Thoughts in Time

Techcrunch » Blog Archive » ProfileLinker Takes Meebo Approach to Social Networking

Here’s an idea that I discussed with some friends at Yale about a year ago… Glad to see that someone has implemented it. I agree with Michael that the challenge will be how to build relationships with the MySpaces of the world while still building their traffic. It also puts MySpace in an interesting situation. A user will want to use a service like this to manage their online profiles, and is there anything in MySpace’s T&C that prohibits use of a tool to manage one’s profile? If they do restrict it, for me as a user, I might well choose to just not keep a presence there as I would rather use a service that makes it easy for me to maintain. Easy maintenance provides more value for me and the people in my network. In a sense, some sites are already doing this a bit by enabling you to have your personal blog feed as part of your profile. Why not let you also pull other data in as well from another location? I wonder if their fear of dropping pageviews will cause the big players to put up fences, enabling a new company to create a foothold. Thinking about how I have a Linked In Profile, MySpace Profile, Friendster Profile, and Facebook Profile, I’ll be using ProfileLinker soon .

Quote Details: Arthur C. Clarke: When a distinguished but… - The Quotations Page

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
Arthur C. Clarke, Clarke’s first law
English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )

I love this quote. I think it expresses one of the reasons why entrepreneurs skew young. Often we youngsters (I hope I still qualify) don’t know “what’s not possible”. Paul Graham write about this a bit and certainly is walking the walk with YCombinator.

Bribing Bloggers - Joel on Software

I read this article with interest. I recenlty used Joel’s site to recruit a lead developer for a new startup that I’ve helped found, and I respect his opinion on a loft of software development practices. I also so happened to be in NYC yesterday meeting with the folks from Edelman to discuss Higher One’s PR needs.

On one side, I would tend to agree with Joel. The fact that the blogger receives something for free is the classic Cialdini influence case where he or she may be more likely to write something positive. That being said, I would disagree with his assertion that this makes a free sample equivalent to a bribe. Essentially it sounds like the argument that he is making is that because the sample is being provided to people who have publishing platforms, it’s a bribe? What about all the major publications out there? They thrive on receiving free review samples? Are they all being bribed? Maybe right? I think that what Edelman and Microsoft are doing is making it easier for people who have opinions and audiences to experience the microsoft product. There are key differences between what they are doing and what I would personally term a bribe. A bribe is
1. I will pay you to do X or say Y about me or my product.
2. You will not disclose that I paid you.

What Edelman and Microsoft were doing was
1. If you’d like we’ll send you a free sample of our product.
2. If you then feel like it, please write about your experience - good or bad
3. If you do write, please disclose that you got the free sample…
4. If you don’t want to keep it, send it back after the trial or give it away

As the FTC made clear with their recent ruling around word of mouth marketing programs, this sort of program is a marketing initiative and thus disclosure is key to meet the truth in advertising requirements.

The argument that Joel is making is that because the program employs an influence tactic, this means it is tantamount to bribery. Most print, radio, web, and TV ads also utilize certain influence tactics (visual, verbal, etc). Does it mean that those ads are bribery? Then the only way Joel could write an unbiased piece about anything would be to close his eyes, ears, and show up at a store (or visit online), not read the packaging materials, buy the product, and review it after using. But how would he even know what’s available?

At the end of the day I understand where he’s coming from. Also, if he thinks that he personally is more influenced by having a free sample then he certainly is doing his readers a favor by declining (it sounds like actually has a negative review bias from his comments though)…However, I disagree that - in this case - what Edelman and Microsoft are doing is unethical. Their strong statements on disclosure and providing the blogger with a choice to participate is miles from the unethical no-disclosure buy a positive review model of payperpost.

So - the Giants are finishing losing to the Eagles. Let me restate that. The Giants have once again found a way to lose a football game. 2 interceptions, 2 fumbles, failure to score twice from within the10 yard line - there is absolutely no way you can win with that happening. As I’ve watched sports over the years there are different types of teams. Those that find ways to win, and those that find ways to lose. That’s this year’s Giants team. They easily have the talent to win. It comes down to making the key plays. Probably pretty parallel to startup companies. There are those that find a way to win. They adapt, scrap, hustle and make the important plays. And then there are those that find a way to lose (think Friendster)…They miss key opportunities, don’t execute on their gameplan and fumble opportunities that could put them ahead.

Bill Mosher,founder of echoonline.com - a company that’s similar to BzzAgent, presented the results of their work with Dust Bunny. Although the data had a small sample, there was one result that was particularly interesting. The netpromoter score (NPS) calculated from people who participated was negative 32 (-32). However, when they looked at the reports from participants, the polarity of 75% of conversations was positive. This seemed strange. As they analyzed the actual reports, what they hypotesize is that the negative net promoter score came from the fact that the product didn’t deliver on its advertising message (cleaning everywhere easily), but the positive polarity came from the fact that consumers found cool new uses for the product (cleans hard to reach places really well) that they were excited about sharing. It would be interesting to see if by changing just the brand promise (marketing messaging) for the product, if the NPS would go up.

EDIT - I said echoonline - I meant Echopinion and echopinion.com (as Bill pointed out in his comment). Sorry Bill!