(The illustration on the left top corner of the image is by Brock Davies)
(No fair author was found for the center image)
(The one on the top right... you know who is it from)

 

Tell me about stubborn. What will it take for the Music Record industry to call it a defeat and learn from it?

Music piracy was born on the same day music recordings were born. I don’t defend it nor support it, in fact I totally believe is robbery; but come on... they have been trying to fight it the same way for decades -indeed more intensely in the digital era- with the same tremendous rate of immense failure. They should start running the numbers to see how the resources they have devoted to try and control this outbreak of digital robbery compare to the actual claimed losses derived from the exchange and distribution of pirate recordings.

I’m not much of a techie, but I have friends who are, and they are all very confident that there’s always a way around any of the barriers they can come up with.

I don’t know but, isn’t it about time they come up with an alternative way to distribute music? What will it take for them to acknowledge that the internet is undoubtedly the future -if they want to stay alive- of their business? How about re-thinking DRM (Digital Rights Management)

Why is big Music and Hollywood so cautious and shy to welcome iTunes or now even Amazon.com´s  model? Think about it... Getting rid of CD´s and DVD´s would significantly ease their operations and costs... why are they still so attached to this model then? Ahh I’ll tell you: the 20 or so dollars they charge for an album (where you have no choice but to buy it as a whole even if there’s only a couple of songs you like).

This doesn’t strike me as fair play. I think many people perceive it this way too, and this is what is pushing more and more of us to buy individual songs from digital download web-sites such as the afore mentioned.

 This one is free to be used (123rf.com) 

This one is free to be used (123rf.com)

There are indeed opinions on how this might not be the way to save Big Music, but I think these forecasts and opinions fail to fairly consider the enormous impact of the recent financial meltdown on disposable income -because even though some disagree, music CD´s are not a first necessity article.

It´s my personal opinion that Big Music should see itself in the mirror of the Big Publishing Companies... or face serious trouble. 

A byte of this cookie? Care to try them?

Would you like a byte of these cookies?

(And they say too much sugar can kill you)

Ok. We are safe. Father Government is here to save us and protect us. But only until a reasonable point. I´m talking about privacy protection and security of the personal information of internet users.

According to the FTC, "...industry efforts to address privacy through self-regulation have been too slow, and up to now have failed to provide adequate and meaningful protection.”

We all sort of know what they mean: very few people take time to read the regularly lengthy, lawyery and boring texts of the privacy policy disclosures from most web-sites and applications. People are currently as you read this -hundreds of millions- clicking on the button that says "I agree" without even bothering to read a few lines of what is stated there.

People have been doing this routinarily for a long time, and we should add, that in general, we -because I've myself done this dozens of times- have gotten away with it without much harm. But the truth is, many cookies and other codes to which we are often times exposed, are capable -and in fact do- of  "reading" our browsers histories and other personal information we store on our computers. This information is then forwarded and processed to be used by certain parties, without the owners of the information really knowing this is happening, to track our internet behavior and searching habits.

According to the FTC's Chairman, Jon Leibowitz "Technological and business ingenuity have spawned a whole new online culture and vocabulary – email, IMs, apps and blogs – that consumers have come to expect and enjoy. The FTC wants to help ensure that the growing, changing, thriving information marketplace is built on a framework that promotes privacy, transparency, business innovation and consumer choice. We believe that’s what most Americans want as well.”

The FTC is planning on putting an end to this by implementing a "Do not track initiative" Something similar to what has already been done to keep "Telemarketers" form annoying people over and over again with unsolicited promotions and offers; but this time online, which is a more challenging and complex setting for this kind of initiative.

The only thing about this initiative that makes me a bit sckeptical about how promising its implementation would be, is the fact that the words "up to a reasonable point" are all over the text. I'm not sure this is the best way to establish rules, still, I believe we will be much better off after its implementation than we are now. 

Indeed there is already some people complaining about this, but in the end, I think most people would perceive this as a good and sound initiative.

In total, something good for them, good for us. Thanks FTC!

What's so hot about Groupon?

Ok. I really don't get it. Why is everybody talking about groupon? Even news of Google attempting to buy them, and what surprises me the most: them apparently saying no to -in my opinion- a very generous offer, are all over kingdom come!

What's so hot about the whole economies of scale concept? It's not even a secret! (I believe this is what Costco, BJ's and Sams Club are all about, not?) Their motto is "Collective buying power". Is there anyone out there surprised by the whole idea of let's make a larger pool of people so we increase our bargaining power and we can all be better off?

I'm surprised to hear that Google allegedly offered various billions of dollars to buy this "invention". I'm even more surprised to see Groupon rejecting it! I suppose there’s got to be  more to this. What is it? Well, that people actually like the concept! And many are frequently visiting the site and benefiting from the deals they offer.

I mean, if you look at it in detail, it's indeed a good idea to encourage a group of people to come together and send them to some customer craving business of their choice willing to trade some of their profit for the additional flow of customers. Of course, the promoter gets a cut, and here is where Groupon comes into play.

Just to say it briefly, this is how sometimes marketing works. There are things that seem logical to work... but don't and there is indeed the opposite thing too. This one is working (at least for now!)

The problem I see is with the viability of the entire concept in the long run. This is an extremely easy to emulate model, and as one could imagine, various companies are already working copying it, improving it and expanding it. All Internet-based business models are exposed and vulnerable to this kind of "competition". Groupon, and their obvious business model is no exception to this rule. I only hope they had a really good reason to pass on Google’s offer.

Tweet-Marketing? Facebook-Marketing? How serious are they about it?

Many see marketing -let's face it- as mere advertising. They want consumers to see their brand, their products. As the reasonable people they are, they would prefer exhibiting their brand in those places where more people would see them, this is -as we know very well- what makes some locations more desirable -and also more costly- than others. It´s not the same to place a banner at London's Piccadilly Circus or at Times Square in NYC than at let's say, some hidden corner in Queens or in the Dodgy End.

Let's assume for a momment that they are not wrong. That advertising is Marketing simplified (for dummies?) This vision of marketing is what is attracting an increasing number of businesses to implement this new phenomenon of "marketing" (advertising) through the most popular social networks. Granted, if done in an intelligent way, this could lead to very well targeted and extensive brand exposure. If you ask me... I sense that this is a tricky thing to do.

Let´s assume we are a certain business: how much presence could we allow ourselves to have in a space where we were not invited and that is viewed by many as intended for interpersonal relationships only? How long till we are perceived as oportunistic invasors? Is there any risk that our efforts to be noticeable could end up driving people away? How could we measure this? Hard question to answer.

What really surprises me, is that apparently many don't seem to care about the presence of certain busineses on these networks. Like in real life, there´s room for almost everyone and those businesses that find their way in, mimetizing, blending in, are actually viewed as cool, modern and popular (who wouldn´t like that??)

It seems then that this is destined to become a trend (people argue that it is already) But what I find even more interesting is the kind of marketing these social networks will need to carry out to remain "inn" and "popular". About five years ago, myspace was the big thing. People were amazed to hear it got more than 70 million visitors! What would they think about Facebook and its more than 500 million members?  But even more interesting... what will Facebook need do to retain and increase its members? What will they need do to remain on top? what will come next? I dare saying it is already flying around.

The wonderful thing about these new tools -despite a certain set of self-imposed regulations- is that people is very much in charge: you choose to like or dislike a brand, a product or a place. You get to have a say when your business in not well enough appreciated by some vendor. Marketers and businesses will have their shot at trying to use this to their advantage -something they are well entitled to do- but I think that we the consumers are much better off now than ever before. They know it, and that's why they are being so careful.

It's your head we want now! (or what's inside it even better)

OK, are you seated? Wait till you hear this! Just as if we didn't have enough intrusions into our privacy with all the "initiatives" of companies such as  Facebook and Google, I have learned now that there are serious efforts going on to actually de-code our thoughts and tastes for marketing purposes. Sounds a bit sci-fi, doesn't it? But the truth is that these researchers are working extra hours to discover the way we develop our preferences. They call it Neuromarketing. Scared? It gets even better!

If these efforts are successful, that is, if they crack this code, they will eventually be able to know what you and I like and prefer without even having to ask us. Even more, they will know even better than us, why we like what we like.

Ok, enough with the complaints and the inflammatory accusations. Honestly, what's the harm? Won’t we after all end up still liking what we like? It's not that they have found a way to override our preferences or manipulate our taste, but that somebody out there is working -and apparently making progress- to find a shortcut to get straight to the point.

The potential for good applications is indeed enormous. But as usual, the potential for abuse is even bigger.

Fortunately for the peace of mind of all those concerned or scared, according to Martin Lindstrom, the knowledge available of the way the brain works is still fairly primitive. Will they get there? Most likely they will, but it’s really hard to know how long it will take them. For now, be not afraid. Your secrets are safe inside your head.