blog

Most of us think of Twitter as a kind of silly application that lets people say things like “John Brian is preparing for the robot uprising” or “Brad thinks the refs blew it in the Caps/Flyers game 7.” It’s chief purpose, so far, is entertainment, with a dash of TMI thrown in.

But lately, I’ve been wondering.

A couple months ago, at South by Southwest, an interview with Mark Zuckerberg famously went awry when the Twitter-feuled audience first started heckling the interviewer, then eventually took over the microphones. (If you are interested, check out this particularly thoughtful account of the event, which includes an amazing video of the interview with a twitter overlay).

A couple of weeks ago, I was at a different conference (the IA Summit) where Twitter was again used by the crowd, but this time in a far more sanguine way, to share information amongst the audience and make insightful comments about the presentations. It probably helped that the audience and the speakers actually knew each other, even if only passingly in some cases.

I got enough value from following the Summit’s twitter feed that I left thinking, could this actually be of value in a corporate setting?

After all, I’ve been to plenty of all-staff meetings, or large team meetings, where people are already bringing their laptops. The larger and longer the meeting, the more likely people are trying to at least keep an eye on their email. So, the technology is already in place in many offices to try adopting a twitter feed. And what is the value of twitter here?

A second, quiet, channel of information.

The bigger the room, the less anyone wants to interrupt the presenter’s flow to ask a question. The more likely the group is to simply go with the flow. If information they need isn’t provided, they might (if they are lucky) get a chance to ask a question afterwards, or they have to spend extra time cornering the presenter. Having a quiet alternate channel of communication is incredibly helpful. In particular, here are a few of the things that you might use twitter for:

1. Request a resource: “Can someone tell me where to find the .pdf that Michael is talking about?
2. Expand on the content: “In addition to the companies listed, Arlene and I have started talking to Widget Co about this”
3. Gauge interest: “I was hoping to hear more about the bonus program. Anyone else?”
4. Brief side conversations: “Alan, should we be using this tool for Project Z? Looks like it might be helpful.”

In this way, having a second, quiet channel of information might increase the usefulness of a large meeting, or even help positively shape the direction of conversation without grinding things to a halt.

What do you think?

One of the great challenges of being an IA is that it’s not nearly as much fun as design. It is for me, of course, but not for most clients. Even clients who understand the value of the work we do prior to design are prone to the dazzle factor once the comps show up. Conversation inevitably turns towards “can we make it blue? What if we move that over there?” To the chagrin of any number of designers, the design process invites participation and often falls to matters of (the client’s) taste.

As an IA, though, we need to pull the client away from judging and manipulating a design on the basis of ‘prettiness’ (although that is certainly a valid component of a design’s success) and reintroduce the purpose: can the user identify the purpose and mission of the site, find what they need easily, and do what you/they need?

There’s a magic bullet for this, two little words that pull the client out of their design reverie and back into the world of design for function: Visual Heirarchy.

I don’t know why (no, really, I don’t). But for whatever reason, this phrase has amazing resonance. Incredibly easy to understand, it immediately puts the client back into the mindset of identifying what is important about their website, and deciding whether this is well represented. Once they are anchored back to this way of thinking, the rest becomes smooth sailing – the changes afterwards stop being about what the design is, and start accounting for what the design does.

The New York Times has inspired me to coin a new motto:

What Would You Do Offline?

Not though an editorial, a news story, or a blog post, rather they inspired this with their homepage ad usage.

While it’s not present today, earlier this week, and at various times past, their homepage was adorned with a gigantic "Mac vs PC" ad that used both a banner and a skyscraper in tandem. While various people have opined on the ad content, including a much-dugg story on Gizmodo indicating that those weren’t really reviews to several posts praising the creativity of the ads to a post indicating that the ads tend to crash some browsers, I haven’t seen any commentary on with regard to the Times and other publications that ran the ad.

In short, I was amazed that the Times was willing to give up so significant a percentage of their above the fold homepage for this ad - would they really do the same with their offline edition?

I explore this phenomenon, and how it applies to NPOs, below the fold.

(more…)

I logged into Facebook this morning to see an update that they’d revised their privacy policies. The revisions allow people to set different levels of privacy for different friend groups, as well as set what friends of friends can see. I see this as a direct challenge to LinkedIn for dominance in the business networking sphere.

This is a change that’s been brewing for a while. Late last year, they added friend lists, which let you categorize your friends in whatever taxonomies you wanted (how you know them, where they live, frequently referenced friends, etc). This was helpful when you needed to find a particular friend, but not for much else.

Now, by linking privacy controls to these friend lists, it allows people to friend folks on Facebook that you normally wouldn’t, knowing that you can use privacy controls to connect them to your contact information, but not your photos from New Year’s. It also allows you to be less restrained in your posting of content, as long as you’re careful to sort your friends correctly (and I predict that in about a week we’ll start to see stories about people who accidentally dropped their boss into the "college friends" category and the ensuing results).

The big implication that I see here is that Facebook wants to be the site for business networking. Already, many younger and more web-savvy people I meet offer to connect with Facebook, though LinkedIn remains the tool of choice for business, in part because of its blandness.

I’m betting that Facebook will see success in this endeavor - they already have 68 million users, and if just one percent add one new user per month using Facebook as their business network tool, they’ll grow the network by more than eight million users in a year (not taking into account the new users bringing in people, or other growth). This doesn’t even take into account the value of the data and connections from additional networking; Facebook’s real business has always been data, and the more people link to each other, the more Facebook is able to put together a complete personal profile for advertisers.

Editor’s note: Each week, we do a survey of Beaconfire staff to get impressions on a variety of non-profit technology issues. All opinions expressed here are solely those of their authors. This week we asked: Should non-profit organizations market to minors?

Milo, Marketing Consultant: Cause marketing for youth is totally appropriate, especially when it’s geared toward youth engagement.  Most people would agree that membership-based nonprofits that offer teens and pre-teens the opportunity to be engaged in volunteer leadership structures (committees, working groups, board youth liaisons, etc.) provide great opportunities for kids to learn about community, leadership and civic engagement.

Cara, Project Manager: Personally, for younger kids, I think it would be great if NPO’s made more materials available for parents that they could use to engage their children and help get them interested and aware – especially living where we do, we struggle with how to make the girls understand that there is a big world out there.  I would love for organizations to provide kits/programs, created with children in mind, that we could access and work through as a family.    Some do this for educators but, frankly, I don’t have the time to take something created for a classroom and whittle it down to something that can still be used at home.  Make it easy for me (I mean really easy) and there is a very good chance I’ll use the materials to focus my kids on your key issues and, thus, introduce them to your organization at an early age.

Michael, Principal Consultant: I believe nonprofits have a responsibility to market to minors… but not “in your face” Cheetos & Coke selling strategies. Rather, they need to approach this market with the express intent of educating the next generation about the relevance of their issues to their lives & give them opportunities to step forward to share, network, volunteer, fundraise or give if they want to. Minors – read teens / pre-teens – can be active advocates for a cause. They can be influencers of peers and parents both in how they think and how they act. But, organizations shouldn’t pander to or treat this group in loco parenti. Rather, engage them on their terms – which is letting them dialogue, share, identify and be active as they want to be. In my opinion, no organization has done this better online that PETA.

Andrew, Project Manager: I am not sure that I agree with Michael, especially the statement that “Minors – read teens / pre-teens – can be active advocates for a cause. They can be influencers of peers and parents both in how they think and how they act.”

As an adult, a parent should (this obviously is not always the case) have a broader perspective on the world, more education, experience, wisdom, etc. than their children. For the most part, it is the parents’ role to guide their children, not the other way around. Now, I do not mean to imply that adults cannot learn from children. What I am saying is that non-profits are mission driven with nuanced objectives and approaches that may be lost on a minor.

I agree with the conceptual missions of a myriad of non-profits, but I do not support all of them due to concerns about specific policies, stances, politics, actions, marketing tactics, etc. Minors are more likely to overlook the cold realities and become enamored with the conceptual aspects only. Do we really want a non-profit, regardless of the altruism of their mission, to introduce our kids to the next Joe Camel?

Mark, Functional Consultant: Absolutely. I would think that most parents would agree that building a sense of charity from an early age is an important activity. NPO’s marketing themselves and their campaigns to minors work towards that purpose, and as long as any direct interactions involved parental consent for kids under 13 (per Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and any similar legislation that governs offline interaction) I don’t see an issue.

Corporate and much less wholesome organizations already reach kids so effectively through mass media - think Joe Camel and Tony the Tiger. Any parent I’m sure would rather their kids get excited about something like Conservation International’s Stephanie Colburtle the Leatherback Turtle over Ronald McDonald any day.

There are already great models to follow, like UNICEF’s Trick or Treat for UNICEF campaign, where kids are marketed special collection boxes for Halloween, engage in fundraising, learn the importance of charity and have fun doing it. I’ve also heard stories of  kids having their parents help them use online tools like Heifer’s gift registry to ask for friends coming to their birthday party to buy an animal from the catalog (donation to Heifer), rather than bring a toy or other gift. That’s powerful but not surprising that kids can grasp the importance of giving to someone else and enjoy the experience, over yet another toy.

Marissa, Functional Consultant: For educational purposes, I think it is okay to market to minors (Smokey the Bear, anyone). But I’d feel uncomfortable marketing to minors for fundraising purposes. There’s something that does not feel right about convincing children to ask mommy and daddy for money. Non-profits raise money to accomplish their mission, and shouldn’t necessarily get embroiled in the same tactics as corporations, where making money is the mission. That’s not to say that non-profits can’t take a few cues from Madison Avenue. They just don’t need to be like Toys R Us.

Kate, Administrative Assistant: I think it’s very important that non-profits market to minors. While I don’t think it’s appropriate to seek donations from them, there are so many other ways they can become involved. There’s certainly nothing wrong with encouraging a youngster to save the gorillas, see a play, mind their cholesterol, and end hunger. With all of the marketing geared towards turning minors into good consumers, there ought to be as hearty of a drive to encourage them to be good citizens. I say, pump the youth full of idealism! Maybe they’ll grow up to care about something.

John Brian, Marketing Consultant: I’d say it’s important to get your brand in front of young folks as early as possible. If non-profits cede the field, kids will grow up knowing all about Pepsi and Apple and nothing about protecting the environment or marriage equality. There are certainly some issues that might be touchy, like choice or the death penalty, but as long as organizations are concentrating on branding and issue education, cultivating young people early will make them more responsive to you and better citizens in general.

Of course, that’s not to say that you should market to them on the same channels you’re marketing to the rest of your list. Even my generation isn’t interested in direct mail, and I’ve read that even email seems too old-fashioned for today’s teens, who prefer SMS, social networks, and social bookmarks as their media of choice.

Jennifer, Project Manager: Seeing how for-profits market to minors at very tender ages through all variety of channels, from TV to grocery store shelves, why should nonprofits be any different?

Public sector and nonprofit organizations use cause marketing techniques to affect positive social change ranging from improved individual behaviors to winning hearts and minds. Nor is this the exclusive domain of nonprofits. The entertainment industry, often the torch bearer of trendy issues, is arguably better positioned to reach youth, a recent example being the animated movie Happy Feet that raises awareness about the topic of global warming. The worry is that when commercial interests drive an issue there is always the underlying motive to promote the company, sell its brand and ‘grow’ its customer base, from any age. A company may shift to a new issue du jour when the public tires of the current one, and even follow practices that are counter to its marketing messages, but it will work to retain its customer loyalty nevertheless. This is particularly troublesome with young children who lack the education, experience and mature capacities to reason and inform themselves about the issues and their messenger. One might argue that nonprofits should be held to a higher standard. That is, should their mission and their cause be above their brand and their institutional shelf life? I think it should – their mission is what makes them the special civic organizations that they are. They should ask hard questions about the goals of their marketing efforts: are they designed to increase funding and membership levels? Or are they truly focused on raising awareness and educating young people about their cause? The sector struggles with measuring the latter, but that shouldn’t deter organizations from being honest about their marketing. Otherwise, I as a parent will grow just as leery of nonprofits as I am of for-profit companies that market to my kids.

Many nonprofits work towards causes I support, and ones I hope my children will also champion one day. But there are some organizations that promote ideas that are completely opposite and counter to what I try to teach my kids, or have less than admirable practices. I prefer that a nonprofit’s outreach to youth focus on informing and educating them so that they can make up their own minds, both about the issue and the organization.

One Beaconfire project directed at younger folks will be going live in a couple months - APS’s Physics Central is dedicated to teaching young people (among others) about the importance of physics. We’re spearheading their redesign - look for it later this Spring. That’s all for this week - join us next week where we’ll hear about the Beaconfire staff’s favorite YouTube videos.

I’ve got friends who have a raccoon in their attic. They’ve been trying all sorts of stuff to get it out of there, but it’s being pretty stubborn and always seems to outwit (or at least be more patient than) them. The raccoon reminds me of domain name tasters - annoying critters who, no matter what you try to do to get rid of them (humanely, anyway), just won’t get out of the internet’s attic and stop chewing on our stuff.

Google and ICANN recently took measures that, combined, will hopefully put an end to (or at least a heavy price tag on) domain name tasting. This is good news in the face of the recent revelations that some domain registrars have been cheating the system (see my previous posts on domain name insider trading for more).

First, on the Google front:

Google is planning to introduce a system to detect a form of domain registration abuse known as domain kiting. In so doing, the company stands to lose millions in advertising revenue, though it may gain far more in user trust and goodwill. [h/t Ars Technica]

Let’s hear it for not being evil. The gist of the article is that Google plans to block adsense from serving ads on those domains that seem to exist solely to generate adword revenue. While there are still other ad providers who may not be as scrupulous, Google is the 800 lb gorilla of the sector, and losing this resource would cost domain kiters significantly.

If this wasn’t bad enough for virtual prospectors, ICANN is cracking down on the loophole allowing people to "return" a domain within 5 days with no charge:

Under the current rules, domain registrars have up to five days to sample domains before committing to purchase them, typically at a cost of around $6.25 per domain. An additional 20-cent surcharge per domain goes to ICANN, but the group has always refunded that fee if the registrar failed to purchase the domain within five days of claiming it.

Until now. The new policy would not refund the 20-cent fee.

While 20 cents may not be a lot to you or me when buying one domain at a time, according to the article, many tasters only keep 1 domain for every 100,000 they taste, adding $20,000 per domain to their costs.

Why are these moves great for those of us who just want to be able to buy domains for our campaigns and for the internet to be easily navigable? Follow me below the fold for some analysis…

(more…)

Remember when your email address, when given to a campaign or non-profit, was considered private? Even groups that engage in list swaps with their snail mail lists wouldn’t think of doing the same with their email - the most they might consider is sending an appeal pitching a colleague or ally, but the list remains firmly in their hands.

Unfortunately, one political campaign has gone a step worse than a swap: they’ve put your email address up for grabs by the repo man. According to an article in the politico:

When John McCain’s presidential campaign all but went broke, it borrowed money from its bank using its fundraising list as collateral.

Problem: McCain’s own privacy policy promises donors he won’t sell their information.

That seems to put the Republican senator’s campaign in a pickle; either it pledged to its bank proceeds from something it can’t sell, or it offered to violate its own promise to donors.[h/t: Daily Kos]

The McCain privacy policy is pretty clear here, and it’s not too different from what most organizations have:

We will not sell your personal information. John McCain 2008, will not sell your information to third parties or any commercial entities.

Will this make McCain an accessory to spam? I discuss what value these addresses could have, and why this kind of practice is extremely dangerous, below the fold…

(more…)

A few months back, I wrote a post linking to an AP story that suggested that some domain name registrars were using search queries to snatch up domain names that were about to be purchased. It seems that the suspicions discussed in the story were founded.

Earlier this evening, a story on Digg declared that Network Solutions was registering any domain name that was users searched for using their link to the WHOIS database. The comments provided copious examples of this practice, none of which are really appropriate to repeat here. I read the methodology described in the original linked post, and tried to duplicate it myself.

See how it turned out, and why you should be careful, after the jump…

(more…)

Microsoft’s $240 million purchase for a 1.6% equity stake in Facebook had everyone buzzing recently (read more). While that’s a lot of money to you and I, it’s probably a drop in the bucket for Microsoft and well worth keeping Google out of the picture (if you’re Microsoft anyway). Microsoft had already struck a deal with Facebook (in 2006) to sell display ads on Facebook. With the new deal, Microsoft has also won the rights to sell ads on international versions of Facebook through 2011. While the international advertising spend online isn’t as high as the US, it’s not insignificant either. Research firm eMarketer reports that advertisers plan to spend $900 million advertising on social-networking sites in the U.S., compared with $335 million overseas. So Microsoft also stands to gain some piece of that pie.

While the deal represents a nice infusion of capital to invest in technology and people, it’s a double-edge sword on the people side. The Wall Street Journal expects the deal to raise the valuation on Facebook stock options, which may make it more difficult to recruit new key talent. Given that Facebook wants to double their workforce in the next year, how much of a hurdle will this turn out to be?

Like everything, branding evolves. It’s generally an improvement, but it does mean some pretty big changes for the organization’s marketing. In ancient times (10 years ago), the website’s rebranding could largely be an afterthought to print materials.

But today, consider how many of your constituents view your website versus how many will see your business card. How many will get an email from or you, and how often, versus how many times they see your letterhead?

A lot of Beaconfire’s work is done concurrently with branding firms. Sometimes, we’re given a completed branding document, other times, we’re doing our work at the same time as the organization is being rebranded. In any case, there are some common issues we run often run into on branding guidelines that branding firms should be aware of:

(more…)