Posted by: Stephen Baker on July 08
Journalists, Scott Rosenberg writes, often have trouble understanding that the motivation of most bloggers is not money or global stardom, but simply self expression.
He writes:
It is very hard for journalists to understand this because the opportunity to express themselves in public has always been a part of their professional birthright. So they won’t notice that motivation even when it’s staring them in the face.
Here's where I disagree. In my experience, self-expression has not been a professional birthright. Ask most journalists, and they'll complain that editors remove their voice, their jokes, their opinions. At most places, in fact, this is what editors are paid to do. Throughout my career, the vast majority of BusinessWeek readers have read my articles about Mexico, steel, Nokia, etc. to learn about those things, not about me.
Most journalists, being frustrated writers, pine for that point in their career when they can express themselves. It's true, blogging provides a much looser platform (with no editors). But even on a blog, a mainstream journalist still represents the publication. Our voices can wander only so far. That's true even if we blog independently, as many of us do. To express ourselves the way Scott describes, we have to quit (or otherwise lose our jobs). Speaking personally, there's no rush.
Posted by: Stephen Baker on July 07
Can you think of a metric in your life that might point to an improving economy? Some people might look for longer lines at Starbucks or perhaps fighting once again for a free cab in midtown Manhattan. Some may dream of thickening newspapers... But what other ones could there be?
We're hoping to collect them and put a few into our upcoming special issue on The Case for Optimism. You can leave them in comments and/or tweet them to @stevebaker. Thanks.
Posted by: Douglas MacMillan on July 06
There are certain bits of your online persona that you may not mind giving up to marketers. If you're shopping for a new wardrobe, you might find an ad more useful because it's targeted to your gender and age. But you wouldn't want advertisers to know about your medical conditions, would you?
The definition of "sensitive data" -- information that marketers need permission to obtain and use in their online campaigns -- is one of the points of debate in the current push to regulate online advertising. In recent months, Congress has held hearings to explore how legislation could check the power of online marketers without strangling the industry.
Generally, sensitive data means information about children, financial, and medical records. But privacy advocates are insisting that any new laws detail the meaning of sensitive data, lest any loopholes be left open.
On July 2, industry groups including the American Association of Advertising Agencies, the Interactive Advertising Bureau and others proposed a set of guidelines for self-regulation. Representing Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, and other Internet publishers and advertisers, the document intends to stave off any new federal policy.
The industry proposed this definition of sensitive data:
The Principle calls for entities not to collect financial account numbers, Social Security numbers, pharmaceutical prescriptions, or medical records about specific individuals for Online Behavioral Advertising purposes without Consent.
Pam Dixon, executive director of the World Privacy Forum argues that definition is too broad. "That is quite literally the worst definition of sensitive data I have ever read in any privacy statement," she says.
She suggests the definition address more specific ways advertisers could target individuals. She proposes this definition, drafted in 2007 in conjunction with other groups like the Center for Democracy and Technology and the Electronic Frontier Foundation:
Advertisers should not collect, use, disclose, or otherwise process personally identifiable information about health, financial activities, sexual behavior or sexual orientation, social security numbers, insurance numbers, or any government-issued ID numbers for targeting or marketing.
Should the government pursue regulation, it's likely to turn to the Federal Trade Commission to negotiate a compromise definition. So far, that agency has stayed out of the matter -- its Online Behavioral Advertising Principles, revised in February, take a pass at defining sensitive data altogether:
Sensitive data is not defined in this principle, presumably in anticipation of further self-regulatory work in this area.
What do you think? What types of information should be clearly marked hands-off to online advertisers?
Posted by: Stephen Baker on July 06
Found this anonymous downbeat diatribe in a Folio article by Pontiflex's Zephrin Lasker.
Compelling content is the least performing asset in a profitable web strategy. Not only is its impact marginal, the demographics of its audience is that of non-performers. Web visitors who visit your site often because they enjoy the content monetize at very low rates. Social communities that evolve around a theme are not business's. They are hobbies or labor of loves. Paid subscriptions are only viable until your audience matures enough to source their individual interests for free in any number of places. Check the renewal rates on paid subscriptions. Nonexistent.
If compelling content doesn't pay, what does?
Posted by: Stephen Baker on July 02
Here's a short interview I did earlier this week with Scott Rosenberg, the co-founder of Salon.com and author of the new history of blogging, Say Everything.
