The Washington Post reports that the US Patent Offices are going ‘2.0′ — and using the wisdom of crowds to help it go through the mountains of applications for patents that are applied every year.  Yes, they are actually going to allow, through the internet, a community of individuals to comment and ‘vote’ on trademark and patent applications — and use their opinions to help decide whether or not to approve some of these applications.

It seems like most folk are in favour of it.  But, does anyone else have an alarm bell going off in their heads?

There is in mine — and its saying “Gaming Alert! Gaming Alert! Gaming Alert!”

Has no one learned anything from Digg or MyBlogLog?  Social systems where people stand to gain something (monetary compensation or otherwise) lead to its weaknesses getting exploited.  The result is a manipulation of apparently public and apparently transparent process to ends that benefit specific people.

And this isn’t some fancy shmancy “web2.0″ project.  The stakes are high and they are real.  The WaPo states:

With so much money riding on patent decisions — for instance, a federal jury ordered Microsoft last month to pay $1.52 billion for infringing two digital-music patents — the program’s designers acknowledge that the incentive to manipulate the system is immense.

Billions of dollars, folks!  That means that unlike other social networks on the web, the guys behind the US Patent Office have to be bullet proof.  And they don’t have time to learn from mistakes.  If one or two stories on Digg get inappropriately promoted that’s one thing (although i would argue that Digg has a moral responsibility in some cases).  But in these kinds of cases there is absolutely no room to let “one or two get away” — the consequences could have real meaning for companies, an entire industry, and at the end of the line, real jobs.

How could the system be subverted?  Ask any third rate author on Amazon wanting to pump his or her book.  Or, an obsecure hotel in Mexico wanting to get a little more business through Tripadvisor.  Or, any top 30 Digger, even.

To improve an application’s chances of success you could try:

(more…)

Some pretty startling numbers over here about print publishing’s declining revenues. Honest and ruthless sentiments courtesy of Colin Crawford of IDG publishing:

In the US, our online revenue now accounts for over 35% of our total US publishing revenues. Next year, for many brands online revenues will be greater than print revenues, if fact they already are at some of our key brands and by 2009 – approximately 50% of IDG’s US revenues will come from online.

People talk of watershed moments? I think THIS is a watershed moment for print publishing — when online revenues begin to exceed off-line ones. Jeebus, when did *that* happen? In retrospect, I knew something was afoot when I got married, moved out, and realized that I didn’t actually miss reading a physical paper. Seems like the New York Times is already making their move to the online arena as well, in earnest.

Scott Karp’s opinion is that print publishing is on its way to die. I think it *will* suffer in an unimaginable huge-train-wreck-in-front-of-millions kind of way for their investors, but it won’t die completely. Much like other media forms, particularly radio, print publishing will be forced to evolve … except faster than anyone has the stomach for (particularly investors, ironically). And like radio, “print-only” plays will find a niche. Really small niches, but niches all the same to survive.

• Think tabloids and supermarket counters.
• Think free throw-away newspapers in the subway and transit.
• And think glossy magazines at your local bookstore.

To really survive, print publishing has to embrace the concept of being “a-media” … that is embracing all kinds of media at once. They have to evolve out of the medium that it was born into, and grow into every other kind of medium that will take it, if its worth growing into (and selling adspace on). Think about this. When your local radio station puts up a website, its just gotten into print (online print, sure). When your television stations puts up a website and publishes podcasts, they’ve just done “radio”. And when print media starts publishing videos, they’ve done “tv”.

It’ll be interesting to see how the year plays out — but, I’ll take Colin’s sentiments on this one. I think print’s change will be faster than anyone expected. It might not be “dying”, but for some, it’ll be just as painful.

[SMUG ALERT] If my rant sounded familiar, its because in my “2007 predictions” the ruthless evolution of traditional (and print) media was predicted in number three[/SMUG ALERT]

So, the idea of widgets gets pimped in a big way over at the New York Times today. For the lay person they describe how widgets can pimpify your blog, and yes, shocking, how some widgets might go from free to some sort of pay-per-something model.

Can someone explain what the big deal is?

With all due respect to the pimpalicious treatment Om Malik gives widgets, I just don’t see why they get the amount of publicity they do. Sure, they extend and add functionality to a blog. But you know what? With one single exception there is a widget that I find useful when I go and visit a blog as a reader, and furthermore, as a blog owner.

Quite frankly, I think that all of the pub that widgets have gotten and continue to get (2007 the year of the widget? Playa, please!) distract from bloggers creating great blog content in the first place. The emphasis on bling detracts from bloggers focusing on what matters most: creating fresh, interesting, passionate content which is the REAL reason why people come to read any blog.

All of this is compounded by the notion that a significant portion blog readers read their blogs exlusively through RSS feeds anyway. Yes, that means that they can’t see your widgets!

Blogs have the reputation as being the providence of self indulgent teenagers and navel-gazing introverts. Some of that is warranted. But we all know that the reality is much different, and for some of us evangelists (and funnily enough, I do consider myself a ‘blogging evangelist’) it can be an industry and game changing reality.

Any time the mainstream media focuses on the trivialities and frivolities of blogging gives one more piece of ammunition to the public consciousness that yes — that’s what blogging is all about. The flash, pizzazz, bling and bluster. And that’s a disservice to every blogger out there who busts his hump creating something that is worthy of their readers time.

* the only widget I’ve found useful is the MyBlogLog “recent readers’ widget
** yes, I’m aware of the meebo and other IM ones … but I’ve found they’re pretty much useless as any time *I’m* looking for a blog author, they’re always offline. An email will suffice in that circumstance, thanks very much.
*** no, I don’t consider Wordpress plugins “widgets”
**** no, I don’t find Sphere-it useful

So, there’s been a lot of gnashing of teeth over what the iPhone does and doesn’t do. It “does” look awesomely cool. It doesn’t look awesomely functional. It does look awesomely cool (hey, I think it deserves to be said twice). It doesn’t look like it’ll support third party applications. And much more.

My take on this, as a non Mac observer (and someone thoroughly unqualified to blog about it — but that’s the beauty of blogging), is that what it doesn’t do really doesn’t matter. In fact, the iPhone could rough you up in a dark alley, hit you with a bag of brass doorknobs, and, for many, they’d beg for more. The iPhone is a clear example that style trumps function. And what an unimaginable juggernaut of ferverent hype is created when you couple a powerhouse brand like Apple to a product which screams cool.

After all, is anyone REALLY surprised that the iPhone is only going to be carried by a single carrier? Or, that it is as locked down on DRM issues as anything else Apple? Or, that there won’t be any third party applications? And is there going to be any doubt that the iPhone is going to add hundreds of millions of dollars to Apple’s bottom line?

Come on.

I think the better question is this: if style and a sense of uber cool is the x-factor which is going to line Job’s pockets for years to come, why haven’t other companies created any similar products? I don’t have the answer to this, but I suppose they will try (including all of the Taiwanes companies that are furiously trying to copy it as we speak) … but here’s a follow up question: even if any one company *did* … would they enjoy the same levels of success as Apple? And the answer to that, I suspect, is “probably not”.

And that’s because Apple has enjoyed a rebuilt brand story that any company would envy. Its sense of self as the iconoclastic stylishly hipster brand is worth more than any new tech gadget, but that’s only because Steve Jobs has deftly guided Apple from tech gadget to another guided by that vision.

So, sure — let us all gnash our teeth collectively over what the iPhone doesn’t have … but secretly start saving our pennies for the day that it does get released (or in Canada, loonies). Because in this day and age that we’re defined by the brands we wear and use, even amongst the anti-hipster elite, Apple has become a giant in its own right, with the strength of its brand giving it monetary immunity to all the shortcomings its latest gadget doesn’t have.

*photo courtesy of “lasoda” at the stock exchange

So, I haven’t been invited to the Venice Project Beta for an exclusive “first look”, but if you want to know what’s going on, look no further. Some of your favourite blogs covered the details today so that you can get a breakdown of what’s going on with the software. Now while I KNOW that the emphasis is on the software with the unveiling of the beta (userfriendly, fast, skye-like, community features, makes you breakfast and so on), surely there’s one fact we can’t all forget.

Its about the Content, Stupid.

At the end of the day, the features that the Venice Project are rolling out are incredibly marginal compared to the importance of great content.

People are willing to put up with a whole lot of inconveniences to get a hold of something watchable. Dead links. Slow loading stuff. Low resolution video. Horrible UI. System-resource hogging software. And for some, they knowingly risk potential litigation.

I know what you’re thinking — “But, Tony — that represents a huge opportunity!” And to that I would say, “but only a marginal one if, all things being equal, the content is still non-existent”. Early adopters will continue to put up with an enormous amount of crap to get what they want — and will continue to do so as long as the content is there.

Let’s hear a little more about their content partners before we all get hyped up about the features. After all, without great content, the rest is just details.

Little, un-monetizable, details.

[Of course I'm not calling anyone "stupid", per se -- the title and content is a play on the infamous line by Bill Clinton who said, "its the economy, stupid" as one of his signature lines during the 1992 Presidential Election]

Dave Sifry once again reports on the state of the blogosphere today. Lots of interesting data, but here is the summary:

Of course, what’s fascinating is the data about A-list bloggers, or bloggers have a high rank and “high authority”. According to the Technorati data, one of the things which differentiate them is their posting frequency. They post, on average, almost “twice a day”.

This information is interesting for those keeping an eye on A-listers, or those who want to be A-listers.

So, is the secret to being an A-lister post frequency?

Should we all start pusing towards multiple posts per day — or at least once a day?

I think the answer is a little more complicated than that.

Clearly if you post only once or twice a week, I think you’ll get a dramatic increase in your rankings, exposure and traffic if you start posting more frequently. And I think this will be primarily driven through Google or search engine traffic as you’ll probably show up more in the SERPs — as my understanding is they like fresh and frequently updated content.

However, linking strategy also has to do with it. I don’t know if there is any data on this — but, if you’re posts were to start linking other blogs out there to increase your own visibility within a community of bloggers, they would get to know you, and hopefully start linking back to you.

Chris Pearson also has a good point. Above and beyond increasing your post frequency, changing blogging platforms and optimizing your theme for SEO has important implications for Google traffic — and probably increasing the frequency of links.

For the other end of the spectrum, post frequency also, I think is only part of the story.

(more…)

Thanks to BL Ochman on this one.

WOMMA, the Word of Mouth Marketing Association, has finally taken some action on Edelman’s PR disaster/ fiasco / fiesta almost a MONTH after it happened.

Although you have publicly re-committed to WOMMA’s Ethics Code and have outlined a series of action steps going forward, the WOMMA Board of Directors believes it is necessary to put your membership under a 90-day review.

We ask that you take the following corrective actions, some of which already appear to be in progress:

1. Provide assurances that all inappropriate programs have been stopped.
2. Provide a briefing to the WOMMA Executive Committee to fully explain the details of the incident.
3. Implement a training program to educate all employees on ethical practices and disclosure requirements.
4. Institute systems to prevent violations from happening in the future, and to correct them if they do.
5. Formally participate in upcoming WOMMA ethics programs and comply with all new ethics requirements for members.
6. Please provide detailed documentation of your compliance with the above requests.

Although Richard Edelman made some internal promises that stuff was happening behind the scenes to make sure none of this happens again — as I mentioned somewhere else in the blog-ether, internal accountability is one thing — but without any external accountability there are no assurances that anything is really happening to any effect.

And as this occurs right on the heels of a Mr. Edelman going on record that it was inexperienced executives that were to blame — although he was magnanimously going to take responsibility for the whole affair — I’ve got to agree with BL Ochman on this one.

Why did it take so long for you to arrive at this judgement?

(more…)