A few bends in the road later, I skidded to a stop on the wet pavement and continued on foot. The clearing along a narrow trail peaked through the trees. I navigated through the muddy brush onto the trail, following it to my destination. My destination was a historical marker that doubled as an unclaimed portal in the free augmented reality game Ingress created by Google’s Niantic Labs.

Ingress uses Google map data of the world and enhances this data into a massive multiplayer game where players across the world are members of two rival teams. These players search for virtual energy portals to claim for their particular team. The portals are often based on real-life landmarks such as historical markers and locations, and the portals are viewable from within the Ingress mobile app that displays a proximity map based on the user’s current location. Check out the latest portal maps for Barcelona, Rome and Tokyo.

Hoping no one saw how much of a nerd I was becoming, I quickly used the app to hack the portal and claim it for my team. On the map, I noticed a few more unclaimed portals further along the trail. After claiming these additional portals, I stopped to read one of the historical markers associated with the portal. The marker was titled “The Despair of Slavery” memorializing the dehumanizing misery experienced by 18th century Africans kidnapped and shipped to the Manchester docks nearby to be unloaded and led along the trail ultimately ending up for sale in local “human commodity” markets.

On the marker was a quote from Royal Navy Commander Verney Lovett Cameron that ended with the heartbreaking sentence, “And I saw one woman still carrying the infant that had died in her arms of starvation.”

Reminded of the crimes against humanity committed on the very soil I was standing, I almost didn’t see the pair of spandex-clad mountain bikers fly around the bend and almost run me over.

It is fascinating to see how the augmented reality of Ingress can go beyond the game and connect its users with local history in a potentially powerful way. Although Ingress is a niche app, Google is likely using the research and experience gained from the app for future business opportunities using location-aware technology. For instance, a companion app called Field Trip sends the user serendipitous notifications about points of interest based on the user’s current location, along with promotions from nearby businesses.

Image credit MacUser/Martin Hajek, © 2013

As smartphones are becoming smarter and faster, location-based applications are quickly becoming mainstream providing many opportunities to promote brands. Games like Ingress and SVNGR, and the mayor designation of users in foursquare could gamify traditional CRM systems such as customer loyalty rewards cards. At the same time, smartphones are reaching a transitional point from internet-enabled phones to intelligent, resourceful digital assistants like Siri and Google Now. Instead of a person hunched over a tiny screen, it is likely that it will soon be a common site for a person to use a wearable computing device like the Pebble smartwatch or the rumored Apple watch to comfortably interact with her other digital devices such as an internet-connected tablet in her backpack.

These devices along with Google glass and its unique sci-fi heads-up-display enable a convenient, organic interface between the digital world and the real world perfect for the enhanced reality of location-based apps. Currently, many brands are stuck in the “pull” phase of commerce, waiting for customers to initiate transactions, especially online. But with the seamless nature of future smart devices, brands will engage their customers targeted not only just through heuristic analysis of dry customer data but also based on real-time context through location, weather, and a host of other relevant variables.

By David McNamara

The question of whether or not personal electronic devices (PEDs) threaten planes is a deeply controversial debate with many perspectives. From a general public perspective, their usage is of concern regarding general safety during airline travel. From the FAAs perspective, usage of PEDs also not only could affect general air travel safety, but also interfere with communication between ground facilities and pilots’ navigational abilities. From the scientific community’s perspective, their usage generating electromagnetic fields and radio transmissions could have bearing on radio equipment used for flying planes. From the FCCs perspective, usage of PEDs create a potential for interference with communication infrastructure such as cell phone towers not designed for experiencing signals from PEDs at flight altitudes and speeds.

PEDs potentially used on planes generally fall into two categories, first, ones that emit little or no levels of radio signals such as portable DVD players and even devices with consumer-grade WiFi antennae, and, second, devices such as cellphones that are designed to emit radio signals strong enough to communicate with remote transceivers like cell phone towers. Of the two categories, the long-range devices have more potential for interference with on-board flight equipment, especially sensitive navigational instruments that use technology such as GPS.

In spite of theoretical threats to aircraft equipment through these devices, no conclusive report has proved a positive correlation between PED use and aircraft equipment malfunction. On the other hand, throughout aviation history, there have been incidental reports of PED interference. In the interest of public safety, the FAA has prohibited the use of PEDs during commercial flights starting in 1966 when the agency introduced a ban on portable radio receiver usage. This ban currently is at the aircraft’s operator’s discretion during cruising altitude except for the second category of PEDs that transmit long-range radio signals.

Since PEDs and their usage have become prevalent in the last few years, the FAA recently published plans to revisit the current ban on PEDs. The plans call for a consortium of aviation industry stakeholders and consumer electronics experts to provide comments on the current rules in place. Through this information sharing process, the FAA is hoping to gain information on potential interactions between PEDs and electronic equipment in aircraft. Ultimately, the FAA’s goal is to determine definitive standards that can govern usage of the current generation of PEDs as well as additional protection and shielding to aircraft electronics.

Investigations such as the FAA’s request for comments is a vital step in sustaining safety for  aircraft, not only through governing safe levels of PED usage on planes, but also for improving the quality of aircraft electronics. If consumer-grade electronics has any potential to interfere with equipment, maliciously-designed equipment has even more potential. In December of 2011, an unmanned stealth RQ-170 drone operated by the CIA landed across the border of Iran and was captured by Iranian authorities. Details of the situation are unclear, but the Iran government claimed that it conducted a complex hack of the CIA mission control center and spoofed the heavily-encrypted GPS signal the drone used to navigate back to base in the event of a manual control breach. While Iran’s full claim to an elaborate circumvention of military technology with many failsafes is debatable, the danger to a commercial aircraft without military-grade failsafes is evident. Subversive organizations could take advantage of vulnerabilities to commercial aircraft that rely heavily on electronic equipment to fly safely. With a modified PED that is conveniently-portable and innocuous-looking to security, a terrorist could board a plane and spoof the onboard GPS signal of the navigation equipment to the terrorist’s own ends.

The FAA’s inquiry into PED safety is, thusly, vital to public safety. The investigation hopefully will include improvements to airline equipment to prevent more high-profile disasters caused by individuals engaged in guerilla cyber-warfare. Following a hypothetical tragedy, the zealous Transportation Security Administration may extend their passenger security guidelines to include policies regarding PEDs.

With the current state of passenger security guidelines and their inconvenience to passengers, who would want an alarmist, sweeping ban of all PEDs on planes?

On September 12, Apple hosted an event to announce its latest smartphone amid much feverish anticipation on the part of tech journalists and consumers. Leading up to the event were the expected rumors circulating the internet about what the new phone would be called and what new capabilities it would have. At the event, Apple stuck with its established naming convention and titled the new phone the iPhone 5. Even though the physical store launch was September 21, pre-orders for the iPhone 5 quickly exceeded a record-breaking two million units in one day.

The phone features a number of specification upgrades and evolutionary enhancements over its predecessors. It offers a 4-inch (diagonal) screen, a 0.5 inch increase over the 3.5 inch (diagonal) screen of the iPhone 4S. In addition, the screen’s touch layer is fused directly with the LCD panel decreasing total thickness of the phone to a petite 0.299 inch. The new processor in the iPhone 5 is the custom-designed A6 chip which improves battery life while maintaining quick speeds especially for interacting with websites. Another much-awaited improvement is an antenna and chipset upgrade to support 4G and LTE speed mobile services. Furthermore, the iPhone 5 switched its proprietary dock connector from the ten-year old 30 pin connector to a reversible, all-digital connector called “Lightning”.

With its array of features, the iPhone 5 is clearly reengineered to be a capable, excellent smartphone. Yet this generation of iPhone is a collection of conservative upgrades and is arguably underwhelming compared with some of its competitors’ products. This recent ad  from competing smartphone manufacturer Samsung pounces on this fact, poking fun at early-adopter consumers waiting in line for the iPhone 5.

One of the most significant absences from the iPhone 5 specifications is the lack of NFC (Near-Field Communication) support. This technology, already present in a number of other smartphone models, initializes a symmetric radio connection at close range with other devices. Applications of this proximity technology include mobile payment for purchases through simply tapping one’s phone to a receiver (akin to Visa’s PayWave technology), communication with other devices to easily share files by tapping the devices together, and even interaction with smart tags that have embedded data to perform a number of automated tasks, like loading a website in lieu of QR codes, setting the phone to car mode, or seamlessly setting up Wi-Fi access while the user is at a coffee shop.

The lack of NFC in the iPhone 5 is disappointing to consumers and businesses hoping for a tipping-point in the adoption of mobile payment features. Instead of offering NFC on the iPhone 5, Apple is promoting the Passbook feature of iOS 6, Apple’s new mobile operating system designed especially for the new iPhone. Passbook is a fresh-baked product from Apple that is designed to serve as a digital wallet similar to Google Wallet. It allows the user to organize paperless tickets, coupons, loyalty cards, boarding passes, as well as even make digital payments to supporting vendors. Passbook has the potential to be a useful idea and a software competitor to technologies like NFC, but it also has kinks. Redeeming electronic promotion offers, instead of doing something intuitive like just entering in a reward code, requires the user to undertake a number of steps like clicking through to the all-encompassing App Store to download or update the particular vendor’s app.

Many are questioning why is Apple is putting its weight behind its untried Passbook software solution instead of NFC hardware implementations. The obvious motivations would be the cost of additional hardware, and reduced battery life. However, Apple is more forward-thinking that just maintaining profit margins, and device performance specifications.

In July, Apple’s patent application for iTravel was approved by the U.S Patent Office. iTravel is believed to be part of the long-term strategy for Passbook, or perhaps a future “iWallet”. The patent for iTravel references NFC support that would allow a user to check-in for travel and provide electronic identification even through biometric means.

As the dominant player in the smartphone market, Apple can rely on its sales momentum and brand exclusiveness to carry sales of its devices without having to take costly gambles on revolutionary R&D breakthroughs. By waiting to include features such as NFC, Apple can spend its resources refining the user experience of enhanced mobile interactive systems like Passbook, At the same time, it fragments the competition for manufacturers offering NFC-enabled phones. Without the widespread capability for NFC technologies that would exist if the iPhone supported it, Apple’s competitors must devote their own additional resources to slowly create the awareness and need for these technologies. In the meantime, Apple is free to wait until it feels like NFC technology is a worthy investment, at which point, it can conveniently join the fray.

Apple’s strategy towards perfection and perfect-timing align with its focus on selling experience not specifications. By engaging customers and building intangible connections with them, Apple’s continued sales are tied to positivities such excitement, wonder, and simplicity, instead of boring, lifeless features. The iPhone 5 can be a integral part of its users’ life, something that works so seamlessly that they can just take it for granted. The iPhone 5 may not be a flawless, cutting-edge masterpiece, but sentimentalism sells more than inaccessible, serious design.

Many designers criticize Apple’s continued use of skeuomorphism in its products, including Apple designers. Skeuomorphism is basically using old physical metaphors to represent software innovations, like having the fake wood bookshelf background in the iBooks app. But this seemingly-archaic approach allows Apple to guide its users, bridging the gap between what actions are intuitive to them, and what new paradigms they must learn. With this friendly, familiar approach, the iPhone 5 continues to function like a furry pet who is always happy to see its owner; a pet that’s loveable, even though it’s not the smartest pet around. Owners can easily overlook imperfections and lacking features of the iPhone 5, since what the iPhone 5 does, it does (mostly) well.

With the explosion of the smartphone and the tablet market, a shift known as the second screen is quickly taking over how people consume media.  This phenomenon of the second screen essentially means that while people are watching television in the comfort of their living room, they are simultaneously accessing the web on their laptops, tablets, or smartphones.

According to the Nielsen Company, in figures they released in October 2011, approximately 40% of viewers use mobile devices while watching television. A majority of the activity currently involves time during commercial breaks checking email or sports scores, looking up actor/actress information, or interacting on social networking sites. While this activity would seem disruptive to traditional marketing models, the Nielsen report also discovered that over 1 in 10 of these users checked product information and coupon deals on their devices.

Instead of trying to compete with the second screen, major media companies are seeking to weave the two screens together into a cohesive social television experience. The screens for every major award show and news show are plastered with twitter hash tags to attract live tweets from viewers.  MTV’s 2011 VMA show attracted a record-breaking 5.6 million hits from social media on the day it aired August 28, 2011. With the revelation of Beyoncé’s baby bump during the show, @twitterglobalpr revealed that twitter received a record bump of 8,868 tweets per second. Culling instant feedback like award buzz allows media companies to adjust their content and social strategies according to what attracts enthusiastic attention.

Beyond shaping content strategies from twitter streams and facebook comments, the second screen poses an entirely new platform for marketing and connecting viewers to products. Traditional ad spots are becoming less and less significant.  As Game Day for Super Bowl XLVI approaches this Sunday, major companies have been pre-releasing promotions and commercials. Honda has released “Matthew’s Day Off” a tribute to the 1986 film Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Not to be outdone, Volkwagen has released “Dog Strikes Back” an extension of their 2011 commercial featuring a pint-sized Darth Vader.

But, in the rapidly-changing online world, pre-releasing commercials to just the second screen is already très passé.  The interaction of the second screen and first screen together is the future, and major companies and advertisers recognize this shift.

For Game Day, Google is customizing their search resources into a microsite where users will be able to search for recipes,  an entire game day site complete with recipes, pre-game trivia, and essential mobile information like the scores once the kickoff happens.

Other companies have also created sites to engage users via the second screen on game day.  Coca-Cola has created a facebook app that features a polar-bear game-watching party.  Pizza delivery chain Papa John’s is promoting their site where users can register for the Papa John’s reward program and pick whether the coin toss for the Super Bowl is heads or tails. If a user’s prediction matches the coin toss on Game Day, she will receive a free pizza courtesy Papa John’s. General Motors has created a Chevrolet mobile app for the iOS and Android mobile platforms to enable fans to interact and possibly win promotions. Fans who registered before January 27 received unique license numbers that give them the opportunity to win one of the cars featured in the Chevrolet XLVI commercials based upon matching a fan’s license number to the license plate of one of the cars.

Even though uncertainty about the future platforms of media and advertising persists, capitalizing on the second screen is a considerable opportunity for advertisers. With a well-thought-out strategy and matching execution plan, a coordinated campaign can unite competing media platforms like television and smartphones. With the added benefit of instant feedback and accurate metrics, the efforts can precisely engage target audiences. The viewers can instantly access timely promotions on their second screen devices, improving response rate to the ads.

“When an object of design is long lasting, it has two concurrent effects: first, we gain a respect for its stability and persistence… Second, when we spend time with an object, it takes on the mark of use and so becomes evidence of our existence.” [source] Good design is shown by how long it lasts and the evolution by use. So what is the next logical step for social media?

So all this momentium of where the market is headed sounds great for new business, but where does social media sustainability fall into place?

This week I was watching a Ted Talk by Ellen Dunham-Jones on Retrofitting Suburbia. The gist of the message is using sustainable design in building suburban destinations and retrofitting the dying shopping malls and big box stores into applicable use after they’ve run their course. I immediately saw the parallels between our real life adjustment to sprawling suburbia and how we are adjusting to the invasion of social media.

The combination of low entry costs for the user base and advanced communication tools will drive the simplicity of the message. I believe we will see more applications like Baskin Robbin’s 31 cent icecream used to push brand and experience turning the consumer into the company’s culture. As mobile use increase the use of embedded technology and brand immersion will give rise to reinventing how we research, retrieve and consume information. A proactive message and giving users the ability to personalize and enhance the experience with efficient communication will be the wave of the next big move. A blend of new and old with a faster delivery time. So lets end the work week on a great throwback to understanding how to strive for the next big thing:

Recently I have been reading the book “Idea Selling” by Sam Harrison. I have been comparing the ideas presented of “selling” in the book to evaluating the success of using social media to “sell”. Thus the idea of redefining the “score card” mentality from just bigger numbers to meaningful metrics.

The simplicity of the scoring social media struck me since the underlying concept behind it is … communication. The process used to develop an idea and then turn this idea into practical application can also be used to determine the value of social media. In the book there are four metrics to measure an idea by that can be used to determine value on your message:

1. Clarity – does it meet or solve the problem. In researching the emergence and success of the varied social networks it is quite clear that each fills a particular valuable niche. Such as LinkedIn for business networking, Twitter for short message communication, Flickr for photo junkies or Facebook for taking over the world.
2. Content – is there substance or prior planning. If you put a message on any social network I guarantee that at some point someone will be able to associate with that message and maybe even respond. The content is what
3. Creativity – is it original or worth the consideration. icanhascheezburger.com is is a prime example of taking something already known – lolcatz – thus not original, but worth consideration and building an empire from it.
4. Craft – does it have polish. Twitter is a prime example of crafting a tweet to fit within the 140 character limits and still maintain some semblance of legible communication.

Recently I asked my twitter followers if they thought there is a place or use for single page websites – especially for business. The responses I received back were very close to the book – maybe these ideas aren’t rocket science, but it doesn’t make them any less valuable.

So where does this leave us for measuring? We have to determine the message and goal of communicating first – then calculate the effect that it had to reach this goal. No longer do fluff numbers work, it is time to adjust the metrics we are using to determine success. Social media is proven as the magic recipe for turning customers by quality and quantity. Inviting inquiring minds to experience, solving costumer’s concerns and engaging on a personal level is all social media is about. Salesman training 101 – get to know your customer – to translate for social media it’s getting to know your audience.

It’s all about commitment. Social media is a commitment. @ComcastCares and @richardatdell proof that social media is a must for engaging to connect with users/audience in a personal method. Keep in mind, it’s not just something else to tack on – it is a full commitment to your brand.

During the QA time, Dean was asked (specifically for twitter) why a brand should follow their followers back. The most effective answer came from a member in the audience, who works as the brand manager for @StrangesGarden (a B2C company): “I want to know what my customers talk about even if it isn’t my keyword or brand – so that I can engage them and increase my brand awareness.” This shows serious commitment of the company to engage with the community even off topic as to build credibility and reputation.

If the audience determines your network participation as a brand shouldn’t the message be tailored to them as well? Jon expanded on this: “Now that you have gathered friends and followers (and want to increase those numbers) you need to truly engage them, not just throw things at them — in short you need to provide value.”

Since social media is a commitment – you need a plan. It is better to have a goal than float through networks at a whim. Especially for a business tool a good plan will identify the audience, the strategy for ongoing content generation, identify frequency of participation and determine the amount of time and resources allocated to managing the strategy. A big part of this plan should also consider “who” will be that interactive face for the brand, the personality and passion of the individual(s) will affect the overall success of the strategy.

A byproduct of social media is the speed at which you will see results to your engagement. It is a good way to experiment with different methods and tactics for short amounts of time without spending large budget. The results should be obvious. If they aren’t, then there is something off target with your strategy or implementation. Try again until you get it right.

The key to attract the mob is to engage, build and create value and worth for attending. Using services like Foursquare are beginning to merge the line between real world business and virtual community. To build this kind of promotion, just keep in mind that has proven worth, has a lot of behind the scenes work:

• Research the user-base to ensure they are Foursquare users – Duh!
• Confirm Foursquare lists the venue properly
• Communicate what to expect at the event via the appropriate networks
• Record the event so that for use in post-event promotions
• Use incentives to drive sales during the event
• Live tweet/video stream the event
• After it’s over – use all media created during the event to continue promotion

And because we all like video, here are some other examples of successful flash mobs in action:

H&M Kids Fashion Flash Mob in San Francisco

Frozen in Grand Central Station

Beyonce 100 Single Ladies Flash-Dance in Piccadilly Circus, London

Branding is a simple and powerful tool. It will make or break the value of your service or product, long before you sell the service or product to the customer. In social media it’s proven that personal connection is the motivation for use. This was illustrated by Renee Warren in the face behind your brand:

When I say Elmo, you think… Sesame Street.
When I say Miss Piggy, you think … The Muppets.
When I say Steve Jobs, you think …Apple.

The visual association just goes to say that the first image your audience will see may not be your official brand. So how does this affect your avatar? The face of your business will be who your audience expects to associate with. The risk being that there is a fine line between transparency and promotion. You may wonder how do you do this? It’s simple: be human. Any deviation from a honest representation of your brand will unleash backlash.

From a technical perspective, How to Take a Great Social Media Profile Picture in 4 Easy Steps lays out the technique to make that perfect picture match your personality. Just remember to keep it fun and recognizable.

While it has been shown that social media is vital for a modern brand, the majority of participants online are still consuming instead than creating. I think it is time we redefine a participant. Currently the idea of participation means engagement within the network, because it’s an easy measurement, but the consideration of a lurker is lost in the assessment. Consider this discussion between Seth Godin and Loic Le Meur on why he doesn’t use Twitter or Facebook.

Prepare for the shocker: “Transparency” by social media be damned, especially if it doesn’t make viable sense in the long run.

So how do we capture the lurker? My dad, who is a former mechanical engineer with an illustrious career, doesn’t have a Facebook account nor does he care about Twitter.  He can barely operate email, but he gets the Internet. He doesn’t use traditional media for product research, he’s a mixture of the old school detective and modern digital spy. He bravely does what we’re afraid of – picking up the phone to talk to a live person and hunting down information online without a second thought. So how do we track someone who is virtually invisible online, still surfing like it was 1998, but using all the information data tools to participate?

To use my dad to further the point – he doesn’t care about branding, microblogging or lifestreaming. But he will find anything you publish that he’s interested in. He won’t write a blog post (doubt he’ll ever see this one), participate in a forum or leave a comment. Yet I can guarantee that he will talk to his friends in person about what he’s found. So how do you capture this segment of the online participant, and what do we risk if our only communications are through social media?

Even if it were possible to measure everything online, business is still driven by human behavior. Human behavior is not definable as a one-to-one relationship metric where the tracking the of causes and effects line up perfectly.

“Social media is great, but your first responsibility is to be great at what you do.” Ideally the latest trend in social media: leaving it, should help us focus on where the priorities are.

We know Facebook is a time suck, Twitter eats away at your day 140 characters at a time and how many videos do you watch before pulling yourself away from YouTube? There are not enough hours in the day to deal with the different networks and there will be more added to the inventory every week. So why then is social media still pushed as a cure-all for every communication strategy? It’s an easy sell, if everyone else is doing it why get left behind? With the buffet of networks available its pretty hard to find a niche that isn’t covered, even NASA is using social media.

Location awareness is an increasing requirement in mobile usage as networks, handsets and content have improved to target this segment. Adding in the ego and gaming factor you now have users competing to hand over their valuable usage analytics and the start-up Foursquare is purportedly valued at $100 million. Foursquare is a proven tool for businesses with many examples ranging from the City of Chicago making city exploration fun, the Wynn Las Vegas’ unique approach to top notch service, to Starbucks’ desire to better understand their customers.

In my opinion a lot can be gathered with how quickly retail has picked up on Foursquare after having seen success with Twitter, the desire to not be left behind is pushing the competition. Since Foursquare has been on the scene for over a year it’s not showing any signs of slowing down. According to CEO and co-founder Dennis Crowley: Twitter didn’t reach the same adoption point until it was close to two years old.

Even with social detractors such as stalkers and the “Please Rob Me” uproar, it’s interesting to look at how quickly the momentum for location aware services is taking off. It pulls at the human nature to compete and be rewarded. This competition has fueled grassroots “swarm” badge meetups and unique thought to driving customers to non-retail oriented businesses. And with the new business tools I foresee the ability to convince your boss about why Foursquare is the new frontier to spend time.

The real determining factor that Foursquare has made it is when you start seeing posts about how people quit using the service because they have moved onto the next big thing. As I’ve mentioned in previous posts the advent of Google Goggles and visual tracking makes combining these technologies as the next candidate to explode. I foresee with the current camera-based technology and location tracking ability, in the next 2 years, we will not give a second thought when our daily life ingrained with this technology as a utility.

It seems to be a reoccurring trend, at least in the blogosphere, to step back and evaluate the balance that time spent online (largely spent in social networks) affects our lives. This desire for balance is a good move; considering the research showing damaging physiological changes created by increasing use of social networks and the associated decline in face-to-face contact. So it’s time to unplug.

Should a social network be obligated to allow a user to vanish? It can be simplified as who owns the content. The article 10 ways social media will change in 2010 expounds on the idea that a battle over content will erupt is a very real concern. And a social network profile is really just content, albeit juicy content for advertising impression research and trends.

In the case of Google, they have explicitly stated that they do not mine the data – with a note that they could and that government institutions can as well:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Click here to view the embedded video.

*It should also be noted: Google provides many ways for a user to clear cache and attempt to remove themselves or content from its engine’s clutches.

“Nothing’s permanent, not even death.” – from the Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. So what if you want to do more than take a break from social media? Now with morbid flair there is a new tool encouraging users to clean the slate and “meet their real neighbors again.” The Web 2.0 Suicide Machine, apparently seems to be working, Facebook recently blocked the service from their network, citing privacy violation. However given how the service works, by blanking out entries rather than deleting, I think it may help expose the fact that it’s not affecting the privacy of users – rather the information being gathered by advertisers.

How successful is this service? So as a consumer of social media, I take at face value all the “data” about my interaction online as well as the actual content that I “create” is monitored and valued to the larger community. Whether services like Suicide Machine are effective or not do not matter – rather I think they provide a good stimulus to the conversation about finding the balance between the real life and the social network persona. What are your thoughts about vanishing your online presence?

Google Trends shows how quickly the search has become a hot topic:

It’s not a matter of who is the journalist or news anchor in the case of social media, concern over ownership of retweets or information privacy is out the window. In the case of crisis the network moves the news in order to expand the communal concern rather than respond to ratings.

Recently, an interesting thought was raised about how Social Media has become the news to Traditional Media. In comparison to being a reactionary channel for branding I think involvement in social media has a way to push communication past a professional news pitch to something that hits closer to home. In the case of Haiti news, almost instantly there were charitable actions being shared through the community.

There is great potential for new tools to help maintain the momentum by showing where the money that is being donated is being used to enrich the community. So when the dust settles where will that leave efforts in Haiti? Does Social Media have the ability to extend past the flash of the news to create a sustainable relief effort? If it is to be successful there needs to be a connection past generating the buzz and awareness to continuing the action of support. The ability to store the data from the buzz even has potential to help with generating action plans for the future.

We all heard about how social media was influential for increasing e-sales by “efficient, low-cost way for retailers to communicate directly”. So we know retail is listening to the power of social media.

How well did it personally connect people with people during the holidays? Personally I found it hard to engage users online when I had so much going on IRL (in real life). To communicate I reverted back to the old way of communication – email and phone. So much for new technology/networks when parts of the family are still figuring out dial-up.

So what does this activity mean for engaging this year on a personal or brand level? Taking a thought from Dan Zarrella’ post about predictions social media marketing evolution. The user base of most online networks are demanding a more targeted and personalized experience. This stems from the fact that ultimately the user wants more than a face to a profile – there needs to be in real life connection. It’s been proven model for business – so there should be no difference for personal connections. TrendsSpotting’s 2010 trend pre­dic­tions in 140 characters – emphasizes the fact that personal connection will take social media to the next level this year.

In conclusion this year I hope to find the right balance between real life and social media relationship. What is your resolution or personal goal for social media engagement?

While social media is helping shoppers avoid in person holiday sales and still get a great deal, it’s not all about buying the gifts, which is on a strong surge. With the true spirit of the giving season, the act of giving, social media is making an appearance to make giving front and center.

In the past, the big organizations brought the holiday giving campaign to the people with in-person, crowd based campaigns. Now, organizations like the Salivation Army are using social media to extend their reach with a personal touch through Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. They even offer tools for dedicated volunteers to help spread the message.

Click here to view the embedded video.

The Baltimore Sun has an interesting article about charities using social media to add another avenue for giving:

Taking into account that the economy has been hard on everyone, Beth Kanter articulates a good process for making your holiday charitable giving decisions. The Red Cross found in a recent study that in spite of the economic downtown that most people anticipating donating more than $25 this year during the holiday season. Maybe by using Social Media these charities have a chance of getting those donations by interacting with their audience when they are at their computers, more able to donate online.

All year we’ve heard of social media is being used to change the world: Make Your Mark, SM4SC, 12 for 12k, Social Media for Social Good, Twestivals, Tweetsgiving and countless others. I think it is exciting to see these efforts extend to our holiday traditions and continue the support of those around us in need. Using social media for holiday giving is making it’s mark – but lets not forget that it’s all about the impact.

For a sprig of humor for your holidays, David Alston wrote a great post about transitioning the tradition of Santa into the modern tech world.

Google launched the Real Time Search service enabling users to discover breaking news the moment it’s happening by animating new results into the search results. Using the trends page you can now see what’s hot and watch the results flow in.

Click here to view the embedded video.

It seems they cut their teeth on Google Wave, a viable product with virtually no delay between composition and publishing to a specified group. Now, they are able to provide search results in the same fashion, but rather than control the entry and consumption points, they bridge the delivery gap between “publishers” and “content consumer”.

Initially, in contrast to what some users are demanding for real time results, I feel that the results seem to be watered down. Mixing tweets with blog posts, dilutes the content over brevity. Each has a unique purpose and the combination of both in my opinion hurts the full story because of how the typical web user absorbs information. In crisis management, since timing is everything. Has Google made a mess of things pushing the responsible message out of conscience when a topic is trending and further responses or thoughts are possibly negative to the brand?

While I have hesitation over the display of content in the real time search, I think Google has done well to provide relevance to the search query. By providing a way for users to turn on/off the real time feature, it allows for easier consumption as well as shows the commitment to usability that Google is known for.

The second feature was announced this week when Google hinted at their new Google Goggles project with flair typically reserved for Steve Jobs.

Click here to view the embedded video.

This is the one I am really excited over. While the focus has been towards the mobile web, no one has really pushed the boundaries of a “real-time” mobile web. Apps like Shazam, SnapTell and Evernote are wildly popular because they allow the mobile user to search in other ways besides text and finger inputs. Even with the new Nuance Dragon Dictation app taking it a step further with voice, Google trumps the deck by allowing search by life-streaming. Fire up your mobile camera – and query. Real time search by voice, location and sight.

So what’s the next step? Combining Latitude, 411, and Goggles services into real time search by mobile device – the ability to life cast and query became a reality. The real question becomes what impact does your message (brand or personal) suffer or succeed by real time influences.

We’ve heard that the Internet is supposed to be the great equalizer. In a recent article about how hospitals are competing with smaller ad budgets, several steps were defined to almost guarantee a successful digital campaign:

• Having a (content) rich, useful and consumer-friendly website
• Advertising on popular local websites
• Concentrating on paid and organic search optimization
• Establishing appropriate niche group pages and advertising to highly targeted audiences with matched services
• Using communication based networks (aka Twitter) with healthcare special interest audiences

It is excepted that these strategies all take time and are worth the investment, it can even be considered part of the process to attract brand loyal customers. So why does this not always work?

I suggest the landscape is moving and that most marketers are not willing to change. Bill Hunt asked if big brands will be the death of social media? While it is a catchy question I think he hits on the underlying concern about using social media: YOU have to make it unique everytime!

I know this concept isn’t revolutionary. To me it seems that the lesson isn’t being learned about trying to put lightening in the bottle. The best quote from Bill’s post is “Social Media users are people who are connecting with people who have shared interests – “SHARED INTERESTS” – which makes it niche marketing at best.”

This is a no-brainer… So when a social network changes why do we care? Because we are lazy (in the bad way) and want to just connect to people the same way every time. So when another social network crops up or Facebook changes it’s layout again, when Google tweaks its algorithms or *gasp* Twitter tweaks its service – there is concern over how to “game the system” again. It’s not about the technology or overcoming the “roadblocks” but connecting with the audience.

This year I was privileged to be involved with Tweetsgiving, a social media project with a goal to raise $100k in donations for an orphanage in Tanzania. While the total donation amount hasn’t been reached (yet), the campaign was successful because of the impact to the targeted audience. It wasn’t about making fans or followers but to encourage individuals to change the world through the power of gratitude. I think the following stats are evident of this happening.

• 21,226 tweets
• 336 photos tagged
• 79 videos tagged
• 68 songs tagged
• 896 blog posts

So where does this leave an online marketer? Nigel summed it up with simplifying the solution: Great strategy and creativity are critical whether your brand is big or small. It’s not about making a repeatable success rather focusing on your unique and targeted audience and engaging each time with personal interest. The rest will follow in time.

As a semi-pro photographer I encounter unique situations everyday involving photography, rights management and social media. Note: every locality has their own laws that any person taking pictures should abide by – this post is not about the legality or rights of taking photos as a photographer (while it may touch on these points). Also in this post I am only speaking about legal/regional areas where I have personal experience, please share your own experiences and knowledge in the comments.

Thomas Hawk, one of the most respected photographers in arena of photographer’s rights, has plenty to say about the moral and legal aspect of limiting a photographer’s public photography access.

As an overview, in the US, there may be limitations to publishing a photo which you take. Essentially, for an amateur photograph, “the display of the photo can’t be maliciously untrue, or humiliate, ridicule, or reveal embarrassing and personal facts about a non-newsworthy person.” So to publish an image of someone you need their permission. Thus photographers carry Model Release forms for such purposes. However, if a person is out in public, they have no reasonable expectation of privacy so you can take their picture. So what does this have to do with social media? Aside from each network’s definition of media rights the usage of this media is expanding the connectivity and control of said digital property.

Since the dawn of the Internet, there have been battles over control and usage rights of digital media pushing beyond copyright. Recently, Facebook jumped into hot water over the issue of digital rights ownership when they changed their terms of service. I believe they are the most notable of any of the digital rights issues based on how outspoken the topic became and overall community reaction. Apparently this was resolved to include more descriptive information protecting the company from content being residual on a users profile etc. However, it begs the question who owns the rights?

During a photo shoot this past weekend, I was asked to solely publish the photos to Facebook and Flickr and tag the models, make up artist and clothing designer. I have all the appropriate releases and permissions. This is the first social media network only publication “release” that I’ve dealt with intrigued me to think about the implications. My Facebook account has switched from a way to just post personal (family) photos to now a distribution platform for other individual’s media.

In my mind this raises the question as to who owns legitimate rights to the photo? Technically, based on copyright since I took the photo, I own it. But ethically, the models who posed and the designers and other individuals who made the shot are also “involved” owners. So what if I decide I want to remove the photos or modify my account in some way that they are no longer accessible to the individuals tagged – do they have a (present or future) right to the media or choices to its publication?

Aside from the legal rights issue – the technical ability to find and tag these photos has been overcome. The release of the automatic Facebook app Photo Tagger , a free third-party application uses facial recognition technology to tag photos of people. Even Flickr has added the ability to tag friends, similar to Facebook, in a photostream. So the question about “ownership” becomes more complex given the many levels of licensing that Flickr (and other social networks) utilize.

After reading this facinating report on exposing that social media sites are less than helpful at letting photographers maintain control of their intellectual property I began to question if social media will help shift the focus of a photo being an individual’s right to manage – to a captured experience that anyone involved has a voice in publication and distribution? Not necessarily talking about quashing or censorship of digital media but rather crowd-sourcing ownership and rights management. Is there good to come from allowing users access to images, video or other digital media that may contain an image or clip of themselves regardless of the media owner?

Finally, with the explosion of mobile usage and the ability to capture still imagery and video and publish – beyond just a photo-journalistic approach what aspects should be considered to properly handle user rights?

Real life relationships are complex enough, add the digital medium with a sprinkle of ego and the relationship points become more complicated. In a social network defining relationships beyond friendship is a tough problem to solve.

In the story “Are You My Mother?” by P. D. Eastman, the baby bird explores the world looking to find his mother, confused he asks if each character in the story is his mother. In the end a digger ends up dropping him back home to his real mother. Just like this, it seems every social network touts the idea of being a friend, but none offer ways to satisfactorily address the complexity of the relationship.

The issue of the complexity of digital relationships started with linking to other websites. Defining the link relationship has been an issue since the early days of the Internet, thus the creation of NoFollow and the XHTML Friends Network (XFN). These tools were developed to define in the code what human relationships exist between the two websites. According to Wikipedia, the “nofollow” HTML attribute was originally designed to stop comment spam on blogs. Stemming from this concept the XFN specification outlines the relationships between individuals by defining a small set of values that describe personal relationships. Thus, using XFN, machines that parse your web pages, as well as other humans, can see how you are related to the pages you link to.

But it doesn’t stop with links, relationships involve the action (or lack of action) taken between users on a given social network. It can be like high school all over again.

Of all the large digital networks, Facebook has the greatest to gain by improving relationship classifications and tools to manage the dynamics of human relationships. For example in the event of a relationship fallout – the possibility to loose digital property such as tagged images when the relationship status changes is a real problem. But taking an aggressive approach to the relationship such as disliking a friend or their action could add balance to the existing reconnect strategy.

The advent of life streaming added more dynamics to relationship algorithm with more immediate conversation tools and ways to define and track a relationship by time. Sites like LinkedIn have an advantage of defining the relationship based on a time and professional association. Yet, still fall short when truly giving information into how connected you really are with someone because you’re afraid of fallout from six degrees of separation. Below is an example of my Facebook network and how interconnected the relationships are with each other.

In the early days of Twitter it was etiquette to just friend back anyone who followed you. Now, unless the user is of interest it is fine to not reciprocate the follow; however, with the addition of the list feature being exclusionary in nature misunderstandings in the network relationships have begun.

Now with geo-location tools like FourSquare – I believe some connections shouldn’t know every move you make. I understand the benefits of advertising your location – such as getting friends together for karaoke; however, I really don’t care if you’ve been to Starbucks 15 times this week. Or more dramatic, announcing your attendance to a Democratic convention with Republican parents who follow your stream can lead to icy conversations around the dinner table. Having location data is great for location aware networks and the ability to offer additional features, yet the ability to merge privacy with relationship classification will be a big advance in social networks.

When it comes down to it, being a big deal is not as big as you think, but I think there needs to be continued thought given to online relationship classifications. The next big thing in relationship dynamics online will be the ability to go beyond just measuring compatibility between individuals to being able to craft (control) your life message based on the individual audience. The concept of a digital “friend” will morph into the classification structures like we have in real life. Be honest, do you really want to be “friends” with a brand? What ways do you think relationship dynamics will change on the Internet in the next 3 months to 5 years?

The fact that twitter users take their personal brand so seriously was exemplified when Chris Brogan mentioned the backlash by excluding individuals from his lists, thus labeling lists “exclusionary by nature“. So besides a thick skin do his users need to grow up? I think this harks back to the follow me – I’ll follow you back mindset on twitter etiquette.

Does the fact that inclusion on a list will add anything to a user as meta-data or perceived relationship by classification? And by taking the control out of the hands of the user on the list does it make this classification more human/real?

What if you feel the classification is wrong or derogatory? I dare refer to those who Chris may have offended by excluding would be happy to not be included on @cspenn’s lists.

So it seems to get on or off lists you have to connect with the creator (which is kind of the point) but what about the ability to collaborate or moderate a list. For example, it seems in my city almost every Twitter user has their own list of local users. The issue being that there is no one with a complete list and this leaves the classification structure fractured.

For me the benefit of being able to list users without following them helps simplify the amount of users in my main feed. I now wonder how this will impact the follow ratio for most accounts – especially business or corporate types. So it might make sense to forget the main feed all together, turn lists private and then build an app that will display only the lists I follow. Thus building a simple taxonomy used to categorize a user based on what I expect them to tweet.

To finish off, lists are a good start at classifying users and simplifying the feed structure but need a lot more work to take a simple classification structure and make it more usable to the whole community. Please share what your recommendations for the obvious next steps for Twitter lists!

By Wyatt Wood

Originating from the human desire to share, its obvious that the success of social media is the ability to connect users. A network’s success is determined by how easy it is to connect and share. For example compare Twitter vs Plurk, Facebook vs MySpace, Bing vs Google (perform your own comparison).

Success can be a two-edged sword, if focusing on the wrong metrics can leave the message stale, using return on influence can provide an accurate measurement of message activists.

Micah Baldwin defined influence as “influence is one person influencing one person about one thing” during his presentation at Gnomedex 9.0.

So how do you convert curiosity to increase your influence? Here are 3 simple steps to strengthen your influence within your network:

1. Use strategic reciprocity to entice your network into participation. While value differs between users there is always purpose that defines an engaged user. TGI Friday’s successfully converted customers and potential customers with their campaign for gaining 500,000 fans on Facebook. Allowing for benefits in exchange for an action from the user uses tangible ways measure the engagement.
2. Be consistent with your message and values when the situation is adverse. It’s no surprise that given the success of the Facebook campaign for TGIF that to execute the promise of a free burger could be a challenge. The ability for conversation doesn’t always mean that it will be positive. Nick Cifuentes provides several tough examples of hands on social media crisis management. Given the change in the landscape of communication there is no excuse for not being responsible, but staying traditional while communicating during backlash can perpetuate the damage.
3. Take advantage of opportunities for social validation. This week Facebook extended their share tool, including adding new functionality to count of the number of times the URL has been shared on Facebook. The ease of using the new features helps the silent fan become an extension of the conversation. Touting the new analytics for the share tool, you can now access the information associated with each link shared on Facebook:

• Users share the link on Facebook.
• Users “like” the shared story.
• Users comment on the shared story on Facebook.
• Users click back to your site from the story.

Have you used these concepts or tools to affect your network to convert fans into participants? What metrics are most important to your decision making to determine the return on influence?

By Wyatt Wood

It’s no surprise that mobile web use is increasing with records sales for iphone and the buzz surrounding the upcoming Motorola Droid smartphone. Taking this increase into consideration should be part of any current interactive/social strategy. With more than 60 million page views from mobile devices WordPress.com took notice and provided mobile template options for its bloggers.

This really shows how mobile devices are becoming the next entrance into the cloud. It’s pretty easy to see how the simplistic interface is geared for searching and quick delivery of information. The medium is perfect for engaging users on the move but I’m not satisfied that it’s good at retaining the average user long term.

Mobile location services such as Loopt are attempting to tackle this problem by providing behind the scenes (always on) monitoring and updates. I see this taking lifecasting to a new level of information sharing. Combined with SenseCam, which reportedly can hold 30,000 images on its internal memory, the possibility of having a device or service that can track and broadcast your movements has major implications.

Given my own usage of services like Foursquare, Latitude, Brightkite and other mobile/location aware services I think location broadcasting is a great idea. Especially coupled with a sense of competition to become recognized as a “regular” I think helps combat boredom with a service. But what’s next for the interactive mobile user? It’s not always about gaming or entertainment – given the trends I think it is clear that community is emerging point of mobile devices.

This past weekend I participated in the first Over The Edge VA 2009 event, participants who raised $1,500 in donations for Special Olympics were given access to rappel down 25 story Suntrust building in Richmond Virginia. I had the opportunity to participate both as a rappeler and as the roof top photographer. Not only was it a rush to look over but to know I was supporting a good cause made it worth it.

I struggled converting my personal enthusiasm into my online network. I realized that my online “brand” wasn’t conducive for inspiring activism within my network. So I took this as a challenge to overhaul over my online image to help change my network into activists like myself. While I wasn’t able to hit the goal of $1500 they were gracious enough to let me go over since I was volunteering my time as a photographer. I learned so much from this experience, I am curious if a refresh of personal brand is a good thing to do on a schedule and if so – how often?

Based on my experience in social media combined with how much chatter there was on Twitter for #oterva the day of the event I was curious to know the usefulness of social media as a strategy leading up and post. I decided it would be insightful to interview the folks responsible. Kira Siddall and Adam Cunningham (seen in the picture rappelling) were influential leaders for the use of social media for this specific event and this is what they had to say:

1. What online channels did you use or recommend?
   As a nonprofit SOVA has limited budget for traditional advertising. The event itself is already a great conversation starter, we hoped that if we could reach out to enough people to tell them about the event that the word of mouth would spread and potential participants would hear about it and sign up. Specifically, a Web site dedicated to the event, Facebook & Twitter.  Also direct email targeted to current, long-term supporters of SOVA.
2. What was the purpose of using social media for this event?
   First: Twitter was used to engage local property managers to help locate a building for the event.  Second: Twitter & FB were used to engage individual rappellers and corporate sponsors. Third: Twitter, FB & direct email were used to build recognition of the event and it’s individual & corporate supporters to increase & amplify their fundraising efforts.
3. How did you measure success in social media?
   Number of followers/friends & speed w/ which they signed up to follow/friend. Level of Twitter RT’s & original postings from followers/friends.  The key measure of success was how many people/corporations signed up to raise funds due to their expose to SM.
4. What impact has this event had for awareness for Special Olympics in Virginia?
   The event had a very positive impact for SOVA’s awareness.  Two major TV stations (Channel 8 & Channel 12), The Richmond Times Dispatch, Q94 & Lite98 all promoted & covered the event.  And, in it’s first year, this event surpassed SOVA’s expectations.  Plus, the event continues to get coverage both in local media & SM.
5. What is your policy on moderating communication?  Define transparency.
   Since we are in the business of communicating on behalf of our clients, the level of moderating communication is, in the end, set by the client.  If a client is not comfortable having an open, two-way communication via SM then we typically don’t recommend they actively engage.  Instead, we will recommend they get involved to simply listen to the conversations and use the information/insights gained to help modify their efforts.  Transparency: open, clear & accountable.
6. How will what you learned with this event change your future strategies?
   While the messaging & SM platform strategy was well defined and executed for this event, they need to be put in play much earlier for an inaugural event.  SM efforts are organic by their nature so ample time is required to allow the relationships to form so the effort can adapt over time and increase the level of engagement.

If adrenaline is your thing and you’re not afraid of heights in your armchair – be sure to checkout the video of Kira going over the edge, and photos from up top and down below. I am interested in learning more about the campaigns are you working on and how you plan to energize your networks into action?

Last week I received my invite to the Google Wave phenomenon – it really wasn’t as enticing as I hoped, I’m glad I didn’t spend $5100 on it. I watched the videos, saw the preview demonstrations and even drank the Kool-aid as a die hard Google fan, but something is missing. After getting my hands elbow deep in the “wave” (yes there is special terminology for the service) it occurred to me that the issue is the network.

First, to quell the fears of those who aren’t on the “Wave” yet: this will not kill Twitter, Facebook, Ning or (insert another social media network here). Especially right now, since it is full of bugs, slow, cumbersome interface, and a limited user network. In typical Google fashion it can still be considered in “beta” mode.

That being said, Google has their work cut out based on the underlying message that Wave is to replace email, online document collaboration and chat with this revolutionary real time communication model. I feel after using the wave what Ryan realized on the 37signals blog that “‘Because it sucks’ is not a reason to redesign. ‘It sucks’ leaves the scope wide open with no measure of success.” The purpose to step beyond email or “old style” of communication is a valiant effort but to complicate the method send the Wave to the scrap heap.

Here’s the catch: Google is surprisingly missing the concept that it is all about the people and productivity, duh!

Last week they released 100k invites with the ability for folks to then nominate eight other individuals. It seems this morning they have begun to send out more invites based on those nominations. I understand the need to control the user base but if the purpose of the application is collaboration I would expect the ability to add more humans into the network would be top priority. Currently it’s similar to post-apocalyptic hide and seek trying to find contacts via the six degrees in the social network that were lucky enough to be invited or nominated. Currently the hurdle to collaborate is so high just finding the network of individuals to work with is virtually impossible.

My biggest concern about contacts and “friends” in Google Wave is the way to manage them. Right now there is no integration with Gmail to manage contacts (other than a link that loads Google Contacts in a new window separate from the application). If they expect the contact management system to stay as simplistic as Gmail contacts then it will be painful to setup groups of individuals to interact with. Even something as simple as how Facebook organizes contacts via lists would be a start to managing the user experience.

The lack of human network then leads into the noise factor. The influx of gadgets, bots, and other “features” just overloads the experience with nonhuman interaction. I am all for automation which is the goal of the Wavebots; however, so far the implementation has been far from “seamless”. The concept is great – but the execution of these robots makes the usage painful and confusing.

I understand that the product is still in extreme infancy, however after having announced it months ago and chummed the waters in anticipation the purpose of the application should be a bit more polished. Brad Robb, a fiction writer expounded on the technology challenge for using the Wave as a writer and summarized his experience with: “Google Wave will be a powerful force for those who want to use it. The system is a lot like checkers – takes two minutes to learn and a lifetime to master.” In today’s market complexity for user interaction doesn’t win.

Google has stepped its game up with real time communication efforts between networks of individuals, especially with the Wave adding a new twist on the concept of online collaboration. Yet right now the combination of “noise” and the lack of network (human network) is killing the momentum of Google Wave being a smash hit.

I’m tired of being looked down on as the young pup because I’m not doing it the old way. Now that this is out of the way, I’m really focusing on philosophical debates about the Internet making the younger generation (me) lazy, and if so I take it as a compliment.

Online, laziness involves reclaiming time by improving efficiency and quality. Even CNN is picking up on the fact with a list of tips for workers to get ahead by being lazy (thanks to Jenn for the tip). Efficiency is determined by improving position through knowledge or experience. It’s really understanding that  “Slacking” is really just figuring out how to be more efficient.

So why is the debate important? Learning to effectively search for what you want to know — and filtering the rest out — keeps your mind fresh. It’s not about storing the knowledge, rather understanding the tools to find it quickly and move on. Successful management of the conversation centralizes around filtering the noise from the desired results. Currently the concept of keyword search is the de-facto method of research (finding things) on the Internet.

Enter Lazy Feed, one of the next generation filtering tools based on the topic what you really want to know (in real time). Jolie O’Dell nailed the core “driving innovation” of the service as appealing to the root of user laziness. I love this tool because it makes me efficiently lazy when searching blogs for a topic. In the past, I would subscribe to gobs of RSS feeds, and still do, but this goes one step further – by giving me the latest information for topic I need. While the site has been around for a few months (which is light years in Internet time) the concept is here to stay because of gaining traction with improved features.

The simplistic nature of how results are received makes research more spontaneous.

With the advent of real time web you have the latest trend for communication across the wire. With the influx of communication as it is happening search is more important than ever, not just your gen X flavor of search. Now it’s about filtering the noise from the info you need to know.