I’m enjoying the beta of Google+ that a friend, and Google employee, recently invited me to. I am usually more quick to check out new stuff than hesitant to get freaked out by privacy policies. But my own personal experiences with Google have left me more concerned with Google than with Facebook from a privacy perspective. Primarily because of the vast trove of information Google already has access to. I just don’t think they should have access to so much.

My first real heart-jump was when I bought a Google-powered Android phone and ‘registered’ it with my gmail address. All of a sudden all my voicemails suddenly got routed to Google Voice, as opposed to my usual wireless carrier voicemail. And I wasn’t given a choice in the matter, or able to undo it. My conversation with customer service went something like this “Oh, you entered your gmail address, yeah, all your voicemail goes to Google now, you can’t change it.” I also realized that since I used Google Chrome as my web browser(which I login into with my Gmail address so that it remembers my passwords), now it was possible to link all of my online web browsing activity to my phone usage, including locations/movements around the world, and potentially to my email usage and now to any personal information I give to Google +. This is a lot!  Too much, I think.

I couple these concerns with recent reports that Google (and Apple) keep a log of all of our locations via our cell phones, indefinitely:

• http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/04/22/tech/cnettechnews/main20056472.shtml

Google’s Chairman, Eric Schmidt’s statement that if you don’t want other people to know about what you do online, then you shouldn’t do it online:

• http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/12/google-ceo-eric-schmidt-dismisses-privacy

So what? Well, Facebook and Google both make nearly all of their money from online advertising. And when I say nearly all, I mean this is pretty much where all of their revenue is derived from. Google doesn’t exactly rake it in on their phone business. Online/mobile advertising has been my vocation for the past 12 years and I’m keenly aware, as Google is, that the more you know about a person, the better you can deliver that person relevant advertising. The more relevant your advertising, the more advertising money is going to come your way because you’ve done a good job of getting your client’s message in front of their target consumer. Google is very good at this. One might argue that they are the absolute best at delivering advertising to consumers and getting them to respond. That is why in the midst of a recession, they are hiring 4,000+ people in a single year, including no less than 6 other close friends of mine have gone to work for the Goog in the past 6 months. Google is ‘crushing it’ with their online advertising business.

It strikes me that Google+ is not just another fun Google product, but an attempt to head off the massive advantage that Facebook has gained with their treasure trove of personal information on 500 Million + users. Note that likewise, Facebook, is trying to head off Google’s advantage on having access to internet browsing habits by offering websites ‘like’ buttons and other widgets to put up on their sites, like ‘login into this website with facebook’ so that Facebook can also collect information on your browsing habits outside of Facebook. These widgets turn Facebook into a much bigger ‘website’, where they can ‘see’ you on all the sites where they have their hooks. Keep in mind that Facebook recently passed online advertising behemoth, Yahoo, in total advertising revenue.

The stages are set: Facebook and Google are now doing battle for online advertising dollars as the two dominant forces in selling and delivering online advertising. “Do no evil” aside, these two companies are online advertising companies first and foremost and our own personal view of what crosses the line in terms of privacy is being pushed and challenged by them because they have a revenue-driven incentive to challenge it.

I am not a crazy privacy advocate, I placed the very first ad on a social media site years ago, when I struck a deal with Jonathan Abrams at Friendster. Back then, advertising on social media used to be a bad word, now every company’s brand manager is scrambling to understand it and to spend there. This desire to ‘get in’ to social media advertising has been driven by the huge amount of personal information we’ve all become accustomed to sharing with companies in exchange for fun online services, primarily with Facebook.

Will I use Google+ ?, definitely! Especially if it’s fun and my friends are using it. But I returned my Google/Android phone because I felt creeped out by the “you have been assimilated into the Borg” experience, and I’d frankly prefer it if Facebook continued to dominate social media. At least that way I can keep some of my personal information with three distinct and independent advertising companies: my location logs are with Apple, my online browsing habits are with Google, and my social interactions and personal info might stay independently with Facebook.

ShareThis

ShareThis

I was 11 years old when I got my first 1200-baud modem. Shortly after realizing what a computer geek I had become, my parents asked for my opinion, “Scotty, do you think it’s worthwhile to get a CD-ROM for our computer?” “Naw,” I said, “That CD thing is just going to be a big fad, like those tape-backup drives.” That was 1988 and yes, every computer still has a CD-ROM as a critical part of its operation. I was similarly prescient when blogs and RSS technology first came on the scene. By then, I was a moderately-respected online media expert and my comment that blogs were nothing more than “…easy to update homepages and would never represent a valuable advertising opportunity.” Were thankfully never recorded, *ahem*, until now.

Now this RSS thing has really taken off. I was wise enough to poo-poo it only to myself. And sure enough, my life has become as inextricably linked with RSS feeds as it is with CD-ROM’S and making blogs into excellent advertising opportunities.  My particular set of tubes (feeds) are all interwoven and networked and run both directions. I can text message an update to twitter from my cell phone, Twitter then updates my facebook status, and the twitter feed you see in the sidebar of this blog, the mytwitter on my iGoogle homepage and of course the twitter app, back on my cell phone. It updates all my friends apps and their RSS feeds and then it displays a peanut butter and jelly sandwich pieced together from my Flickr photo feed. Okay, not really, but it sure distributes a one-liner in a lot of different places in a lot of different ways.

RSS stands for really-simple-syndication and is literally turning how people read and digest news on its head. Two companies, Feedburner and Pheedo have managed to make a business out of RSS feeds but it still feels like early days, especially for the twitters of the world whose user base almost assuredly does not want their one-liners broken up by even a one-word advertisement. Good thing for RSS it was a technology I thought little of it when it first came out, which absolutely ensures its success.

ShareThis

From your friends at Silicon Alley Insider, comes a collection of the world’s most valuable new media companies. It’s a great selection of classics from the 90′s and new titles from today. Own the entire set for only 12 easy payments of: $5.199 Billion. Take a look!

THE SAI 25: THE WORLD’S MOST VALUABLE STARTUPS

ShareThis

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvJoc8oEays

A great ad can entertain and inspire by tickling us with its producers’ creativity. Advertising makes some of my favorite things free (pretty much all my favorite sites on the internet, and also radio) but it certainly can be overdone by front-loading $12 per-ticket movies with too many previews. But a worse offense is to launch an advertising campaign devoid of creativity or innovation. A great ad campaign can move us emotionally. It can make us laugh or cry or bring color and humor to an otherwise mundane city bus.

But I learned a new rule of advertising recently that discourages creativity. Turns out that many ad campaigns are purposefully meant to be uncreative and simple in order to persuade the viewer even more effectively. Ever wonder why with all the funny, creative television ads you see, there still seems to be some dumb paper towel or toothpaste ad that makes you groan? Turns out, that groan may be purposeful on the part of the ad agency. According to Malcom Gladwell, in his book Blink, viewers are more likely to “Let their guards down” when viewing an ad that they think is unclever, blatant advertising. According to the theory, when you’re evaluating whether you’re being advertised to or not, you’re less likely to be receptive and persuaded by an advertising message. Your mind is on-guard thinking “Is this an ad? It’s so creative, I like it. But wait, don’t be convinced by it…remember, it’s an ad.” However, when you make a snap-judgement and label advertising as silly and blatant, “Brawny soaks up 10x the amount of moisture as other leading brands!!” you let down your guard, groan, and the message seeps into your brain where it’s far more likely to influence your next purchasing decision. Who knew? Turns out the big brands do…

ShareThis