summaries for its clients. The case pits major media outlets who invest in news against technology advocates who fear the case will suppress the free flow of information.

    This week, the New York Times asked a federal court in New York to file a “friend of the court” brief in support of the AP. The brief, which is also signed by newspaper publishers Gannett and McClatchy and others, asks the court to declare that Meltwater is infringing copyright.

    The Times‘ brief argues that Meltwater is “free-riding” on its news collection efforts and that the service should pay for news in the same way it does for rent or electricity. The Times also cites James Madison’s dictum that a democracy needs “popular knowledge” and cites the business plight of newspapers:

    It takes no friend-of-the-court brief for the Court to know that the rise ofthe Internet has been highly disruptive to the nation’s news organizations, as their readers and advertisers have migrated to the Web.

    The Times also says newspapers’ efforts to replace print revenue with digital income are being undercut by those who scrape their news:

    None of these revenue streams can be sustained if news organizations are unable to protect their news reports from the wholesale copying and redistribution by free-riders like Meltwater.

    The brief goes on to contrast Meltwater with other services that pay to license news content, and complains that fewer than one percent of Meltwater subscribers click through to the underlying news article; it claims the rate is much higher for services like Google News.

    The Times’ intervention is likely to fuel a bitter debate over how far to extend copyright on the internet. Critics of the AP suit, like TechDirt’s Mike Masnick, say the wire service has failed to modernize and is instead trying to shake money out of companies that are essentially search engines.

    Meltwater itself claims that it has the right to reproduce headlines and brief snippets of the news under copyright’s fair-use doctrine. It has also filed a counter-claim accusing the AP of libel.

    The case also involves influential organizations in the technology space, like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which has filed a brief in support of Meltwater. Meanwhile, the Google-backed Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA) has weighed in to back Meltwater’s claim that it is a search engine.

    The outcome of the case is likely to turn largely on how much content Meltwater is taking from the news agencies. In the U.S., there is no copyright in headlines and the fair-use doctrine protects the reproduction of short snippets; the AP and the Times, however, argue that Meltwater is taking the heart of their work and that it is also over-stepping the fair-use line by providing clients with an archiving tool.

    The case is further complicated by the AP’s attempt to claim a right to “hot news” — a state law right that largely vanished in the late 20th century, but that news and financial firms are attempting to resurrect. The Times’s brief did not weigh in to support the hot news claim.

    The Times’ decision to file in support of AP may have been driven by the arrival of new CEO Mark Thompson who is a Briton. In the U.K. and Europe, news organizations have prevailed against Meltwater — forcing not only Meltwater but also its customers to buy licenses. Critics say such rules will further stagnate Europe’s attempts to digitize the news business, which are already trailing North America by a wide margin.

    There is also the question of just how much money news organizations, if they succeed with the U.S. copyright claim, can wring out of Meltwater. My colleague Mathew Ingram suggests the litigation is about a power-play more than money.

    You can read the Times filing for yourself here:

    NYT Amicus Brief for Meltwater by


    Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
    Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

  • Apple settles lawsuit over apps aimed at kids — will pay $5 iTunes credit or cash

    Did your kid rack up  charges on Apple’s app store without your permission? You may be in luck: the company says it will pay to settle a lawsuit over so-called “bait apps,” which are games that can be downloaded for free but then charge for “game currency” like virtual goods or play money.

    Under the terms of the settlement, Apple will offer a $5 iTunes credit to those who claims that a minor bought in-game items without their knowledge or permission. If the amount in question is more than $5, Apple will offer a credit for that amount. If the amount in question is over $30, an Apple user can claim a cash refund.

    The proposed settlement comes after parents sued Apple in 2011 upon discovering that their minor children had racked up credit card charges in supposedly free games. The issue was the subject of a Daily Show feature about a father whose kids racked up hundreds of dollars to keep virtual fish alive in a game called “Tap Fish.” The same problem also befell GigaOM’s Kevin Tofel whose kids spent $375 – also on virtual fish.

    In order to collect under the settlement, Apple users will have to attest that a minor bought “game currency” and that the user did not provide the minor with the Apple password.

    The proposed settlement, first reported by Law360 (subscription required), does not state how much Apple will pay in total or how many users are affected. It does state that Apple will send an email notice to “over 23 million iTunes account holders who made a Game Currency purchase in one or more Qualified Apps.”

    The settlement still must receive preliminary approval from a federal judge. If that occurs, which it typically does in class action cases, the notification period will begin and Apple will begin accepting claims. After the claims are in, a judge will approve the final settlement and Apple will begin making payments — this would likely occur late this year or in early 2014.

    Apple did not immediately reply to an email request for comment.

    You can read the proposed settlement yourself below (I’ve underlined some of the key parts) :

    Apple’s Bait App Settlement by


    Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
    Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

  • Here comes the “International New York Times” — NYT rebrands the Int’l Herald Tribune

    The New York Times has taken another step in its strategy of becoming a global news brand. On Monday, the company announced it will rename the International Herald Tribune and officially launch a publication called the “International New York Times” later this year.

    The Times has wholly owned the IHT since 2003 and merged the websites of the two publications in 2009. The IHT is distributed in print around the world and contains large selections of New York Times content (including the crossword) as well as content from affiliates like Spain’s El Pais.

    From a branding perspective, the decision to rename the IHT is consistent with the Times’ larger strategy of finding growth in international markets. Part of this strategy involves divesting regional and non-core properties; the New York Times Company has already sold its chain of southern newspapers as well as About.com and, last week, it put the Boston Globe up for sale.

    In this new global newspaper paradigm, the Times is primarily competing with two other publications — the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times — for an international audience.

    “Our goal is to capitalize on the great journalistic traditions of both newspapers, further invest in our international journalism and expand our global base while continuing to serve the many loyal readers of the IHT,” explained New York Times Company CEO Mark Thomspon in a news release.

    In regard to digital growth — an area of critical importance for the Times — it’s difficult to evaluate the IHT’s performance since the company includes digital subscriptions to the IHT with those to the NYT. At the end of 2012, combined total subscriptions to both publications was around 640,000 (it’s a safe bet the vast majority of those are to the NYT).

    In its release on Monday, the company said the International New York Times will be tailored and edited specifically for global audiences.

    Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
    Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

  • Here are 5 tools that might juice online video ads

    Website owners drool at the prospect of TV ad dollars pouring into online video. The medium, which is growing rapidly and commands prices far above the sickly display ad market, also offers advertisers a chance to interact with viewers in a way they can’t do through TV.

    To spur interest in new video ad formats, the Interactive Advertising Bureau on Monday announced five winners in a contest called “Rising Stars” that is intended to create standards for the emerging industry. The idea of the contest is also to facilitate large-scale video ad-buying through the creation of interactive formats that are “built to work on a range of video players across multiple devices.”

    Here’s a short summary of the contest winners along with my quick thoughts:

    Ad Control Bar: an interactive tool bar that sits in the ad, inviting viewers to interact (good idea — provided ad makers can come up with reasons for people to interact with an ad in the first place)

    Filmstrip (shown at right): a “scrollable, multipanel, horizontal” ad unit that can be stuffed with ad content (is this content overload for someone already trying to watch a video?)Filmstrip screenshot

    Extender: invites viewers to watch a longer version of the ad (not a bad idea but sounds like wishful thinking that viewers will use it)

    TimeSync: a way to insert rich media at the right time in order to invite “interaction at the most appropriate moments”; a visual display of TimeSync shows an American Apparel ad appearing when hands clasp in a Bruno Mars video (this idea of context sensitive ads within a video is impressive but can it work in practice?)

    FullScreen: a viewer who clicks will see screen taken over with “a full canvas of interaction possibilities, including more video, social and catalogs” (this sounds intrusive but could be valuable to an advertiser who gets it right).

    The IAB only provided short descriptions of the winners so it’s unclear when (or if) these tools will get adopted by ad buyers. The potential seems enormous, however, as a recent report says online ad impressions grew 52 percent in the last quarter of 2012.

    The contest winners included a broad spectrum of media and ad tech partners, including CBS Interactive, Microsoft, DoubleClick and Tremor Video.

    Upcoming: paidContent Live, Apr. 17, 2013, New York, Save $100, register by 3/22. More upcoming conferences.

    Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
    Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

    • Aereo expands TV on-the-go service to 3 more states, launches first big ad campaign

      Aereo, a service that lets users watch live TV on their iPhones, tablets and computers, has expanded from New York City to 29 counties across New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut. The company is also kicking off a major billboard campaign in the New York area.

      For the unfamiliar, Aereo is a subscription service that lets users sign up for $1 a day or $8 month to watch over-the-air TV on their mobile devices and to record shows for later viewing. The technology involves assigning two dime-sized antennas to each subscriber which beam the TV from Aereo’s offices (you can see photos of the antennas in action here).

      Until now, Aereo has kept a low profile, offering its service with little fanfare in New York City. But at the Consumer Electronic Show in Las Vegas this January, it said it would roll out to 22 new markets in coming months. The decision to go live in the new areas around New York City — see the full list below — was announced by Aereo this morning and appears to be the first step in the planned expansion. Aereo is also expected to soon offer the service for more non-Apple devices; right now, users can watch Aereo on the iPhone and iPad as well as on computers via various internet browsers.

      To publicize the service, Aereo said it will advertise on New York City billboards as well as major transit hubs and commuter rail services in the region.

      The expansion comes as Aereo remains locked in a bitter legal battle with ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox which are suing to shut it down. The networks argue that Aereo is infringing its copyright by retransmitting its signals without permission; Aereo counters that its personal antenna system means the transmissions are private and within the law (you can read legal details here).

      “Today, consumers are tethered to expensive and outdated technology that limits how, when and where they can enjoy their own television programming,” said Aereo’s CEO Chet Atkin in the news release. “Aereo’s technology now lets us provide simplicity, ease of use and rational pricing – three things that have all but disappeared for the consumer.”

      To learn more about how Aereo is disrupting TV and other cutting edge media topics, come hear Atkin speak at paidContent Live in New York on April 17.

      The list of counties that can now tune into Aereo include: New York’s Bronx, Kings, Queens, Richmond, Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, Putnam, Rockland, Ulster, Sullivan, Orange, Dutchess; Connecticut’s Fairfield County; Pennsylvania’s Pike County; New Jersey’s Bergen, Warren, Union, Sussex, Somerset, Passaic, Ocean, Morris, Monmouth, Middlesex, Hunterdon, Hudson, and Essex. Check zip code eligibility here.

      Upcoming: paidContent Live, Apr. 17, 2013, New York, Save $100, register by 3/22. More upcoming conferences.

      Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
      Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

    • Buy laxative, get a fiber ad on Facebook: social network mulls expanding offline reach

      It’s clever but still creepy: Facebook is exploring partnerships with data companies that provide loyalty cards to retailers like drug stores and retailers in order to show you ads based on your shopping habits.

      As AdAge reports, Facebook may obtain the phone numbers and email addresses that customers supply to drug stores in return for discounts and loyalty points. The company will then match the numbers and emails with user Facebook profiles in order to create new marketing opportunities. This means, for instance, that I might buy ex-lax at the store and then see ads for All-Bran in my Facebook feed.

      This merging of online and offline data creates powerful marketing opportunities and, as ad industry people like to point out, will let people see ads they’re theoretically interested in seeing. In this perfect world of data-based marketing, no company will waste their money showing baby food or make-up ads to the likes of me — and I will be happier because I don’t have to see those ads.

      The flip side, of course, is the creepy factor. Facebook and the data companies (in this case Epsilon, Acxiom and Datalogix) do take care to protect so-called “PPI” (protected personal information) by scrubbing out names and just using other techniques to make the data anonymous. But one still shudders about the unencrypted information escaping into the wild through carelessness or hacking. In my case, it just increases my resolve to provide retailers with fictitious names and numbers.

      For now, we may still be a ways of from the onslaught of fiber ads in our Facebook. According to AdAge, the new “custom audience” options are still winding their way through nervous corporate legal departments.

      (Image by gcpics via Shutterstock)

      Upcoming: paidContent Live, Apr. 17, 2013, New York, Save $100, Register by 3/22 More upcoming conferences.

      Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
      Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

      • What stays in Vegas: how Nevada’s online gambling law will — and won’t — change social gaming

        Nevada became the first state in the country this week to allow online gambling with a new law that gives the green light to poker and other games. The law is intended to keep Nevada out in front of rival New Jersey but will not do much for social game makers like Zynga that are counting on gambling to change their fortunes.

        Nevada’s governor signed the law on Thursday with bipartisan support and described it as a “new frontier” for the gambling industry. The law came about after the federal government in late 2011 decided to change its policy and permit online gambling to take place in states that explicitly permit it.

        The new policy is significant in light of research that predicts online gambling will be worth $100 billion worldwide on mobile devices alone by 2017. This potential market has attracted the established casino industry as well as tech companies that are vying to make gambling games or process back-end betting operations.

        The new U.S. gambling rules are also a potential lifeline to social game maker Zynga which has seen its titles like Farmville and Mafia Wars stutter. And since being cast adrift by Facebook last year, Zynga has seen its shares fall around 80 percent.

        The Nevada law, however, is unlikely to change Zynga’s fortunes anytime soon as it only applies to internet users in the state. The law is also primarily intended not to help social gaming sites but to ensure that Vegas casinos have a first-mover advantage in providing operational support when — and if — other states follow suit. As the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports, the Nevada law is written to keep out companies that already have existing player data.

        The upshot is that the U.S. will, at best, have a patchwork of states in the foreseeable future where online gambling is permitted. If big states sit it out, it will not be easy for companies to guarantee that online poker tables are full. It also means operational headaches and potential criminal penalties for the game makers which must ensure, for example, that a player in Colorado doesn’t slip into a Nevada-based poker game.

        The bottom line is that full-scale online gambling is still far on the horizon as the U.S. regulatory process shakes out. In the meantime, the winners and losers among Zynga and other tech companies like Big Fish are likely to be determined in the U.K. and elsewhere.

        (Image by Beto Chagas via Shutterstock)

        Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
        Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

      • NYC tech boosters say city doesn’t need a big IPO; beating Boston is enough

        New York City doesn’t need a Google or Facebook-type public offering to show the world it’s a major technology hub. That’s the view, anyways, of a group of city boosters and entrepreneurs engaged in Gotham’s latest PR blitz to burnish its tech creds.

        Speaking at Bloomberg LLC headquarters on Thursday morning, Alan Patricof of Greycroft Partners rejected the idea that New York needs a “big win” to show it can be a real rival to Silicon Valley. Patricof noted that New York companies like Buddy Media could have gone public but were acquired instead; he added that tech giants like Facebook, Google and AOL all employ thousands in the city.

        Other speakers touted New York’s recent climb in relation to other cities.

        “New York has surpassed Boston as the clear number two,” said Jonathan Bowles of the Center for an Urban Future. Others said that, outside of biotech, Boston has “lost luster” as a tech hub.

        Ann Li, an economic advocate for the city, added that, unlike Silicon Valley, New York is not just about “tech” but instead “dash tech” — for example, “ad tech,” “fit tech” and “fashion tech.”

        The boosters did concede, however, that New York still doesn’t offer the same financial support for tech as the west coast.

        “There’s a dearth of B-round funding,” said Patricof. “There’s not enough $10 million or $15 million rounds.”

        Patricof attributed the money deficit to the presence of too many angel investors and too many copycat startups. But he noted that, unlike venture capitalist Fred Wilson, who famously didn’t make a “single new investment “ last year,  Greycroft invested in 18 companies. Patricof also predicted that several New York ad tech companies would go public in 2013.

        As for whether New York will ultimately displace Silicon Valley as the pre-eminent tech hub, that seems unlikely — and it’s not just a question of venture capital or talent. Like Hollywood, which other cities have tried to replicate for decades, the Valley has an intangible people quality that defies duplication.

        Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
        Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

      • Sony announces PlayStation 4, touts speed and social but media vision unclear

        A lot has changed since Sony last announced an update to its video game console in 2006. Since that time, the era of discs and cartridges has receded and consumers have entered a world of cloud and mobile computing. Meanwhile, the PlayStation has lost ground to Nintendo and Xbox while Sony’s one-time dominance in electronics has long faded.

        On Wednesday in New York, Sony announced the PlayStation 4, which comes with souped-up hardware that the company says will virtually eliminate the time video game players must wait for their games to load. The company also touted a new “share” button on its controller that will let players capture video clips, not just screenshots, of their game play to send to friends.

        During a presentation heavy with video game demos, Sony also touted its Vita portable device as the vanguard of mobile play. An executive explained how a player, bumped by others from the living room big screen, can immediately continue his game on the handheld Vita — a tablet experience of sorts.

        Reaction by video game fans on Twitter and live blogs at Wired and the Verge was underwhelming. This included disappointment that the new PlayStation 4 would not include backwards compatibility via streaming with earlier PlayStation games.

        Perhaps surprisingly, Sony spent little time addressing the role of consoles like the PlayStation as an onramp to the larger world of media. In this context, the PlayStation is just one of a growing number of devices — including Roku, Boxee, Apple TV(i aapl) and (soon) Intel — that link consumers to movies, music and more.

        A Sony executive did note that the PlayStation was the most popular device for accessing NetFlix. But the company didn’t devote time to expounding a larger media vision such as that of Microsoft’s entertainment and digital media president who, at a recent media event, announced the company is producing its own interactive TV shows.

        Sony did not announce a price or even display the console itself during the two-hour long event, but did announce in closing that the device will be available around “holiday 2013,” presumably in time for the November/December shopping season.

        Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
        Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

      • New York Times is selling the Boston Globe

        The New York Times Company has been slimming down rapidly in the last year, shedding non-core assets and amassing a cash hoard to take it through a trying time of low ad sales.

        Now, the Times is putting its last remaining outside asset on the block. In a release issued on Wednesday afternoon, the company announced it is selling the Boston Globe and its sister paper, the Worcester Telegram & Gazette.

        “Our plan to sell the New England Media Group demonstrates our commitment to concentrate our strategic focus and investment on The New York Times brand and its journalism,” said Times CEO Mark Thompson. Politico has an internal memo to Times staff which says “this was not an easy decision.”

        As reported by Boston.com, the Times acquired the Globe for $1.1 billion in 1993 and tried unsuccessfully to sell it in 2009.

        In recent years, the Globe has incurred the same struggles as other metropolitan newspapers; its ad revenue is falling fast and its digital prospects are limited by its regional coverage. As we reported this morning, the paper has only 28,000 digital only subscribers after putting in a digital paywall almost a year and a half ago.

        In light of all this, the sale isn’t surprising. The Times’ brand power has allowed it to tap into national and international markets where it competes with the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times. Selling the Globe will permit the Times to focus on its global strategy and also to amass more cash to weather a current rough patch in which circulation revenue is not coming in fast enough to offset declining ad sales.

        In coming months, New York Times watchers will scrutinize what the Grey Lady does with its cash hoard which is likely to top $1 billion after the Globe sale. On its last earnings call, Thompson said it will use the cash for debt reduction and investment rather than reissuing the dividends which are an important source of income for the family members who control the company.

         

        Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
        Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

      • Boston Globe’s 28,000 digital subscribers: a flop or a foothold?

        It’s been nearly a year and a half since the Boston Globe put a paywall in place and, so far, the results are underwhelming. The Globe, which is one of the last regional papers owned by the New York Times Company, has notched up a total of 28,000 digital-only subscribers — in a metro area of 4 million people.

        At first blush, the number is small but the Globe‘s publisher and a respected newspaper analyst see cause for optimism. Here’s a closer look at what the number represents for the Globe and the rest of the country’s newspapers.

        A new revenue stream

        In October of 2011, the Boston Globe removed its more highbrow content from its general information portal, Boston.com. The paper began charging $3.99 for this content (feature stories, columnists and so on) while continuing to offer bread-and-butter city fare (Red Sox, car crashes, weather, etc) for free on Boston.com.

        The strategy reflected a view that most people don’t want to pay for basic online news but that some might pay for a more high-fiber news product. As of last December, a total of 28,000 people have signed up — including some at a 99 cent promo rate — and this number is not growing fast. To put this in perspective, the New York Times has around 640,000 digital-only subscribers; yes, New York is a bigger city but it’s not 22 times bigger.

        In a phone interview, Boston Globe publisher Christopher Mayer disagreed that 28,000 was a “small” figure and noted that the $3.99 subscription was just one of several digital products the Globe will be selling. Others will include a new tablet offering with a different pricing point.

        “We’re not looking at having one digital product provide an alternative to one print product,” he said, adding that the strategy was based on tapping into the “brand promise” of the Boston Globe.

        According to Ken Doctor, an analyst of newspaper economics, the Globe’s 28,000 figure is actually good compared to other papers. He adds that it provides a new revenue stream while also permitting the Globe to justify significant increases in its home-delivery prices. Half of these home subscribers, who get free access to the website, have signed on, which suggests they may be primed to pay for digital-only in the future.

        Doctor also said the company’s “tremendous penetration” with Boston.com is an under-used asset that can be a discovery vehicle for the Globe. And this may be where the paper is headed. As Poynter reports this week, the company intends to do more to “untangle” the Globe and Boston.com

        A borrowed time strategy

        In the larger picture, the Boston Globe is doing a passable job of playing a weak hand. Unlike the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal, the Globe can’t hope to pull in new digital subscribers from across the country or the world; its potential growth is limited to New England.

        The Globe’s strategy to use its digital products as leverage to squeeze more revenue out of its home delivery service thus makes sense in the short term. But the paper simply won’t be able to maintain its 360 person newsroom much longer unless there is a sudden uptick in people under 30 buying home delivery subscriptions.

        The Globe — and other papers like it across the country — must hit on a digital growth strategy soon if they are going to survive. One option may be partnering with premium international brands like the New York Times. For now, a young person in Boston who can only afford one digital subscription is likely, I suspect, to find more value in the Times over the Globe — but a bundled option that included Globe content could prove attractive. Mayer said the company has yet to explore such bundles.

        Meanwhile, the Globe is also experimenting with partnerships with MIT media researchers and iPads in classrooms.

        Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
        Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

      • Canada’s futile quest to own postal codes: why governments should make data a public good

        It’s already been an embarrassing few months for Canada. First, there was the heist at the strategic maple syrup reserve and then the country printed the wrong national symbol on its money. Now, Canada risks further ridicule by doubling down on a campaign to own basic postal data.

        In case you missed it, Canada Post last year filed a copyright lawsuit against a small company that publishes postal codes (the Canadian equivalent of zip codes) on its website, Geocoder. The company, Geolytics, created a database of codes — such as H4B 5G0 or V6B 6G1 – through crowdsourcing, which it gives away for free to non-profits and also licenses to businesses.

        Critics quickly blasted Canada Post’s lawsuit as an overreaching attempt to assert copyright over basic facts. Nonetheless, the agency continues to push on. This month, it made a concession — but one that appears more strategic than substantial.

        According to the National Post, the agency is now providing access to its database of postal codes — but only the first three digits, which provide broad but not specific locations. Canada Post also insists that anyone who use those digits include a note saying the data was copyrighted.

        While the partial data release may be useful to marketers, Canada Post still won’t drop its claim against Geolytics or others who would use the postal codes. In doing so, Canada Post is going against the grain of a growing belief advocated by The Economist and others that government data is a public good that can foster knowledge and commerce. The city of Palo Alto in California, for instance, is turning all of its data into an open platform that allows anyone to tap into a stream of information about zoning, housing, city finances and more.

        “The rest of the Canadian government is moving directly in the direction of Palo Alto and making data available publicly,” says David Fewer, the director of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic which is representing Geolytics in the lawsuit.

        Fewer says the agency’s decision to publish the first three letters of the postal codes is likely a “sop” to deflect criticism as it tries to turn its data into a revenue stream.

        “Canada Post clearly regards my client as a direct competitor,” he said.

        While the rest of the Canadian government may support public data, Canada Post can do what it likes because it is an independent Crown Corporation — a peculiar Canadian species of public corporation intended to advance national interests. Canada Post’s attempt to collect copyright revenue may be an effort to avoid the fate of the American postal service which is on the brink of insolvency.

        From a legal perspective, however, Canada Post’s efforts are likely hopeless because it’s not possible to copyright facts. While it is possible to get protection for compilations, Canada Post’s compilation of geolocation symbols does not reflect any creative effort that would merit protection.

        Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
        Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

      • Social media disaster for Burger King: Twitter feed says chain sold to McDonald’s

        Even by the standards of social media fiascos, this one’s a doozy. On Monday, Burger King’s official Twitter feed announced the chain had been sold to its rival and began posting pro-McDonald’s messages and tales of employee drug use.

        The strange Twitter activity took place after hackers apparently took control of Burger King’s account and replaced its name and image with the McDonald’s logo. Here is a screenshot of what followers of @burgerking saw on Monday:

        Screen shot of burger king hack

        The blue checkmark beside the @burgerking name indicate that this is indeed Burger King’s official Twitter account. Other tweets included:

        It’s unclear who is behind  the mischief but the tweets’ references to “lulz’ and “@youranonnews” suggest the hacker collective Anonymous is involved.

        Meanwhile, regular Twitter users are having a merry time speculating on how this may have happened:

        It’s accepted as common wisdom for big brands to have an active presence on social media but this incident shows how things can go very wrong. Previous Twitter disasters involve McDonald’s buying a sponsored hashtag to promote “McDStories” only to see users tell tales of gross food and alleged animal cruelty.

        As of early Monday afternoon Eastern Time, the Burger King account was still under control of the hackers.

        Update: At 1:15 ET, Twitter said the account had been suspended. As Frank Reed notes in the comments below, the incident may not be all bad it’s given Burger King more publicity than it’s had in a long time. And, as a hacker account notes:

        Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
        Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

      • Obama says patent trolls “hijack” and “extort;” So do something, Mr. President

        GigaOM’s regular readers are familiar with the plague of patent trolls. These are shell companies that don’t make anything but instead amass old patents in order to demand licensing fees from those that do. Startups are frequent targets for the trolls and those who resist are dragged into multimillion dollar litigation they can’t afford.

        The patent troll problem, widely exposed by NPR in 2011, has long infuriated real companies and the tech sector. And now people in high places are starting to notice.

        This week, a young woman told President Obama in a Google Hangout that she and other entrepreneurs live in fear of patent trolls and asked if he planned to continue patent reform. In response, the president made his boldest statement to date on the issue:

        “The folks that you’re talking about are a classic example; they don’t actually produce anything themselves. They’re just trying to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else’s idea and see if they can extort some money out of them.”

        It looks like common sense has come even to the highest halls of power (see interview and transcript here via Patent Progress). The question now is whether President Obama will actually take charge and do something about the patent plague that is sucking money out of the most innovative sector of the economy.

        In the past, the president has proved adept at throwing sops to his fans and fundraisers in the tech sector without doing much to help them. In 2011, for instance, he signed the America Invents Act, which was a milquetoast measure to fix the worst elements of the patent system. While the law made it easier to challenge bad patents, it didn’t reign in absurd jury verdicts or overly broad patents that enable the trolls in the first place.

        It’s time for the president to try again. To do so, he will first need to get around the specific concerns of the pharmaceutical industry, which has blocked previous patent reform efforts; as Judge Richard Posner has noted, drug makers are among the few who may need the monopoly power of a patent in order to recoup their investments. This is not the case for software and tech where a first-mover advantage provides an adequate head start and technology rapidly becomes obsolete.

        As for addressing the trolls, law professor Brian Love has proposed a very sensible solution. Love, a protege of IP godfather Mark Lemley, suggests changing the patent fee structure to create disincentives for hoarding the obsolete patents that trolls typically use to torment their targets. The advantage here is that this is something Obama can do directly. Meanwhile, in Congress, the president can push for legislation to eliminate billion dollar jury verdicts.

        Finally, the president can also tap his executive power to increase antitrust scrutiny of giant patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures for imposing what is, essentially, a startup tax across the tech sector. If the Obama administration even attempted to impose such a tax, the political cost would be enormous; there’s no reason the private sector should get away with the same thing.

        Enough talk. It’s time to act, Mr. President.

        Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
        Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

      • Report: Tech blog AllThingsD may part ways with News Corp

        News Corp is reportedly shopping its popular technology blog, AllThingsD. If true, this could see fixtures of the tech reporting scene like Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher join another company.

        According to Reuters, the contract between AllThingsD and News Corp is up at the end of the year and relations between the two entities are “amicable but stressed.”

        A spokesperson for News Corp said by email on Friday afternoon the company declines comment.

        The sale of AllThingsD would have implications not just for the media industry, where tech blogs are a popular property, but for the technology scene as a whole. Companies in the sector frequently drop important leaks to figures like Mossberg and Swisher whose pronouncements on companies like Yahoo and Apple ripple widely.

        Sources told Reuters that Conde Nast, Hearst and Yahoo are among possible suitors for All Things D. AOL came up as a more remote possibility.

        AllThingsD is supported by advertising but also by events like the “Dive into Media” hosted in Southern California this week that attracted a gaggle of tech bigwigs from companies like Dish and Google.

        AllThingsD is an autonomous unit within News Corp but the corporation owns the website and the name. This would, in theory, limit Mossberg and Swisher’s control in the outcome of the sale talks; however, Reuters reports that their contracts give them approval authority over a sale.

        In recent years, star journalists have increasing leverage over the publications with which they work, in part due to portable social media followings. This year, for instance, popular blogger Andrew Sullivan left the Daily Beast to start his own website where he’s asking readers to voluntarily donate $19.99 a year to read him.

        To see Andrew Sullivan and learn about the latest shifts in the media industry come join us at paidContent Live this April in New York.

         

        Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
        Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.