Updates from March, 2011 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • dbinkowski 8:34 pm on March 31, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , ,   

    Google Slowly Unveiling Its Social Strategy with +1 

    The takeaway? Facebook has no redeeming innovations or qualities that make you HAVE to use it, other than the fact that “my friends are there”. Well, your friends were once at the mall, the roller rink and MySpace. They’ll go elsewhere if someone builds a better mousetrap. Google provides useful tools that simplify the web experience in crucial areas of your life – yes, including search (knowledge). Can you see it unfolding now? I can. +1 just brought in your friends, web site’s analytics and social graph… Now if they can just get your friends there. πŸ˜‰

     
  • dbinkowski 9:00 am on April 21, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: F8, , privacy   

    Facebook F8 Announcements — and What It Really Means 

    Facebook F8GigaOm has a great blog post previewing what Facebook will be launching today at their F8 conference. In short, they’re launching Facebook Connect 2.0 (auto-logins), the Facebook Presence Bar (think of the one at the bottom of this page), Share/Like buttons, and Facebook Locations, which is their answer to Foursquare. This furthers the notion I’ve been telling clients for a while now: it’s a flat out war between Google and Facebook for your attention and more importantly – your data.

    (More …)

     
  • dbinkowski 10:23 am on January 13, 2010 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: cision, cymfony, , nielsen, radian6, sysomos, techrigy   

    When Will Google Get Into The Social Media Monitoring Business? 

    Google has long been the aggregator of data – from search to Google Analytics to Adwords/Adsense to their DNS project, the company has founded it’s business on knowing all. Given their history of “giving it away for free” and providing self-service products, the question is – when will they get into the monitoring business? Their history suggests it’s not too far off. Here are five reasons why we will see a free Google monitoring tool in 2010.

    (More …)

     
    • jonathanzarov 11:37 pm on January 13, 2010 Permalink | Reply

      Agreed! While Google marches on, we in the listening space will continue to cultivate higher level analytics to uncover themes in the data. That's entirely different than monitoring, with more strategic than reactive value to business. We'll leave the Radian 6s of the world to fight it out with Google. Here’s a post Dan Neely, CEO of Networked Insights, wrote last fall. He too predicts that Google will own monitoring http://blog.networkedinsights.com/index.php/200

  • dbinkowski 9:30 am on October 9, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Type A Mom   

    Truth in Advertising 

    Last week Two weeks ago I had the pleasure of attending, networking, connecting and speaking at the Type A Mom conference in Asheville, NC. Kelby Carr did an amazing job and I was proud to bring my clients to the conference to help support the blogging community.

    One of my panel sessions was called “Working with Companies”, moderated by the lovely and talented Lucretia Pruett Pruitt, aka GeekMommy. She and I spent quite a bit of time together discussing the industry and where it’s going, but I’ll save that for another post. The session was a split between a moderated discussion by the panel and an open Q&A with the 200-something attendees.

    For those who know me, you’ll know that I worked my way up the agency ranks by innovating and creating opportunities – not only for myself, but for strategic partners. My clients value my experience and advice as do the Associations I belong to and regularly speak at. If you could see the feedback I’ve received from students, colleagues and conference attendees you’d know that I aim to please and usually put on a show. If you’ve never seen me present, it’s something like this: I get up on stage, share practical advice without any BS and am happy to share everything my experiences have taught me. It’s as real and as honest as it can be, because I have been an attendee at conferences, sat through classes and been lectured to and thought “Can you just tell me what I need to know? (without the fluff)?”.

    This conference was no different. As the conference slogan asked, I “brought it”. And by “brought it”, I said things that some bloggers didn’t want to hear. While sitting on the panel I heard a lot of fluff and some “WHAAA?”s. One such “WHAAA?” was from a competing agency’s “social media” person: “Make it easier for me to do my job”. Another said: “You need to clean up your act”. The first is simply a plea from someone who doesn’t know how to sell. The second was a more aggressive stab at some of the more snarky behavior that takes place in the mom blogging community. I didn’t comment on how people should blog per se, but stayed true to the panel’s topic on how to work with companies. My advice was and is as follows:

    • How to approach agencies/companies/brands. Have an idea? Sell it. “How am I supposed to find out who works for what brands?”. Here’s a tip: Google it. Subscribe to a few free trade publications. It’s not hard to find this information once you check out a brand’s “About” section and hit up LinkedIn.
    • Don’t sign contracts that aren’t equitable. Some moms were quite vocal about receiving “Free cupcakes” in lieu of payment. Starting December 1st the FTC is going to make people disclose everything, even those free cupcakes. Update: One comment that was made at the conference was “we can’t afford lawyers”. They can be expensive so I totally understand, however reviewing basic contracts isn’t going to cost you an arm and a leg. In fact, for a 5-10 page contract my dad quoted me “$250 to review it”. Too much? Well, I remember him routinely handling traffic tickets for friends in high school in exchange for manual labor, e.g. sanding our deck or painting a room of our house. And this isn’t unusual. In fact, most lawyers will do work in exchange for work. Call around, I bet you’ll find one willing to work with you in exchange for some promotion online. If you’re not getting paid that much then I’d question why you’re even considering signing the thing.
    • You are a brand. As such, companies try to match themselves up with personalities (see: Celebrity spokespeople) that match their brand equity and values. That being said, shallow people make judgments — sometimes unfair ones — based on what they read about you online. I know a lot of moms curse. I do too. And I’m telling you that it’s OK. I don’t want you to change who you are or how you write. But understand that brands are looking at this stuff and if you aspire to work with certain brands they will put you under the magnifying glass.Personally, I dig deeper to find out more about people than what I might find on their blog or Twitter stream. I don’t pass judgment for a few things folks might say or do because that’s not my job – my job is to find talent and work with it to the best of my ability. Case in point, I’ve been working with several conference goers and speakers by hiring them, supporting their ad networks, collecting resumes for future work and giving them advice when asked via email and Twitter in order to truly support the blogging community. Not by having flame wars, not by ostracizing people, not by being a jerk, but by having meaningful dialogue with people to find ways to work together.
    • Understand your value. See above re: contracts, but your brand online is worth more than a few dollars. Most of the people I’ve spoken with since that conference, including some keynote-worthy speakers at other conferences, have no clue as to what they’re worth when it comes to negotiating with companies.

    One point I was unable to make during the conference due to time constraints is what brands talk about when it comes to metrics. Ahh! Not measurement! πŸ˜‰

    Most bloggers rely on their Sitemeter or Google Analytics to self-report their stats. Some bloggers and webmasters complain that third parties like Quantcast report their stats as being too low. Again, I’m not passing judgment, just telling you how you’re being judged: No one believes your self-reported numbers. Here’s why:

    • Spiders and bots. Know how Google always seems to have your freshest posts indexed? That’s because it and other search and monitoring services crawl your site to index it or monitor it for specific keywords. If you see “Andiamo Systems” listed in your log files it’s a company called Techrigy. It’s someone monitoring you or specific content on your blog. Doesn’t count as a unique visitor, the same way Google’s spider doesn’t count.
    • Your friends. No one wants their web site to have 0 comments. It hurts. I means that all of the effort you poured into writing a post, regardless of actual merit or quality, may have been read but didn’t provide any “engagement“. Fortunately or unfortunately, a lot of bloggers play deceptive games with comments and links to game Google and advertisers to make it appear that they have a lot of comments, when in fact if you clicked each commenter’s name or did some homework you’d realize it’s a big circle of fake link love and comments. Having a blog post with 20+ comments, all of which are from other bloggers, doesn’t count. You’re giving advertisers a reason not to trust you right off the bat.
    • You. Everyone I know wants to know how their site and blog posts look when they go live. And they want to engage with their readers. Guess what? It doesn’t count. It’s like walking in and out of your own store over and over again. Sure, the security camera shows someone coming and going all day, but at the end of it you’re the same one unique visitor jacking up your numbers — which makes your monthly and unique post impression number totally false.
  • Overall if the blogging industry wants to mature it needs to grow up (literally) and catch up to the reporting and accountability that the “legitimate” sites that advertisers covet. You may have 18,000 visitors per month but how many are legitimate or actual readers and not your buddies? Very few, which is why sites like Quantcast are a breath of fresh air – they cut out the fat and BS to get right to the point. Sound familiar?

    I’d love to hear your take on this post in the comments.

 
  • dbinkowski 11:51 am on October 31, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Add another unethical company to the list: Magpie 


    In the ongoing saga of “How Will Twitter Make Money?”, Read Write Web has a story that a company called Magpie offering to help you monetize your personal Twitter account. Last year we saw the ludicrous auctioning of a Twitter account on Ebay which in and of itself was unscrupulous, to say the least. That auction was pulled after several folks blocked Andrew Baron got an ear full from folks like me.

    Now this new player, Magpie, has sprouted up offering to ghost tweet ads in place of your actual tweets. Also fitting is that at the time of this writing this post their site is currently down for maintenance. How Fail Whalesque.

    The business model of posting ads into your account is straight up shilling, according to the WOMMA definition. Sound familiar? That’s because this flawed ad revenue model has already had its dick knocked in the dirt. If you recall, a few years ago a company called PayPerPost (now Izea) tried to capitalize on shilling and non-disclosure on blogs. Google appropriately took the appropriate action of removing their page rank, deeming these blogs irrelevant in Google’s search. Google’s reason? You f with our business, we can f with yours.

    Given the history and Google punishment don’t be surprised if the folks at Twitter shut Magpie out before it even gets off the ground.

    Update: Their site is back up. Mixed reviews over on Twitter.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Add_another_unethical_company_to_the_list_Magpie’;

     
    • JustinSMV 5:42 am on November 17, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      I think its very low for people to sell out on twitter by having someone shoot ads in your name while you collect a small profit. I am curious to see if they shut down.

    • James Campbell 11:09 pm on December 8, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      sounds like this should be a non-starter.

    • Liza's Eyeview 5:09 pm on December 13, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      I am just enjoying twitter – joined about 46 days ago – I don’t want want it to be “abused” and “ruined” . Thanks for the post.

  • dbinkowski 2:50 pm on January 25, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Top Digg Users: “It’s really not about the community” 

    The NY Times has a great article on a battle raging over on Digg between the site operators and some “Power Users” on the site. Digg, for those unfamiliar, is a social news site. What does that mean? Basically, people find stuff from around the web, including news stories, blog posts, photos and video, submit it to Digg and the community deems whether or not it’s worth viewing. There’s a bit of controversy as to what stories are dug(g) and which are “buried”, meaning deemed irrelevant or not important by the community. For example, this post by Neil Patel documents stories about certain web sites or submitted by certain people are being buried by Digg employees. The Power Users are claiming “censorship”, but much like the Google PageRank/PayPerPost story, once you mess with a company’s business model, or in this case algorithm, they have every right to correct it. The Power Users are planning to boycott the site and not submit new stories.

    So what’s the story with the Digg power users? Like most communities, there are folks who invest a lot of time, effort and energy to help make the site what it is. Without their submissions and social network, stories wouldn’t make the home page. Those who’ve had stories on the home page have seen traffic spikes, also known as the Digg effect, and some argue there’s any monetary value of making the home page. That being said, the argument could be made that the site’s content and popularity has been driven by these power users, which was enabled by Digg’s algorithm.

    So why the uproar? Well, Digg decided to re-tool its algorithm so the greater community could decide which stories work. In theory, broadening the number of people whose votes count should increase the number of users on the site, since, much like the lottery, there’s an equal chance of winning; in this case it’s making the home page because the general populous of Digg deems it worthy. This logic was also employed on the redesigned Netscape home page and failed miserably. Valleywag calls this the Jason Calacanis effect.

    Digg has the right to change its algorithm. However, the power users have a right to leave. Will this kill the site? Probably not — others will rise to the top and determine which stories are home page worthy.

    Three key learnings are:

    1. The few rule the many in communities. Call it the “Lord of the Flies effect” — and predictably, those in power are going to be upset when their authority and the playing field has been leveled.
    2. Don’t screw with success. I understand the intention of trying to get more people involved in the site, but expanding the site to include more topics would have been an easier way than pissing off the power user base.
    3. As Phil Gomes pointed out on Twitter, No one wins. One side just loses more slowly. — Prez, from HBO’s “The Wire”. Both sides are wrong, and ultimately the users of Digg will lose. The algorithm change should have been communicated better to users. The users should understand that the business has to evolve. In the end, asking the community for ideas isn’t a bad thing, but pissing them off is.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Top_Digg_Users_It_s_really_not_about_the_community’;

     
  • dbinkowski 2:50 pm on January 25, 2008 Permalink | Reply  

    Top Digg Users: "It’s really not about the community" 

    The NY Times has a great article on a battle raging over on Digg between the site operators and some “Power Users” on the site. Digg, for those unfamiliar, is a social news site. What does that mean? Basically, people find stuff from around the web, including news stories, blog posts, photos and video, submit it to Digg and the community deems whether or not it’s worth viewing. There’s a bit of controversy as to what stories are dug(g) and which are “buried”, meaning deemed irrelevant or not important by the community. For example, this post by Neil Patel documents stories about certain web sites or submitted by certain people are being buried by Digg employees. The Power Users are claiming “censorship”, but much like the Google PageRank/PayPerPost story, once you mess with a company’s business model, or in this case algorithm, they have every right to correct it. The Power Users are planning to boycott the site and not submit new stories.

    So what’s the story with the Digg power users? Like most communities, there are folks who invest a lot of time, effort and energy to help make the site what it is. Without their submissions and social network, stories wouldn’t make the home page. Those who’ve had stories on the home page have seen traffic spikes, also known as the Digg effect, and some argue there’s any monetary value of making the home page. That being said, the argument could be made that the site’s content and popularity has been driven by these power users, which was enabled by Digg’s algorithm.

    So why the uproar? Well, Digg decided to re-tool its algorithm so the greater community could decide which stories work. In theory, broadening the number of people whose votes count should increase the number of users on the site, since, much like the lottery, there’s an equal chance of winning; in this case it’s making the home page because the general populous of Digg deems it worthy. This logic was also employed on the redesigned Netscape home page and failed miserably. Valleywag calls this the Jason Calacanis effect.

    Digg has the right to change its algorithm. However, the power users have a right to leave. Will this kill the site? Probably not — others will rise to the top and determine which stories are home page worthy.

    Three key learnings are:

    1. The few rule the many in communities. Call it the “Lord of the Flies effect” — and predictably, those in power are going to be upset when their authority and the playing field has been leveled.
    2. Don’t screw with success. I understand the intention of trying to get more people involved in the site, but expanding the site to include more topics would have been an easier way than pissing off the power user base.
    3. As Phil Gomes pointed out on Twitter, No one wins. One side just loses more slowly. — Prez, from HBO’s “The Wire”. Both sides are wrong, and ultimately the users of Digg will lose. The algorithm change should have been communicated better to users. The users should understand that the business has to evolve. In the end, asking the community for ideas isn’t a bad thing, but pissing them off is.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/Top_Digg_Users_It_s_really_not_about_the_community’;

     
  • dbinkowski 2:56 pm on December 16, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    If Twitter went away, would anyone care? 

    Disclaimer: This is no way an attempt to rip off of the great series John Moore runs over on BrandAutopsy — the title just seemed fitting.

    I have been using Twitter for some time now, increasing my usage to see if it changes how I’m consuming media and, more importantly, my opinion of it. I’m nearing my 500th update, and my opinion has yet to change. It’s still full of essentially useless information with the occasional nugget of good information thrown in.

    Case in point are a few gems over the past 24 hours from people I’m following that include JasonCalacanis‘s tweet that he’s “Walking the dogs at 1 am…” and chrisabraham‘s “Stumbled to the kitchen and made bread and butter and cheese” update.

    Twitter was scheduled to go down for maintenance yesterday for 12 hours, with Twitter addicts, aka Twitheads, freaking out that they wouldn’t be able to update their virtual friends with useless info. For those unfamiliar with Twitter, think of it this way — remember when cell phones first came out, and people would call each other just because they could? Yeah, it’s kinda like that. Loren has a funny vid about it here. I couldn’t have said it better myself.

    So with the astute point that life will go on and that people will still stay in touch via email, Facebook, phone, Skype — hell, you name it — I’ve tried to find reasons as to why Twitter will succeed… because yesterday’s reaction to scheduled maintenance (which, consequently, was moved to tonight at 10 PM PST) was the closest thing I’ve seen to a web-app version of Y2K. Is it really the type of 2.0 app that, if it went away, would cause riots? Um, no.

    Aside from the fact that there are a ton of other apps and technologies out there with wider adoption, having self-serving marketers publish bad research titles don’t help the cause — just because I have Twitter on my Facebook page doesn’t mean people read it, let alone know what the hell it is, let alone “use” it, as Forrester claims. If I use my iPhone, it means I am physically touching, listening or doing something with it. Forrester’s research says that it counts as “use” if someone on the subway sees it. I completely respect their work and studies, but that footnote make the research nearly worthless. The reality is that 1% of regular web users have interacted with Twitter — so while the marketing/PR and tech folks of the world, essentially, are on board, the general public isn’t. “Why not?”, you may be asking. Here are a few reasons:

    1. It’s not SMS/texting.. Kids can text and talk to each other through their cell phones, and that’s where all of their friends are now, including address books, installed IM apps, etc.
    2. It doesn’t provide a better solution. The daily “Bring that noise back!” messages, e.g. our service is down, are way too frequent to be providing what I’d consider to be a good product.
    3. No incentive. The only way I can see people jumping on en masse is if a major brand decided to provide a large enough benefit to try it. The “it’s cool!” factor doesn’t hold water.
    4. No upgrades. The site has been basically the same since it launched. There are some third party apps, like Snitter, that are more useful than the site itself (minus lapses/delays in updates), but the functionality of the site – from searching your tweets via the web to creating different permissions for groups of friends to basic functions like importing your address books from your cell- has basically remained the same. Meanwhile, Google buys Jaiku and will undoubtedly integrate it into their list of tools and bury Twitter because they have mass, not just hype from < 1% of the hyper-active web users.

    People will ask “What’s in it for me?” when being asked to use a new product or service. This value proposition is where Twitter has no real answer. Given the aforementioned reasons, the best Twitter can hope for is to be acquired by MS, Yahoo, IAC or another web giant and become integrated in their properties in a way that makes sense and is usable — and answers the question. As mentioned, Google is clearly out of the equation with their acquisition of Jaiku and, if there is an opportunity for microblogging to succeed, will happen as a result of their actions and answer – not hype from the 1% or bad research.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/If_Twitter_went_away_would_anyone_care&#8217;;

     
    • whatsnext 5:01 pm on December 16, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      this makes me wonder what you want from twitter? it’s a way to talk to people. nobody is scintillating in every thought they utter.

      for me, twitter is a way to stay in touch with friends, meet new people, and learn from some great minds. and if they want to tell me what they had for dinner, that’s fine with me.

      when all of someone’s tweets are inane, i stop following them.

    • David Binkowski 5:06 pm on December 16, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      BL,
      thanks for the comment. but what i want to know is that if it went away, would you really care or just migrate to another app/site?

    • John 5:33 pm on December 16, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      David … you are by no means ripping this off from me. After all, I copped this “would you miss” idea from the MAVERICKS AT WORK book.

      I’m a very casual Twitter-doer but some of the tweets I read said people would be migrating to a different app while Twitter was down. Seems like people are more attached to connecting online with people than they are attached to Twitter.

      Thanks for the linkage David.

    • David Binkowski 5:50 pm on December 16, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      john,
      thanks for the comment and history behind “would you care?”. it’s a great concept.

      i had the fortune of presenting with Peter Hart and he had a great slide about “The New Free Agents” – basically the combination of the internet, customer service and comparison shopping has made the everyday person less loyal to brands.

      this was followed by an open question to the company we were presenting at: “Given this, what are you doing to drive loyalty?”

      i would pose that same question to Biz and the Twitter posse.

    • EricaOGrady 7:07 pm on December 16, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      Hey David,

      Funny thing – if I hadn’t seen a link to your post from one of my Twitter contacts – I probably never would have read this post…

      Just food for thought πŸ˜‰

      -E

    • David Binkowski 7:14 pm on December 16, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      erica
      good point, and thanks for the comment, however it could have easily as come via email, Facebook, Pownce or any other web property/technology you’re a part of.

    • COD 9:51 pm on February 14, 2008 Permalink | Reply

      I too am only here because of your tweet. However, since I average maybe 5-10 tweets a week, I’m pretty sure I would not miss it if it went away. I killed my Facebook profile last month and have not missed it for one second.

  • dbinkowski 5:27 pm on November 17, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    In a bitter twist of irony, PayPerPost laughably cries censorship against Google 

    Jason Calacanis posted earlier that Google has decided to drop PayPerPost “posties” bloggers page rankings down to zero.

    Explained via their site, a Page Ranking is:

    PageRank relies on the uniquely democratic nature of the web by using its vast link structure as an indicator of an individual page’s value. In essence, Google interprets a link from page A to page B as a vote, by page A, for page B. But, Google looks at considerably more than the sheer volume of votes, or links a page receives; for example, it also analyzes the page that casts the vote. Votes cast by pages that are themselves “important” weigh more heavily and help to make other pages “important.” Using these and other factors, Google provides its views on pages’ relative importance.

    Of course, important pages mean nothing to you if they don’t match your query. So, Google combines PageRank with sophisticated text-matching techniques to find pages that are both important and relevant to your search. Google goes far beyond the number of times a term appears on a page and examines dozens of aspects of the page’s content (and the content of the pages linking to it) to determine if it’s a good match for your query.

    So what they’re saying is that if what you search for isn’t what you wanted turning up in the search results, we have the right to make it good. Makes sense.

    Two things stand out to me from their definition:

    1. The “uniquely democratic nature of the web” is not something that, for those of us who’ve taught the history of the internet and dialed in to (and programmed!) BSSes back in the day, involved paying people to create posts in favor of a client. The inherent nature of the beast is honesty, not chedda. The word “purity” is one reason why splogs and PPP bloggers are being singled out.

    2. Let’s go back to basics and ask “What makes search successful?” Relevancy. This is discussed in the last paragraph that clearly states that they examine “dozens of aspects of the page’s content to determine if it’s a good match for your query. ”

    It’s no secret that Google’s business will suffer if their search results blow. And they have a very clear policy as to what constitutes a splog. As Loren Feldman appropriately points out, thatGoogle is a business. And as a business they can do, for the most part, whatever the hell they want — especially if they deem it’s not what’s best for the consumer.

    In this case, they’ve decided that the PPP model is junking up their business. And as I’ve said before, I agree — which is why I find it comically ironic that the CEO of PPP is asking congress to step in and stop this pseudo “censorship”, when in reality PPP has issues of their own on censoring bloggers.

    Side note: I swear that when I clicked through Jason’s link I thought the PPP blog was for “sensitive toothpaste” before reading a few paragraphs of content. In Stewie’s sarcastic voice, my first thought was “Yeah…You might want to cut down on the ads”.

    The bottom line is that Google is a business, and they can choose to omit you if they decide your business is screwing with theirs.

    digg_url = ‘http://digg.com/tech_news/In_a_bitter_twist_of_irony_PayPerPost_cries_censorship_against_Google&#8217;;

     
  • dbinkowski 1:28 am on June 4, 2007 Permalink | Reply  

    A week’s worth of random thoughts 

    If I thought anyone read Twitter posts (no long tail on this one, folks) I would have thrown these on there. Regardless, here are a few nuggets from the past week or so:

    1. The RIAA sued more University of Michigan students last week by IP address. The U issued a response that they were investigating. I’m not saying they shouldn’t protect their copyrights, but I’m not sure going after some of the best and brightest are the long term solution to extending the business model.

    2. Q: What happens when an outdated product/company tries to make itself relevant?
    A: Pay a few bloggers to write a code for you, then go against their Rules and spam people with it. People said they received spam email from Vocus regarding their “5 Golden Rules For Blogger Relations”. Vocus issued a response. I’m not buying it. You don’t get it, please don’t try to pretend. You paid for your company to become relevant and then botched it. Eat the $$ on this project and start over by bringing people in that get it and let them evangelize.

    Bottom line: While their points are dead on, they aren’t anything new. And instead of sending attachments they could’ve sent this:

    Subject: Want to work with bloggers?
    Body: Use common sense.

    If you’ve seen my presentations you’ll know that I’ve given these hints before. Kudos to Vocus for trying to push the standards, but in my opinion you’re a bit late to the game.

    3. Finally, I noticed that Gmail has overtaken all mailto: tags. I mentioned earlier that I use Yahoo for all commercial-related emails and Gmail is for bidness… so I’m not exactly thrilled to have this option forced upon me. I understand that they want to push their web mail system on me, but it’s a bit much.

    Wow, I feel much better now that I have that off my chest. πŸ˜›

     
    • Anonymous 5:30 am on June 4, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      Why use Yahoo Mail at all? Such a spam hellhole

    • David Binkowski 1:56 pm on June 4, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      I’m not sure… It’s like a bad habit that’s part of my daily bookmarks that I open once I get in to work. Maybe it’s because some friends are too lazy to update their address books and still send stuff there.

      I’ll tell you what — I’ll abandon it for good once Google offers Fantasy Football.

    • David Meerman Scott 2:34 pm on June 4, 2007 Permalink | Reply

      Hey David,

      Just for the record, Vocus did not pay me to be a part of the white paper that they sent out. In fact, I didn’t even create anything net new for the project. The authors at Vocus drew from my existing works including my book “The New Rules of Marketing & PR” and my blog posts.

      That being said, I am being compensated for speaking at their user conference later this week.

      Cheers, David

  • c
    Compose new post
    j
    Next post/Next comment
    k
    Previous post/Previous comment
    r
    Reply
    e
    Edit
    o
    Show/Hide comments
    t
    Go to top
    l
    Go to login
    h
    Show/Hide help
    shift + esc
    Cancel