Facebook Cracking Down On Paid Content
- Posted by Danny Brown in MAKE MONEY ONLINE, WEBSITE SEO |
- 0 Comments
Have you signed up for Sponsored Tweets on Twitter? Or Magpie? Or TweetROI? Do you offer sponsored posts and paid reviews on your blog? If so, you might have to re-think how you share this information, thanks to a Terms of Service update from Facebook.
Why does a Facebook update affect you if you’re on Twitter, or writing on your blog? Think of your Status Update box. Many users of both Facebook and Twitter have their accounts synced, so when you post on Twitter it goes to your status box (or main feed). The same for blog posts – a lot of bloggers auto-update their Facebook status with their latest post.
Now, however, if that tweet or post includes an advertisement from the likes of Sponsored Tweets, or a paid review from a company like  IZEA and other paid blogging services, Facebook would be in their rights to see that as part of their “unauthorized commercial communications”. This could, in return, see your Facebook account closed or deleted.
Of course, the easy thing to do would be for IZEA and other companies to talk to Facebook. Or, for people to stop syncing accounts and blogs (Twitter updates is something a lot of “just Facebook users” have already complained about). The question is, will people want to change their current set-up?
What’s your take? Do you sync accounts? Will this make you change or will you keep posting regardless? Or should advertising companies be the ones taking the proactive approach to work to a solution?
Does Retweeting Praise For Yourself Mean You Have A Big Ego?
- Posted by Danny Brown in MAKE MONEY ONLINE, WEBSITE SEO |
- 0 Comments
Last night on Twitter, I saw a pretty high-profile user retweet a message he’d received from one of his connections. It was high praise about this person, and was retweeted verbatim with no changes to the text.
My initial reaction to that was to ask the following question to the Twittersphere:
The responses came in thick and fast and they opened up a great stream of conversation for the next hour at least, with aspects to all sides of the original question.
 David Spinks and  Alex Tan opened up a great conversation around the question which you can read more of here.
From my own point of view, when I asked the question I was of the mindset that it leaned more toward ego as opposed to pride (or excitement at receiving praise). Did you really need to retweet the praise – couldn’t you just say thanks to the person who offered the praise?
But is that view right? Is it any different from having a testimonial page on a website, or asking for references for your LinkedIn account? Does the public conversation aspect of Twitter make it less “respectable” to promote your praise than a static site?
Someone mentioned that it’s like being at a cocktail party – you wouldn’t suddenly announce how great you are. Or would you?
So… is it ego, or is it pride? Is it being genuinely pleased or just being a pimp? Would you retweet praise verbatim about you? Over to you – the mic is yours.
 
Mayoral Candidate Has Facebook Account Hacked
- Posted by Danny Brown in MAKE MONEY ONLINE, WEBSITE SEO |
- 0 Comments
Justin Michael is like many online users. He has a Twitter account and a Facebook account, as well as his own website.
He’s passionate about new technology and social media/networking and what it can do for you, personally and professionally.
Justin is also running for Mayor of Santa Barbara in the upcoming November 3 election. He’s using these social tools – Facebook especially – to help spread his political message, as well as his philanthropical one (Justin’s campaign message is “Humanitarian first, politician second”).
It seems a natural thing to do, when you see how much social media and online networks helped the  Obama presidential campaign.
And it would be – if Justin wasn’t the victim of a cyber criminal who has stolen his identity on Facebook. Not just the  fake account “fun” that Twitter suffers from – Justin’s legitimate Facebook account has been closed due to the actions of the cyber criminal.
Here are just some of the events so far:
- Justin’s original Facebook profile cloned.
- Account starts sending weird spam to friends and supporters.
- Account starts to get flagged by cyber criminal so people believe real Justin is impostor.
- Legitimate Facebook account deleted.
- Spam attacks start on Justin’s Facebook political page.
- Calls Facebook Palo Alto office and is advised to speak to cyber crimes division.
- Files police report.
Justin’s tried talking to the person behind these attacks. The responses from the fake Justin Michael account show that the hacker isn’t too bothered about the legal ramifications. He’ll simply keep changing IP addresses each time the one he’s using is tracked.
The reasons behind the attacks aren’t clear. Justin suspects who the cyber criminal is. Maybe it’s politically charged? In one of the message exchanges on Facebook, Justin is advised that if he removes his Internet presence (MySpace, Twitter, Facebook) and reverts to traditional campaigning, his harasser will remove the fake accounts.
Whatever the reasoning, it’s another sad example of how vulnerable our identities are on social networks. It’s too easy to set up an account and impersonate a person or business. All that’s needed is a basic email account and some knowledge of the person or brand involved.
Sure, there are ways that you can protect yourself – brand monitoring, alerts and observant friends and colleagues being just some of the methods. But these will only alert you after the event. By then, the damage can be irreparable.
What about the social networks in question? Can they be more stringent in their account activation process? Possibly. But how do you know the initial account isn’t fake to begin with? And that you’re subsequently blocking the real person or brand from coming on to your network to try and limit damage control?
Sadly, there doesn’t seem to be any immediate and easy answers. For social networks. For cyber crime. For people like Justin Michael. For you, for me.
Social networking is the ultimate connection platform. The question is, are people connecting with you or someone else?
Mashable and TechCrunch Get Their Own Twitter Apps
- Posted by Danny Brown in MAKE MONEY ONLINE, WEBSITE SEO |
- 0 Comments
While I don’t use third-party Twitter app Tweetdeck myself (I switched to Seesmic Desktop a while back), I noticed today that both Mashable and TechCrunch now have their own branded versions.
It’s basically the same Tweetdeck application but now you can have a dedicated pre-set column for the latest news from both websites, as well as a shiny Mashable or TechCrunch logo on your Tweetdeck skin.
But are they worth changing to?
Personally, I can’t see the major benefit at this time. Yes, it’s great that now both Mashable and TechCrunch have their logo on Tweetdeck’s interface. But will that really expand their brand?
I’m guessing that most users who already have Tweetdeck installed know about both websites. And you can always just set up your own preset column in the standard Tweetdeck to watch the Mashable and TechCrunch feeds.
What about new users? Mashable promotes their version by saying it’s great for new Twitter users to “get up to speed”. I’m not so sure – new Twitter users might be better getting used to Twitter itself first before trying to control a multi-column app.
Comments on both websites are mixed – some think it’s great while others think it’s a waste of time.
I have to say that I’m with the second camp at the minute. It’s always interesting to see brands experiment with ways to get their name into people’s collective. I’m just not sure this is it.
And with some Tweetdeck users still complaining about performance issues (the new iPhone app crashing, memory hog, etc), wouldn’t it be better for Tweetdeck to concentrate on that first?
What about you? What’s your take on Mashable and TechCrunch’s new Tweetdeck app?
Would it make you question their bias when discussing third-party Twitter apps? How can they make real use of it down the line? Will you be downloading one of them?
The Limitations of #Journchat
- Posted by Danny Brown in MAKE MONEY ONLINE, WEBSITE SEO |
- 0 Comments
Back in November last year, #Journchat was launched by PR mavenSarah Evans.
Its aim was simple - use Twitter to bring journalists, PR professionals and bloggers together on Twitter in a weekly chat format.
Since then, #Journchat has gone from strength to strength and brought in special guests from CNN as well as regularly topped the Twitter trends every Monday night.
Lately, however, it seems to have lost its way and some of its sparkle. That’s not to say that #Journchat doesn’t offer any value - it does, and an incredible amount at that. And it’s done a great job of bringing together industries that otherwise tend to just criticize each other.
But maybe #Journchat is a victim of its own success?
Too Much, Too Little?
The way that #Journchat works is simple, yet it can also be frustrating. Because it uses Twitter as the chat medium, each question and answer needs to be within the 140 character limit of Twitter.
This is good for keeping answers short and punchy, but it’s also frustrating when an answer needs so much more and you have to go to multiple messages. By the time a longer answer is out, often it’s the next question. So in that respect, Twitter as a format isn’t ideal.
Bigger Isn’t Always Better
#Journchat runs for three hours officially, every Monday night from 7.00pm until 10.00pm CST. The length normally means that around eight questions are asked, with about 20 minutes allocated to each topic. Then there’s a wrap up and pitch session to close the discussion. You can continue to discuss topics but it’s not part of the moderated session.
Is three hours too long, though? Are there too many topics being discussed that it’s easy to become lost?
Some people can be on Q6. while others can still be chatting about Q3. This then leads to potential confusion throughout the #Journchat stream as three or four topics are being discussed at once. Which can then lead to missed questions and answers.
Invisible People
One thing that #Journchat is immensely successful at is encouraging probing questions and discussions on topics that are often avoided.
The introduction of special guests has also helped get an insider look at larger corporations like CNN, with questions being asked about inner workings and how the various forms of media are co-existing.
Yet too often, important questions based on a previous answer are being missed. Guest speakers are (obviously) being inundated with questions that they may have already answered, therefore missing the really juicy ones that everyone wants to hear a view on. Which is a shame.
Where Next for #Journchat?
As I said at the beginning, I’m a huge fan of #Journchat and what Sarah Evans is both currently achieving, and also trying to achieve. I just think the current format is stifling and maybe taking away some of its sparkle.
Perhaps the very format that made it successful is now holding #Journchat back? 140 characters on Twitter is great for little info bursts but for an in-depth discussion panel it obviously has limitations.
How about swapping to something like the new Wordpress template P2? It’s similar to the Twitter stream but with two key differences - no character limit and threaded replies. This makes it far more effective to keep up with conversations.
Additionally, how about changing the format a little? It’s great that so many people want to be involved in #Journchat but perhaps it’s time to scale it back?
Have a registration where 100 people across the three mediums - journalism, blogging and PR - are the “live chatters” each week, with questions being provided by everyone else. You keep mixing up the 100 people so everyone that registers is involved in the debate at some point, and there’s less on-screen confusion.
Or, go to UStream TV and have a live feed from there with special guest, and have a similar approach to the debate. Questions can be asked in the chat room and the most relevant or topical can be asked.
These are just some ideas. I’m sure there are countless others.
I love #Journchat. I love the reason for its inception and I support what Sarah’s trying to do 100%. I just feel there could be a more effective way of hosting it.
Then again, maybe it is perfectly fine as it is. After all, it’s been going strong for more than six months now, so that must say something.
How about you? Do you participate in #Journchat? What’s your take - is it good as is or does it need freshened up a little? I’d love to hear your suggestions.
Virtual Stalking Ruins The Fun Of Social Media
- Posted by Danny Brown in MAKE MONEY ONLINE, WEBSITE SEO |
- 0 Comments
 
Social media is great. Social media brings people together. Social media opens the conversation. Social media puts you in the eyes of the world. Social media gives you a voice.
All true. All valid. All beneficial.
But what happens when the eyes that social media puts you in front of aren’t the friendly kind? What happens when being transparent in social media opens you up to harassment, abuse and virtual stalking?
Sadly it’s a very real problem. Even sadder, some of the social networks seem very slow to react to this problem. Does this mean they’re not taking it seriously, and if so, will virtual stalking be the straw that potentially breaks the social media camel’s back?
Online Friend? Case Study
People are friendly by nature. We want to connect and meet others - it’s in our genetic make-up. The last few years have made this easier than ever.
Sites like Facebook, Twitter, Ning, MySpace, Friendfeed and more open up the world to us. Our blogs are our own private community in a public setting. Online forums and chat rooms mean there’s no such thing as physical walls or barriers.
Which makes targeting someone easier.
Karen* is a blogger who owns her own business and also runs a Moms community online. It allows other bloggers to take part in community discussions, write, sell and buy products and generally acts just as an offline community would.
Last year, she invited a new girl to join the community. For Karen, this is what happened next:
- Her business was reported as unethical and fraudulent on Ripoff Report
- The girl set up fake social network accounts to spread lies about Karen’s business
- Karen is followed on every network and forum by the girl, who publishes false information on Karen and her business
These are just some of the ways Karen has been targeted.
Why doesn’t she have the lies taken down from Ripoff Report or contact the police? Unfortunately, the owner of Ripoff Report Ed Magedson seems more interested in traffic to his site than actual facts being reported.
I’ve written about why Ripoff Report is just as big a ripoff before, and the fact that the site won’t take down old reports says it all about their integrity.
As far as Karen reporting her stalker to the police, she’s more afraid for her little girl’s safety as well as the continued anguish cross-state law cases would cause. The cost is prohibitive as well.
Karen isn’t the only example. On Twitter, I’ve seen first-hand examples of guys throwing sexual abuse at female users, with graphic descriptions of what they’d like to do to the user. I’ve seen other users bombard accounts with profanity, racial slurs and more.
I know that these cases have been reported to Twitter’s support team and nothing’s been done about the abuser, who instead continues to add new people to their account to abuse further. This says a lot about the customer service support that sites like Twitter has. Or doesn’t, as is abundantly clear.
We’ve also read the stories about suicides from MySpace bullying andFacebook groups spreading malicious and hurtful lies.
So what’s the answer? Some people have suggested that the very transparency that is advocated on social media is part of the problem. By offering too much information, we’re feeding the abusers and the harassers and the stalkers.
Is this true? Can our openness be used as an excuse for virtual abuse? Personally I don’t buy into that argument. I can see why it’s suggested but no excuse can make up for the type of mental anguish people are put through for being honest.
I don’t have the solution. But there are questions that can be asked to work toward a solution.
Do we make it more difficult than just signing up with a false email account? Should social networks be more pro-active at responding to reports of abuse? Can we as a community highlight and name and shame abusers?
Websites like Jodi’s Law help raise awareness but they’re currently the few among the many abusers.
Like I said, I don’t have the solution. It’s clear that one is needed though, before the likes of Karen and others like her become another real-life statistic from a virtual hate campaign.
Ideas?
* Karen is a pseudonym to protect the real identity of the person behind her. Her stalker has admitted to Karen that it’s jealousy behind her hate campaign. It’s still continuing today.
Why Social Media Needs The FTC
- Posted by Danny Brown in MAKE MONEY ONLINE, WEBSITE SEO |
- 0 Comments
While some people might think that Ashton and Oprah on Twitter is the only news, the real social media story happening at the minute involves the FTC (the Federal Trade Commission).
Their announcement that they want to regulate social media advertising has been met pretty negatively by many in the social media field, particularly bloggers and advertisers. The feeling is bloggers will refuse to publish content that could see them being sued for false advertising, meaning a reduced social media-led advertising spend.
Now, call me naive, but personally I don’t see the FTC’s announcement being a problem. If you’re honest.
The Good, The Bad and the Sponsored
Think about the current discussions taking place about sponsored posts and the ethics behind them. The main argument against sponsored blog posts is that the blogger immediately loses credibility, since you can’t possibly be unbiased if you’re being paid for something.
While there’s some merit to this, I actually do believe you can remain both ethical and unbiased. Of course, it all boils down to the individual, but it can be done.
However, introduce the FTC into the equation, and it immediately lends authority and credence to both the blogger and the advertiser using them to promote their products. Immediate benefits include:
- Blogger and advertiser has to adhere to FTC standards
- Blog readers can read a product review and know it’s honest
- Builds trust between blogger and reader
On a long-term basis, the professional blogging industry gains more respect, advertisers see that social media is a field to take seriously, and consumers get the best of both worlds.
Yet still there are the complaints that it’s a bad move for social media.
Against the FTC
One critic is Richard O’Brien, vice-president of the American Association of Advertising Agencies (4A’s). He claims, “Bloggers and other viral marketers will be discouraged from publishing content for fear of being held liable for any potentially misleading claim.”
Meanwhile, Nathania Johnson of SearchEngineWatch.com states, “The FTC should go back to elementary school. That’s when kids learn that opinions are not true or false - only facts are. They even have homework assignments about it.”
Let’s take both arguments at face value.
With regards Richard’s claim, surely the only people that will be discouraged by the new regulations will be the ones that were skirting around false advertising anyway?
Wouldn’t a claim only be misleading if any of the facts are distorted? Which would be the fault of both the blogger and the company using them.
Looking at Nathania’s position, it’s not opinion that’s being questioned - it’s false advertising. They’re two completely different things. Nathania herself points this out further in her piece (and, in a way, contradicts her opposition) when she asks, “When you see a celebrity endorse a consumer brand in traditional advertising, does anyone really believe that celebrity uses the brand?”
No. Most people don’t believe that the celebrity uses that product.
Because it is quite clearly a paid advertisement.
The difference with sponsored or paid blog posts is that it’s not always apparent that this is the case. While the blogger should disclose, not every one does. And this is where the false advertising argument comes into play.
Food for Thought
If I read someone and they say I should eat at Joe Average Burger Joint rather than Wendy’s or McDonald’s because they use healthier ingredients, and I then find out it’s not the case, I’m going to be angry. I’ve been lied to.
If I then find out that the blogger who reviewed and recommended Joe Average Burger Joint has never been there in their life, but instead was paid to write a positive review on their food blog because that’s Joe Average’s core audience… This is no longer opinion - this is paid advertising, and false advertising at that.
If anything, if social media is seen as being regulated properly it may actually encourage more businesses to become involved, knowing that the competition is fair.
The very fact that the FTC wants to step in and stop this kind of unethical and questionable consumer manipulation can only be a good thing. At least for the majority of those affected.
Otherwise, doesn’t it just raise the question of what are you hiding?
Twitter Used For Social Media Fundraising?
- Posted by Danny Brown in MAKE MONEY ONLINE, WEBSITE SEO |
- 0 Comments
As some of you may know, I was recently involved in a tagline competition for The Printed Blog.
The prize for the winner was a Nintendo Wii. Despite being way behind after missing a day’s worth of voting, I ended up winning the contest, with over 51% of votes.
My sincere thanks to everyone who voted for me, from Twitter, Facebook and a few emails that were sent out. When the Wii arrives, I’ll be taking it down to the kids at the Sick Children’s Hospital in Toronto. They need it far more than I do.
One thing this showed was that social media continues to be an amazing way to raise awareness about good causes, as well as foster support for them. Twitter in particular is beginning to shine as a cause marketing platform. Think about Tweetsgiving, Twestival and the 12for12k Challenge to name just a few. All great causes, all originated and supported via Twitter.
Which made me think.
Twitter’s main issue at the moment seems to be long-term monetization and financial security. They have just received a cash injection, but that won’t really sustain the platform in its journey to mainstream acceptance and profitability. What it needs is a long-term plan to achieve stability.
So how about this?
Twitter stays as it is - a great communication tool for personal and business use - but it becomes a standard for social media fundraising? Its ability to offer instant action and reaction is perfect for fundraising. And we’re already seeing success on it.
The founders of Twitter could speak to Bill Gates about his Foundation and see if they could receive annual funding towards their charity work. Businesses could also sponsor Twitter for its cause marketing work. And all the fractured causes on Twitter at the minute could fall under one umbrella, benefiting from increased support and promotion.
Obviously it’s just the most basic of ideas at the minute and it would need some serious think tanks to bring to fruition.
But isn’t it something worth thinking about?
 
Evil Twitter Clones
- Posted by Danny Brown in MAKE MONEY ONLINE, WEBSITE SEO |
- 0 Comments
Perhaps it’s a sign that the site is reaching more mainstream popularity levels, but Twitter is fast becoming a haven for spammers. Accounts include semi-naked girls with just one link to an affiliate site to brands that use the service for nothing more sending direct messages to other users with a sales link.
MySpace Parent Company Laying Off 100 Jobs
- Posted by Danny Brown in MAKE MONEY ONLINE, WEBSITE SEO |
- 0 Comments
In a move that won’t surprise as many people as it would have this time last year, Fox Interactive Media has announced it will be cutting its workforce by as many as 100 jobs. Fox is the parent company of social network site MySpace as well as Photobucket and various mobile sites.
