Getting into World of Warcraft for the first time means hours of grinding: performing the same tasks over and over to “level up” a character. But far from being boring, grinding is one of the great unsung joys of gaming.

Last week, I finally decided to start playing World of Warcraft again. And you know what that means: Exciting medieval adventures! Chess-like strategizing with guildmates over raid techniques!

And, of course, grinding.

Hours upon hours of mind-numbing grinding.

The article goes on to discuss the psychology behind grinding, and why despite this truly burdensome element, people continue to pay monthly subscriptions.  Without going into too much psychology, a subject of which I am a novice and an expert in my own mind, let me offer the simplest explanation for the acceptance of grinding.

Essentially, grinding offers users a way to kill time, blow off steam that might be building in real life ventures and simply beat stuff up.  From the very first video games until now, there always was and will be a repetitive idea that lives on in virtual worlds.   Think about simple, but popular video arcade games like Pac-man, Centipede, and Space Invaders.

Sure, the addiction element may not be anywhere near as sophisticated as that found in World of Warcraft or other MMORPGs, but designers today are paid to make addiction happen.  Without addiction, games become yesterday’s news and there is no way they’d last beyond a few months to a year on the replay value scale.

As for my gaming habits, I notice that some of the most fun I have gaming involves repetitive and violent bludgeoning of pixels that resemble an enemy.  In the real world, you might consider how hunters love stalking and destroying their prey.  In the virtual world, the feeling is very much the same with the only consequence being that the time I spend hunting or destroying monsters online is time I could have spent doing something more productive.

When the hockey star Sean Avery took an internship at Vogue earlier this summer, the work uniform that the fashion-besotted left wing chose included a shorts suit that showcased his athletic calves.

“Why go to work and be hot?” he asked last week, adding that there was no compelling business reason to look modest and dull on the job. “You can look good and not have that boring-type look,” said Mr. Avery, who signed with the Dallas Stars this summer after several seasons with the Rangers. “Why are women allowed to do it and not men?”

I write a lot about politics so I was a bit amused by the characterization of this style as being borne from “left-wing” thinking in the fashion industry.  Well, it definitely is NOT conservative.. but the style isn’t really “liberal” — it’s just uhh what is the word I’m looking for.

Ahh yes, DUMB.

Well, to each their own I guess. If you’re interested in flirting with getting fired at your top notch law or accounting firm, by all means give it a try. You can read more about this business fashion blunder and the reasoning behind the fashion statement, here.

On Wednesday, LinkedIn will announce that it has raised $53 million in capital, primarily from Bain Capital Ventures, a Boston-based private equity firm. The new financing round values the company at $1 billion. That heady valuation is more than the $580 million that the News Corporation paid for MySpace in 2005, but less than the $15 billion value assigned to Facebook last year when Microsoft bought a minority stake.

According to Science Now,

Many vaccines contain adjuvants, nonspecific agents that help jolt the immune system into action. “Alum,” a term referring broadly to aluminum hydroxide and several aluminum salts, has this effect, as was accidentally discovered in the 1920s. It has been widely used in human vaccines since the 1950s, and it’s still the only adjuvant allowed in the United States. “But we didn’t really have a clue about how it worked,” says immunologist Harm HogenEsch of Purdue University’s School of Veterinary Medicine in West Lafayette, Indiana.

I generally like to know why certain forms of treatment are needed whenever I turn to medical professionals for help.  I guess as long as we ‘know’ it isn’t dangerous, some people are more willing to stick anything in their bodies!

The KC-767 has a superior survivability rating and will have greater operational utility to the joint commander and provide better protection to aircrews that must face real-world threats,” said former U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff and retired Gen. Ronald Fogleman, in a Boeing statement.

Cryptome reports that the US National Security Agency (NSA) has remote administrative access to several of the most popular Windows PC firewalls, and that it has also taken control of a number of supposedly “secure ” email services within the past few months.

 The article contends that personal computer firewall software products from MacAfee, Symantec, Zone Alarm all help Microsoft’s NSA-controlled remote admin access via ports 1024 - 1030 without using a security flag.

The Inquirer has this equally interesting food for thought:

“Certain privacy [and/or] full session SSL email hosting services have been purchased [or] changed operational control by NSA and affiliates within the past few months, through private intermediary entities.”

src: NSA 0wns popular ‘firewalls’ and ’secure’ e-mail services

I’m not a fan of spying on American citizens without a warrant, I’ve previously assaulted  AT&T with phrases like “the network you can trust is a fraud” and “the network you can’t afford to trust.”  The fact of the matter is, it isn’t simply a problem that is pervasive among a handful of corporations.  It’s how government and corporations are in bed together, how consumers and citizens do not have people protecting their rights and how NSA justice believes that balancing the harms, this is the only way to roll.

From Information Week: “Firefox gains on internet explorer in business”

If IE7 isn’t taking off in enterprises, it’s questionable whether Microsoft should expect any better in IE8. Analyst firm Gartner cautioned last month that IE8’s default standards mode could break enterprise applications. Apps might not render properly if they’ve been developed primarily for earlier, non-standards- compliant versions of IE. Gartner wrote then that companies should “strive to design for standards, not browsers.”

 Looking after the interests of end-users rather than corporate agendas?  Sounds like a plan to me!

Many companies appear to be perfectly content with staying with IE6 until they see something better. The same thinking has been part of the reason for the slow take-up of Windows Vista in enterprises. And some of the security features added by IE7 and IE8 don’t work unless Vista is installed, so the pace of Vista uptake could also weigh on IE’s own upgrades.

It makes sense that in business, upgrading browsers isn’t a big deal because the computer primary use should be focused on productivity and not web applications.  The only exception being Tech companies that focus on web design and development.

 Factoring in two or three days for the bill to arrive, two or three days for the check to get back to AT&T, and a Sunday or two, that leaves three to five days for customers to pay their bills before the angry letters and phone calls begin.

In the age of the Internet, this may seem reasonable because payments should be in on or around the due date, except the problem in this case is that notices of late payment or non-receipt come only a few days before collection harassment officials are notified.

Over the years, the Blackberry has set the standard for business cell phones and now the iPhone has set the standard for media enriched cell phones for higher class consumers.  The question that remains to be answered is, “Will these ambitious super-gadgets go mainstream?”  To Apple enthusiasts and Silicon Valley nerds, the answer is obvious.  Over a million iPhones sold within months after release, are you kidding?  It’ll absolutely be mainstream in a few years!

Consider design, consumption and use

I might have given the answer above without hesitation last fall, but then it occurred to me that these phones are highly targeted pieces of equipment.  Take the Blackberry for example, it serves a purpose that is unparalleled in the business world.  Like the Rolodex, it has created for greater efficiency and increased productivity  and that’s just taking push e-mail and personal management features into account.

The iPhone, Apple’s prized gadget, takes a kitchen sink approach and meshes it all well using Apple’s trademark simplicity approach.  At a price of $600-$800 retail, not including the price of a contract and data plan, this phone — although profitable — has limited revenue potential.

Next Generation Cellular Phones - Evolution through Devolution?

Depending on how you characterize advancement, you might fall in love (as I have) with the concept of turning back the clock on cellular design and offering a Googlesque approach to design.

Googlesque, what the heck does that even mean?

Lets face it, part of how Google took over the world is it simplified search, it killed the garbage “home page portal” ambition (see MSN, Yahoo, AOL) and provided you with a Google search box.  Well, what if we could implement the same concept with mobile phones?  Think about the possibilities of a simple, flashy design that would be affordable and available for mass consumption?  Someone already has, here’s a fresh new look at cellular designs for next generation simplicity.

First Look at the Mimique Cell Phone Design

I’ve got the scoop on the new design, it comes on good authority from a member of the RKS team.

The “Mimique” Concept

This new cellular design looks to take a different approach from the newer generation of feature-heavy cell phones.   The team was aiming for a playful, engaging and simple “old-school” design using next generation style and technology.

I’d have to agree with that description, let’s take a closer look.

Mimique Cell Phone Profile

According to the RKS, the Mimique will make use of “new open-source, cell phone software” — hmm, Android anyone?  It includes downloadable “skins” that allow changing of the graphical interface to match the consumer’s mood or personal style.  The mimique design promises to provide a phone for everybody, especially typical consumers that don’t require the extra baggage that comes with newer and more expensive business and entertainment cell phones.   I think I’ve adequately explained why the idea of simplicity and usability is so appealing given the direction of current cellular technologies and unintuitive designs.

Of course, being the inquisitive person that I am, I had to probe for more information and received some literature from the design team:

Where the Mimique really sets itself apart is that it is designed to take advantage of the new, open-source cell phone technologies being developed by Google and the Open Handset Alliance. This barrier-breaking technology would allow users to customize their phones to work and look exactly the way they want.  [...] Best of all, it means that you’ll no longer be forced to pay for features you don’t want. You get to pick and choose exactly the features you want to create your own perfect phone.

So why change direction in design, are there other benefits besides reclaiming the phone for consumers through intuitive new-age design?

The combination of open source software and touch-screen technology will make the Mimique easily upgradable.  Today, if someone comes out with new cell phone features, you have to buy a new cell phone to get that feature. But with the Mimique, you’ll just download the new feature to your phone and you’re good to go. This will greatly extend the lifespan of the phone itself, because the features are never locked into the design.  With the Mimique, you’ll always have the newest, coolest phone on the block, because it’s the one phone designed to be everything you want and nothing you don’t.

Will this concept catch on?  I think it has a ton of potential and if marketed properly, I’ve no doubt this will kick off a new era of cellular design. If you’d like to take a look at the design on their website, you can visit RKS design here: “Mimique  Concept”

Wii Crossbow, are you ready for it? 

The article is “World Billionaires - 2008” - here’s the list:

ArsTechnica had the lowdown on some of the odd packet routing issues that resulted on Sunday, here’s  an excerpt:

On Sunday, YouTube became unreachable from most, if not all, of the Internet. No “sorry we’re down” or cutesy kitten-with-screwdriver page, nothing.  What happened was that packets sent to YouTube were flowing to Pakistan. Which was curious, because the Pakistan government had just instituted a ban on the popular video sharing site. What apparently happened is that Pakistan Telecom routed the address block that YouTube’s servers are into a “black hole” as a simple measure to filter access to the service. However, this routing information escaped from Pakistan Telecom to its ISP PCCW in Hong Kong, which propagated the route to the rest of the world.

Insecure Routing redirects Youtube to Pakistan

Virtual Pressroom

Microsoft Makes Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability

February 21, 2008

Microsoft today announced a set of broad-reaching changes to its technology and business practices to increase the openness of its products and drive greater interoperability, opportunity and choice. These changes are codified into four new interoperability principles and corresponding actions: 1) ensuring open connections; 2) promoting data portability; 3) enhancing support for industry standards; and 4) fostering more open engagement with customers and the industry, including open source communities.

The Microsoft site has the details, audio and video highlights of the press release and changes in MS policy.

Engadget published this piece on the cynicism that is widespread in the industry regarding this latest MS statement.

Echoing the reactions of many to Microsoft’s decision to open things up this morning, the European Commission issued a statement this morning saying that while it welcomes any moves towards “genuine interoperability,” it’s not going to believe it until it sees it — it’s counted four similar announcements by Redmond in the past, with nothing to show for it. Of course, Microsoft is currently being investigated for antitrust violations in Europe, so there’s a whispered belief that the new steps are a ploy to derail that process, but that’s pretty doubtful — and the EU’s not having it anyway, saying that “Today’s announcement by Microsoft does not address the tying allegations.”

Meanwhile, the WSJ had commentary on possible motives, but seemed more trusting of the Silicon Valley giant.

Skeptics will argue that it’s a peace offering to regulators in Europe, where Microsoft is under constant scrutiny, and to regulators in the U.S., where a successful acquisition of Yahoo would undergo close scrutiny.

Finally, Venture Beat has an interesting spin on the future of Microsoft that is not laced with spite and distrust as most commentary on the story.

With Ray Ozzie taking over as chief software architect for the departing Bill Gates, there is certainly a chance the company actually means to change its ways going forward. Ozzie, a veteran of Lotus Notes and Groove, two collaboration-based applications, would seem to have a mindset more in line with the open Internet. However, as they say, actions speak louder than words.

“If you can read this, then you’ve more than likely downloaded this album from a peer to peer network or torrent. You probably expect the rest of this message to tell you that you’re hurting musicians and breaking just about every copyright law in the book. Well, it won’t tell you that.”

Lecture averted, he fills the rest of this document sharing an artist’s frustration with current music distribution methods. Jordan stresses donating as a means of supporting the music rather than paying retail outlets who he claims can take up to 8x more from record sales than the actual artist. Also warning against trying to support them via ITunes, he informs that none of their material sold via this method has showed any profit to the actual artist and they are currently in a legal battle with the digital music distributing Goliath.

Instead Jordan stresses purchasing directly from the label Alphabasic.com where “the artists usually receive over 90% of the actual money coming from your wallet”. Not only will the money be going to the party it should, their library contains a collection of lossless, DRM-free downloads. You can even donate directly to the band where 100% of your contribution will go to the band.

And though Jordan states he isn’t certain that the donation method is the right plan for the long term, I’m glad to see the waters being tested. My guess is that the failing of this method will be that while you might initially have groups of people who pay $1 for the album and groups who might pay $20 or something equally overboard to make the band think they are cool, eventually you’ll probably be left with the first group. I eagerly await the results and will keep an eye on Jordan’s blog for continuing information.

The industry certainly needs shaking up a bit, and I can’t imagine a better way to stick bees in the bonnets of the big wigs than artists willingly going to p2p networking. Perhaps inspired by Radiohead’s recently donation distribution method, I have to admire the risk taken by Jordan and I hope to see more of such moxy in the future.

While I may have once been a hard sale on digital distribution, mourning the idea of losing that physical object with its album art and new CD smell, I find myself less and less reaching for a CD and all the more often reaching for my Ipod or firing up Winamp. In fact, the only time I’ve handled music on disk in the last year or so was to burn a mixed CD for a friend or two. My only concern with digital-only music is the cold terror that awakens me at night and makes me clutch my chest in fear; a hard drive crash. Which is why I have about 5 backups of my music collection, as I imagine do many music lovers who keep their collection stored digitally. I don’t know how many backup their music to a hard drive in another state, but I feel confident that I am not alone in my paranoia.

You may see the entire read-me on the label’s site: http://www.alphabasic.com/Please_read.html

Here are a few links from Yahoo’s Tech section that could come in handy if you need to catch up on the drama:

In response to eBay’s recent announcement that it would no longer allow sellers to leave negative feedback for buyers, the uproar has been deafening. How deafening? So loud that a boycott has been planned, set to begin tomorrow on February 18, 2008 and run for (at least) a week.

The article seems to suggest that the boycott won’t last because there are few other options available for merchants.  I’d tend to agree with the author and I think in the end this is the right thing to do for consumers.  If certain consumers act in bad faith, it’s easy to report them or even take legal action if necessary.   You can read more about this issue, here:  “eBay Boycott Begins Tomorrow: Will it work?“

Well, one expert thinks this is not a good route for venture capitalism to take.

Paul S. Kedrosky, a venture capitalist and the author of the Infectious Greed blog, said that his industry was indeed inefficient at picking winners; typically, 90 percent of venture investments are not home runs. But he does not particularly trust a company that professes to be able to do better than venture capitalists.

Kedrosky makes an excellent point about the value of such a start-up company to venture capital firms:

“If their tool did such a good job, they’d raise a fund themselves and beat the tar out of us,” Mr. Kedrosky said. “It’s hard to imagine what their mathematical combination of factors is.”

In essence, these young entrepreneurs are taking a risk that may only pay off for their start-up by sucking in investors that are intrigued with the idea of simplifying the start-up process.  What’s the big deal anyway, millions are thrown away on useless companies.. if this one pans out it could investors billions in the future.   The question is, can you put your faith and future in the hands of two young guns from the valley?

Bob Goodson, left, and Kirill Makharinsky  Photography: NY Times / Peter DaSilva

They apparently have some big supporters backing them up.

YouNoodle’s financial backers include Paypal co-founders Max Levchin and Peter Thiel, and the Founders Fund, a venture capital firm.

In addition to the  venture prediction tools, the company is working on a network for early-stage companies and will provide tools to create business plan competitions, business school classes and more.  While these tools will be free, entrepreneurs exchange their private data to help refine the predictor algorithm.  If you’re not sold on the idea, it’s ok, you can try out a watered down version of their software and pay the bucks after you’ve given it a try.

Now for the funny part:  Can YouNoodle predict its own success?

“So far, we haven’t run ourselves through it,” Mr. Goodson said, adding that the results could prove baffling. “If it says we’ll fail, and it’s right, that’s something of a paradox.”

Considering that 90% of ventures tend to fail, I’m betting that the tool would give it little chance of hitting a home run, but hey.. I’m just human what do I know?  I don’t plan on investing in young start-ups any time soon, but if you are, you may want to check them out.  YouNoodle

Super Smash Brothers, Brawl - Trailer of upcoming  release

I own the Game Cube version and would be interested to see how this might play out on the Wii, based on the new sensor-driven controls.  Just the same, I don’t get what makes the game so popular!  Sure, it’ll make tons of money and perhaps break new Nintendo Wii records for sales in a given time-span, but what I want to know is why?

I know I’m in the minority, so I’ll leave a cookie for the gamers who eat this stuff up. “Cheats and Exploits for Super Smash Bros Brawl“

Now that Blu-ray has won the battle of the next-generation video media, HD-DVDs are going on sale.  Engadget reported it initially and it appears others are blogging about it so I thought I’d share the link.

Here’s one for Amazon: HD-DVD’s 50% off.  I am sure there are plenty more.

Why Nerds hate Valentines Day:

1. You blow 300 bucks on a dinner, date, and a play that could have been put to better use by buying a shitload of gold on ebay for your WoW account.
2. Having to wait in line for an extra 10 minutes to buy a Red Bull because of some douche-bag buying chocolate, and delaying your all-night gaming session.
3. Not having a girlfriend is compounded by the fact that even your Second Life character can’t get any action.
4. No hot girls show up to class
5. Valentines Day candies give you cavities and make you break out with acne

Why Nerds love Valentines Day:

1. Everyone in a relationship is out on the town resulting in faster internet connections
2. You can watch porn in peace without being interrupted by your roommate and his girlfriend
3. You can eavesdrop on your roommate making sweet Valentine’s Day love to his girlfriend later in the night
4. If you have a girlfriend, you become “King of the Nerds” for a night
5. You look forward to a Valentine’s day themed logo on the Google homepage

If you liked this article, please subscribe to the BIT: News Feed at itola.com

One of the sexier updates is the option to turn off the translucent menu bar, a point of contention among Mac users since it was first announced. Menus have also become less transparent allowing for easier viewing. A complete listing of all the 10.5.2 fixes and updates can be found here on Apple’s website.

First and foremost, online ads are ineffective because, point blank, people are programmed to ignore and look past them. This is largely due to the active nature of web-browsing.

T.V vs. Internet

When people watch TV, they passively sit there as information is displayed across the screen. Watching TV is akin to saying “I’m going to sit down here, not think, and just absorb whatever is on the screen.” Internet browsing, however, is a much more involved activity, and one that puts the user in complete control. Instead of passively sitting on the couch, you’re actively browsing through a variety of websites, mouse in hand. Because of that, advertisements on the web are seen as a nuiscance, an intrusion of sorts. Rightly or wrongly, people have not accepted ads on the Internet in the way that they accept commercials on TV, and as a result, ads on the web are rarely absorbed and are mostly tuned out as people ignore them.
Confined Space

A problem with web advertising, as opposed to other mediums, is that ads on the web don’t exist within their own separate space. As opposed to Magazine or Television ads, online ads sit side by side next to the content, and because of that, there is only so much you can do with an online ad. Advertisers operate within such a confined space that the odds of producing a riveting and memorable ad is practically zero. Some websites have had moderate success with placing ads on digital media, such as being forced to watch 2-3 commercials on ABC.Com if you want to watch one of their Television shows online, but that example, not surprisingly, is related to TV. Watching 2-3 30 second commercials in exchange for watching LOST is something most consumers can agree to. On the other hand, ads emblazoned on web articles are lost in the shuffle and largely ignored because consumers feel they have a right to access web content for free with no hassle. Some companies have realized the futility of the banner ad and some websites have started showing full page ads before redirecting you to the article you were searching for - but there is always a button that says “Click here to skip this Ad” and undoubtedly the majority of websurfers click it. At best, a company might have some success with targeted ads, but even those are often ineffective as a marketing tool.

Does Volume overcome all?

Some successful websites generate over a million hits a day, and some argue that the general ineffectiveness of web ads is counteracted by the sheer volume of people who use the web. They claim that even if only .001% of users see and click on an ad, .001% of an insanely large viewing number becomes significant. This is a valid argument, but killing consumers on a volume basis has never proven to be an effective means of advertising. Another problem is the fact that up to 50% of ad click throughs are done by 6% of Internet surfers, otherwise known as serial clickers.

But aren’t companies and people making millions off of ads?

Yes, Google and co. are making millions off of online ads. But where is that money coming from? It’s coming from corporations who don’t necessarily understand the web and feel that any advertising is good advertising. I’ve been browsing the web for over 10 years and can’t remember more than 2 online advertisements that I’ve ever seen. In contrast, I could probably name 5 commercials that I’ve seen on TV in the last week.

Many companies are under the impression that online advertising is the next big thing. They assume that people will see their ads on blogs and popular websites, and in turn, their company will gain exposure leading to an increase in business and profitability. But online advertising doesn’t create exposure because the online medium is not conducive to advertising in any way, shape, or form.

Online Ads are like Casinos
Casinos make a ton of money because, in the end, the house always wins. That’s not to say that you can’t make money gambling, a lot of people do. But generally speaking, the average gambler is not going to come out on top. When it comes to online ads, Google and Microsoft are the Casinos. They’re gong to be making money and the Corporations are the gambling addicts who are spending hundreds of millions of dollars today, but will soon cure their addiction tomorrow when they see that the expected increase in brand awareness and profitiablity is non-existant or not even close to what they expected.

The Future of Online Advertising

Some say that because the internet is the future, that online advertising is the future. While that makes for a great tagline, companies will have to figure out how to do ads correctly before online advertising actually becomes effective. The advertising paradox, however, is that a good online ad is one that people don’t notice is there. So until someone figures out how to do online ads correctly, the underlying problem with internet advertising will continue to rear its ugly head — that being that the online medium simply doesn’t lend itself to creativity when full page ads are seen as nothing more than an intrusion. At the end of the day, people ignore ads, look past them, and forget that they were even there.

Well, some new research suggests that up to 50% of the clicks on advertisements are done by serial clickers.   These people make up 6% of the total Internet population, but their attention is grabbed by ads in a way that overwhelms and throws off previous research on the topic.  With a potential 6% of Internet surfers responsible for 50% of the clicks online, does that make branding and CPM ads that more important?  The research claims that although this small percentage of Internet users are online for hours more than others, they are not as likely to purchase the goods after they click.

The average salary of these surfers — that in my non-professional opinion I’d attribute to OCD — is below 40,000 / year.

The study was carried out by the media agency Starcom USA, behavioral targeting network Tacoda, and digital consumer insight company comScore.  They worked on research that would study click-through rates, their source, and the effect it has on online advertising.

The study reveals that a very small group of consumers who are not representative of the total U.S. online population is accountable for the vast majority of display ad click-through behavior. 

This is an interesting story because online advertising is such a hot topic right now and every major Silicon Valley company is trying to gain ground in a market that Google currently dominates.

While many online media companies use click-through rate as an ad negotiation currency, the study shows that heavy clickers are not representative of the general public. In fact, heavy clickers skew towards Internet users between the ages of 25-44 and households with an income under $40,000.

Their relatively younger age tells us a lot about their behavior alone.  I’d imagine that this group is the prime targeting group for marketers as they probably tend to be more impulsive and more easily distracted from the content by animations and vivid marketing visuals.

Heavy clickers behave very differently online than the typical Internet user, and while they spend four times more time online than non-clickers, their spending does not proportionately reflect this very heavy Internet usage. Heavy clickers are also relatively more likely to visit auctions, gambling, and career services sites – a markedly different surfing pattern than non-clickers.

While this may be seen as a ‘negative’ because conversion rates are low, it’s an obvious benefit to the ad serving companies like Google because they can leverage the additional hits for CPM ads and also use the inflated hit count to negotiate better deals.  As far as CPM ads are concerned, the analysis that came about as a result of the research did not allow them to conclude that there is a correlation between  branding and click ratios.

Starcom data suggests no correlation between display ad clicks and brand metrics, and show no connection between measured attitude towards a brand and the number of times an ad for that brand was clicked.

Of course, advertisers will probably use this data to try and shift the burden on ad servers to yield better production or reflect this fact in the price.  It’ll be interesting to see if any companies budge on this matter, though, since Google itself dominates the industry and has a virtual monopoly on online quality ads and sites.  They are also cutting down on spam sites and domain parking exploitation of ad serving — although not entirely, as Google has deals w/ companies like Go-daddy to serve their ads.

“There is more and more emphasis by advertisers for greater return-on-objectives in campaigns, particularly in the digital space where the accountability data is so readily available,“ says Starcom USA Director of Connections Research and Analytics Grant Prentice. “Natural Born Clickers shows us that we can’t count on click-through rate as our primary success metric for display ads; Starcom is more reliant on shifts in brand attitude metrics and analytics tying on-line exposure to sales as the true measures of online advertising efficacy.” 

This doesn’t mean a whole lot because of how ad publishing works though.  Basically the market decides how much each click is worth, marketing agencies and departments have to decide how much they are willing to pay for targeted traffic.  Sometimes branding is more important than selling products, especially early on and CPM might actually be less effective than a CPC type model.

 “While the click can continue to be a relevant metric for direct response advertising campaigns, this study demonstrates that click performance is the wrong measure for the effectiveness of brand-building campaigns,” said Erin Hunter, executive vice president at comScore.

“For many campaigns, the branding effect of the ads is what’s really important and generating clicks is more of an ancillary benefit. Ultimately, judging a campaign’s effectiveness by clicks can be detrimental because it overlooks the importance of branding while simultaneously drawing conclusions from a sub-set of people who may not be representative of the target audience.”

I  know that bloggers and small business providers are usually at the bottom of the food chain when it comes to their revenue interests, but it sure would be nice if research would yield results that benefits the little guy, too!  In my view, I don’t think advertisers are paying enough for sites with quality content.  If they want to pay peanuts then serve their ads at spam sites.  For producers of strong original content maybe the big boys should consider raising prices based on venue. This may actually encourage higher quality content online rather than mass producing garbage sites to make a dime off unsuspecting Internet users.

Dell’s move caused a stir online that the company tried to tamp down.  A spokesman, David Frink, called the development — which Dell disclosed to consumers on the company’s Web site — “not even all that interesting.”

“We regularly adjust our product offerings and how customers can purchase those products,” he said. “The majority of our consumer AMD-based systems are available through our retail partners and telephone sales.”

This helps to explain why Apple has chosen to account for iPhone sales on a subscription basis, choosing to amortize the phones over a 24 month period.  In doing so, Apple can provide iPhone users with new features without having to charge them.

Apple is planning to further expand its worldwide retail presence by opening up stores in Germany, Switzerland, Australia and Mexico.

This is a significant move as Apple’s retail stores have been an integral part of Apple’s resurgence and in the company’s meteoric stock performance over the past 4 years.  Apple’s retail stores account for approximately 20% of its revenue, and not only that, but they also generate revenue that comes in at more than $4,025 per square foot, besting typical leaders such as Tiffany’s and Best Buy by as much as $3000 per square foot.

Apple currently operates over 200 retail stores in the U.S., Great Britain, Canada, Ireland, and Japan.

Yahoo’s board has decided Microsoft’s $31-per-share offer “massively undervalues” the company, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal. Yahoo is expected to formally reject Microsoft’s offer, the Journal reported.

“Massively undervalues” tells me that it is a negotiation tactic.  The reason I believe this is the case is because when the news of Steve Ballmer’s offer was spreading like wildfire, Yahoo’s stock was in the process of a massive decline over the prior year and down under $20.  A company of Yahoo’s standing and success, branding and prominence in the Silicon Valley and globally, has the right to argue that it is worth much more than $31 a share.  Usually, initial offers are either low-ball offers to test the waters, or made to get the negotiation process rolling and expect to pay a premium over that offer price.

It looks like from here on out, it’s a lawyer’s game and I expect Microsoft might bite or maybe make an offer between $35 and $38 dollars a share.  What Yahoo suggests may sound like pocket change in the grand scheme of things for Microsoft, but I am sure the Silicon Valley giant will consider its options and inevitably acquire Yahoo.  The only way this falls through is if a bidding war breaks out with another company that can afford Yahoo.  At that point all bets are off.  One thing is certain, Yahoo is sitting pretty in all of this and I’m pretty sure the board isn’t going to blow this one — stockholders and employees should prepare to celebrate.

One problem that is starting to surface is that corporations and some individuals would like to see the internet lose that anonymity.  For the purposes of data mining (a lucrative business practice) and to keep online discourse regulated, some would stop at nothing to see online free speech stifled or diminished.

From ArsTechnica: “Appeals Court: First Amendment protects forum trolls”

Anonymous trolls on the Internet are allowed to remain anonymous, a judge in a California appeals court ruled yesterday. Not only that, but they’re allowed to exercise their First Amendment rights and speak their minds, no matter how scathing their comments may be. The court opinion reversed a previous decision that would have allowed Lisa Krinsky, COO of a Florida-based drug service company, to subpoena 10 anonymous Yahoo message board posters’ real names.

Why is this important to you and me?  Why should we care if trolls are “outed” or tar-and-feathered for being jerks?  Well, for one, part of the value that the Internet brings to the world is not only freedom of speech and an expectation of privacy, but it also levels the playing field and allows people a forum to express themselves with the world.  Where else could you find a place for some random person to speak loudly and receive publicity for otherwise unpopular speech?  Where else can you speak the truth without feeling the pressure that comes from your boss or colleagues, friends or family?

The problem with trying to regulate speech online or allowing for the destruction of internet trolls is you essentially move in the direction of threatening individual privacy rights and pulling the plug on internet fantasies.  Whether you love trolls or hate them, there’s something to be said for policing the words of the masses and seeking to ruin people who push unpopular opinions.  In the grand scheme of things, the trolls may get their 15 seconds of fame… before being banned or ignored, or rebutted by an equally passionate person on the other side of the argument.

We should strive to push for a highly diverse Internet with myriad ideas that as a collective work to find problems to difficult solutions.  Additionally, we should also work to protect the ‘fantasy’ aspect of online interaction.  If people want to remain anonymous, why deny them that right?  If they are not breaking the law or committing acts of terrorism, why should the courts step in to help out corporations only intent on retaliating against individuals or stifling speech?  Let’s hope we never end up on the slippery slope of Internet censorship, because once that happens, the value of the online experience is lost.  If we succumb to regulation of speech or relent on privacy rights online, the Internet will be no different a forum than the “real world” that is dominated by corporations and special interest groups with lots of money.

From the OpenID website:

This morning the OpenID Foundation announced that Google, IBM, Microsoft, VeriSign, and Yahoo! have joined the board. The OpenID Foundation was formed in early 2006 by seven community members with the goal of helping promote, protect and enabling the OpenID technologies and community. Today’s announcement marks a milestone in the maturity and impact that the OpenID community has had. While the OpenID Foundation serves a stewardship role around the community’s intellectual property, the Foundation’s board itself does not make any decisions about the specifications the community is collaboratively building.

If you’re not quite sure why this matters, consider the future of online usage.  There’s a school of thought that would argue that everything will be connected and social networking will continue to grow, evolve and bring in millions of additional users.  In addition to social networking, blogging and other community and interactive websites will flood the internet like never before.  With this in mind, by soliciting the assistance of the major players in Silicon Valley, OpenID has all but solidified it’s status as the standard for online authentication.  Additionally, by agreeing on a standard for OpenID, there is potential for large companies to work on a reputation and/or profiling system for web users at-large.  To learn more about OpenID and the latest  news related to the maturity of the OpenID community, check out the following: “Evolving the OpenID foundation board“

If some Mississippi legislators had their way, they’d put forth a law that would ban obese people from being served at restaurants.

State Rep. John Read, a Republican who is one of the bill’s three authors, says he wasn’t trying to offend anybody and never even expected the plan to become law.

“I was trying to shed a little light on the No. 1 problem in Mississippi.”

This may sound humorous as you read along, but this isn’t a spoof.  Obesity is a real problem with consequences for Americans and we’ve been unable to solve this growing epidemic without the use of drugs or surgery to solve the issue.  Of course, exercise and dieting is ideal, but helping to fight obesity isn’t like having the flu or acquiring a chronic disease that can be cured drinking a Slimfast(tm) every morning.

The question that should be asked is whether the Republican Representative crossed the line by proposing such legislation.  If you take him at his word that this was not a serious proposal, but intended to shed light on a serious problem in Mississipi, then maybe he has done his state a great service.  Obesity is much like other sensitive subjects, e.g. Affirmative Action.  No one wants to talk about it because it is a pretty prickly subject and people get hurt in the process no matter which way you roll on the issue.

Steve Holland, the Democratic chairman of the House Public Health and Human Services Committee, said in a statement he will “pocket veto” the bill. “It’s dead on arrival at my desk.”  Although he appreciates the “efforts of my fellow House members to help curb the obesity problem in Mississippi, this is totally the wrong approach.”

How can you not laugh at the public press that the issue is receiving?  First, you have a candidate with the gall to put forth such an ‘idea’, then you have a Democrat coming out to fight the ‘good fight’ and defending the rights of the obese.   Way to stick up for the little… errr, big guy? Again,this is a serious problem so why are we walking on eggshells to get to the heart of the problem?  Eventually, it may be policy makers that help America shed the weight.

About one-third of Americans are obese (30 or more pounds over a healthy weight), and 66% are overweight or obese. Even so, obesity experts are outraged by the bill.  “It would be hard to concoct something more ridiculous,” says Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University’s Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity.

I’m no Yale expert and I haven’t spent my life studying the problems with obesity like Mr. Brownell, but maybe it is good to call a spade a spade?  Instead of dealing with emotions that inevitably arise out of the hate and frustration, self-esteem problems and depression, maybe we should focus on the problem itself and find ways to encourage the masses to help combat the problem?  Maybe this noise will help push obese people to stay away from the super-size or learn more about all the foods and drinks that are most dangerous to our health.

I don’t want to be insensitive about the issue, but it’s just not a simple problem to solve.  Showing love and support isn’t everyone’s forte, so it’s a futile effort to try and control what politicians, celebrities and ‘experts’ say.  The problems that stem from humiliation, shame and guilt are not trivial and it does offend and hurt some people:

“This brings bias against obese individuals to a new and appalling level, and at a time when significant progress is being made in the effort to stop blaming obesity on the people who have it and to address the social and political conditions that drive it.

Again, I cannot agree with the expert, it seems he’s too involved and has a hard time being objective.  In my view, it never really is about blaming obese people, most people don’t think of it in those terms unless you push the issue.  How often do you think “maybe he should stop eating, doesn’t he have self-control?”  Most Americans don’t go about their lives thinking, “darn, she sure is fat, why doesn’t she just exercise or go on a diet?!”

If anything, the question most Americans are asking is “Am I fat and what can I do to keep myself looking good.”  Sadly, the same areas of society that encourage obesity indirectly (e.g. super models, strip clubs, television and Hollywood) are also the ones that discourage people from eating that extra french fry.   It’s easy to blame these vices on the problem of teenage anorexia, but in my view, both anorexia and morbidly  obese people are also suffering from severe mental disease or stress and require the help of a mental health expert in addition to a physical fitness expert.

“Are these legislators fighting to get rid of soft drinks in schools? Are they working to stop the relentless marketing of unhealthy foods to children? Are they doing anything about the fact that poor people do not have access to healthy foods?”

This is the best argument made against legislators who would dare bring up obesity under such crass legislative proposals.

Restaurants and Corporations Encourage America’s Obesity Problem

Consumers are provided incentive to purchase fatty foods because they cost a lot less than the ‘premium’ low-calorie foods.  Fast food restaurants are serving up individual meals that have as much as 50 to 75% of a typical calorie intake for the day and maybe doubling or tripling the fat intake.  Consumers do have a responsibility to moderate their intake, but with obesity you have a special self-perpetuating cycle of guilt.  People eat to deal with stress, they eat to socialize with co-workers, eat to handle depression and settle impulsive behaviors that would best be handled by psychiatric help.

While this is a problem that involves many factors, people have to be careful not to entirely shed the blame of obesity on society.  Society is part of the problem, there is no doubt about that.  We have to remain cognizant of the fact that shedding personal responsibility might be one of the biggest reasons that combating obesity has become so difficult to solve.  It won’t be long before pharmaceutical companies or scientists design a solution that won’t increase the risk of heart failure or death.  Until that happens, it is the duty of all Americans to help fend off this problem and it starts with YOU.

If you enjoyed this article, please subscribe to the news feed — free column on business and technology.  You may sign up for the e-mail version using the form located within the sidebar. 

In reverse order, here are a few videos that show without a doubt that Steve Ballmer and Yahoo are a perfect match.  I mean, could you argue that there is a bigger Yahoo in silicon valley than Steve Ballmer?  I didn’t think so!

#5 The iPhone… what a joke, that concept will never fly!

#4 Steve Ballmer gets pwn’d

#3  Remember when Redmond introduced its latest product to flop? Microsoft Deodorant

#2 In the 80s, did anyone predict Ballmer would be the CEO of a multinational corporation?

#1 Steve Ballmer, I’ve got four words for ya:  Prozac!

So is there any doubt now that Steve Ballmer’s era of MS is a match for Yahoo? I didn’t think so.

Speculation is mounting that Google is plotting the launch of a mobile phone in partnership with computer giant Dell.

For the sake of innovation and the competition in the market that mobile niche that Apple currently dominates, let’s hope that Google and Dell can get it together on this potential alliance!

Senior industry sources claim the two companies will reveal their plans at next month’s 3GSM telecoms conference in Barcelona, al-though Google insiders deny an announcement is due in the near future.  But the rumors will once again throw the spotlight on Google’s mobile strategy, which has been the subject of much conjecture over the last year.  There had been widespread talk of Google launching its own handset, known as the “Gphone”, to go up against Apple’s iPhone, which launched in November last year.

We may be dealing with rumors and hype, but it seems that the rumors of Google’s interest in the mobile market are all consistent with their desire to launch their own  handset and mobile software.

Google recently announced its operating system for mobile phones, dubbed “Android.”  The purpose of the software is to create a platform for developers to create mobile applications that will easily run on handsets.

Dell might see the potential of expanding its reach into this market and it’s an interesting storyline given that Apple and Dell have a cute little rivalry going on that Apple is easily winning at this point.

There was a time when Yahoo! melting into Microsoft seemed laughable. After all, they were two different companies with two different cultures and two different visions. Now with everyone chasing Google, many are proclaiming that this deal makes a lot of sense. Google currently has such a huge lead in search that it dwarfs Microsoft and Yahoo! put together. But is there any reason to think that Microsoft and Yahoo! can accomplish together what they weren’t able to accomplish on their own?

One interesting aspect to this deal, however, are the reasons underlying Microsofts offer. Does Microsoft really feel that this offer to purchase Yahoo! will really “synergize” the company and lead to some great new products and/or services? Does it geniunely feel that a Microsoft/Yahoo! combo can give Google a run for its money? Or, is Microsoft, which is lagging severely behind Google, completely out of ideas. Is buying Yahoo! a hail-mary attempt by Microsoft to catch up with a company that it can’t compete with otherwise? Microsoft has a history of trying to catch up to where the competition IS, instead of focusing on where an particular industry is headed for in the future. I would hope that a Microsoft-Yahoo! deal, should it go through, would result in innovative and original ideas that range beyond simple re-branding.

In my opinion, however, Super Bowl commercials have lost their relevance.  Why?  Well, in case you aren’t already aware, we are now bombarded with advertisements at every corner and every turn.  In turn, it’s getting increasingly difficult for today’s consumer to be that impressed with a commercial.  After all, we’re exposed to media advertising nearly every waking hour.  With the cost of Super Bowl advertising getting costlier every year, it makes sense that only some of the biggest name-brands would be willing to shell out the cash necessary for a 30 second spot.

And that, I feel, is what has caused a general ‘blandness’ to envelop what was once a showcase for the best ads on the planet.  With only a few companies being able to compete for the most sought after spots during the Super Bowl, it only makes sense that the commercials that make it to air aren’t necessarily the best in show.  Rather, they are the best in show for the companies that actually afford a Super Bowl spot in the first place. They’re still great commercials, but I feel that the day of the Super Bowl commercial as a defining marketing tool is a thing of the past.