Alberta Business Marketing

Now I'll openly admit I've been a proponent of LinkedIn as I've previously written. I’ve often said if I was on a desert island and had to choose one social network (from a business perspective) - it would be a tough decision because other social networks such as Facebook, Twitter and others all have significant merits but my choice would be LinkedIn. Based on this quick online (unofficial) poll others think the same way.

I'd also like to make it clear I'm not an employee of the company. I don’t own any stock in the company. Nor do I do receive any financial remuneration from the company.

What's the reason for this disclosure? Well I wanted to make that clear despite being a proponent given that LinkedIn has recently been in the news about their social ads. What happened was that LinkedIn was automatically opting-in its +100 million users into a social advertising program.

The way the social advertising worked was that when a LinkedIn user viewed a third-party advertisement on the social network, they would see others in their network who followed or recommended the promoted brands. So in a way it appears to be an endorsement of sorts.

Grab the pitchforks. Queue the outrage and threats to leave Linkedin from the commentariat on websites and blogs across the digital space. Indeed many people got annoyed by the social ads as it reminded some of the controversy surrounding Facebook a few years ago. Candidly, I first found out about this when someone I followed on Twitter flagged this blog post by Steve Woodruff which provided step-by-step instructions in how to unsubscribe from LinkedIn social ads.

Since I read Seth Godin’s Permission Marketing years ago I’ve always believed that as a best practice customers or users should opt-in to your marketing – as opposed to making them opt-out. That could have been a better way for LinkedIn where they could have avoided this controversy. However in fairness I’d also like to bring up a few points that come to mind:

(1) Years ago when Google started embeding advertising overlays in their videos, I tweeted my annoyance. I mean having the audacity to subject users to advertising! I was corrected by my friend David Jones who subtly noted “What do you expect when using a service for free?” I had to admit he was right. Doesn't the same principle apply with Linkedin? Most people use the basic service on LinkedIn which is free but as any company Linkedin has various operating, marketing and technology expenses. Revenue must come from somewhere such as advertising - especially when answerable to shareholders as a publicly-traded company.

(2) Very few people read the Terms of Service (TOS) when signing up for social networks. But LinkedIn does stipulate what happens when you sign-up for using this social network. No the TOS aren't as short and as simple as a blog post but they are there for anyone to review. So it’s not like they were nefarious and snuck something about social advertising under the cover of night.

(3) Speaking of cover of night, LinkedIn did post on their blog back in early June about changes to their privacy policy and also again in late June about their new social ads. So they were telling members what they planned to do.

(4) If LinkedIn were planning on burying this issue surrounding the issue of social ads, why would they continue to leave it on the homepage of most users and feature it as a top headline in the LinkedIn Today section? (Per screenshot below.) Does this strike you as a company trying not to be transparent?

(5) Lastly, LinkedIn quickly responded to the concerns of their members and modified some of the ‘social ads’ to reinforce that member’s trust was very important. They also showed how members could unsubscribe from social ads with one click.

Could LinkedIn have communicated more appropriately with members? Yes but beyond maybe making the service opt-in to begin with or communicating in the original blog post how people could opt-out, I’m unsure of what else people expect of them. Some have suggested LinkedIn could have emailed members but I can’t help but think some people would get outraged with spam in their inboxes.

At the end of the day LinkedIn could have improved a few things but they responded to the community. I’m also sure they learned their lesson. I don't believe one should judge based on a single error but rather what is done to correct it and ensure it doesn't repeat itself. So I won't quite be deleting my account or becoming LinkedOut from LinkedIn quite just yet.

Sulemaan Ahmed
Twitter @sulemaan

Tags: Digital, privacy, social media, This and That
Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off

Recently Stephen Baker, journalist and author of The Numerati, described his challenge in trying to write an article describing the growth of the personal data privacy-services industry in The (still) coming privacy boom. His idea was that given the growth of online behavioural tracking, businesses would arise that would provide services to consumers fearing for their online privacy. What he found was that while there are some services that provide secure cloud-based data storage for a fee, the so-called privacy premium, they have not been terribly successful to date. Most consumers today still prefer the “free” services offered to them by vendors such as Google Docs, Flickr, Facebook and a myriad of others in which they exchange access to details of their personal data to support targeted advertising for these online services. Even the seemingly non-stop fear-mongering in the media regarding privacy has done little to change consumers’ interest in paying a premium to protect their privacy. Consumers publicly say they are concerned about their online privacy, but are generally not willing to pay a premium to get it. This would suggest that the perceived value offered by these sites is sufficient to outweigh the perceived cost of their compromised privacy.

But perhaps this is a situation where the current industry economics are driving the behaviour? Dan Ariely in his book Predictably Irrational demonstrated the almost magical power of “free” through experiments in behavioural economics. In this case, the default free selection on most websites involves giving up access to certain pieces of personal data in exchange for a series of free, value-added services (and advertisements) driven by the advertisers’ analysis of your data.

What if the economics were shifted so that the default free selection was the privacy option? This would mean that websites and their advertisers would not by default have access to your information and your online experience would not be tailored to your data. Instead, the privacy premium would be paid for by the advertiser explicitly to you the consumer for the use of your data for behavioural tracking (& advertising) in the form of direct cash deposits to your online bank account every time you log on. Would this change the outcome leading more people to adopt the privacy option? I don’t know. Behavioural economics has shown that consumers tend to favour free solutions over options where they must pay something. However, would they still favour free over an option where they are being paid explicitly? Websites may begin competing to pay consumers higher amounts for access to more detailed personal information. At the very least, this approach would likely be a better way to quantify the true value of privacy to consumers.

Paul Tyndall
Senior Manager, Predictive Modelling & Segmentation, RBC Royal Bank

Tags: Analytics/Measurement, Digital, privacy
Posted in Uncategorized | | Comments Off

Hot off the presses…I pulled this off of some newswire stories today.

According to PCWorld’s Carrie-Ann Skinner, Facebook is reconsidering some it’s privacy settings after a backlash from their members.  Maybe not so many changes, but making privacy and controlling what others see in Facebook easier for the average user of Facebook.

Carrie-Ann included a quote from a Facebook representative in her article “We’re working on responding to these concerns. Watch this space”.  Privacy commissioners here in Canada and privacy groups in the UK have called Facebook privacy settings “unacceptable” and are on a rampage against the US-based social networking service.

Privacy specialists are lobbying Facebook for an opt-in vs. an opt-out policy for who sees what with your information on Facebook.  Some Facebook users are even threatening to take extreme action on May 31st, 2010 by deleting their accounts if Facebook doesn’t fix their privacy.  You can share your intention to quit Facebook by signing up on quitfacebookday.com.  Funny thing, according to Facebook, they added 10 million new users since the uproar on security first was reported.

Once again, I need to remind or caution you all that if you wouldn’t email a photo or even share it face-to-face with someone..then posting it on Facebook is also not a good idea.  When you elect to post something to any online service you must practice “sensibility”.  This goes for posting, sharing, status updates or anything that could be used against you.  Almost sounds like a court of law.

But, Facebook is just the whipping boy this month.  I still remember when Microsoft was the whipping boy for all the security holes in Windows…have we forgotten about Windows.  Next month or some time down the road it will be another program or social networks turn in the spotlight.  Maybe it is Twitter or LinkedIn’s turn next.

How can you test your Facebook privacy settings?

There is an answer for all of you who are concerned about your Facebook privacy settings and don’t understand how to lock everything down.  There is a great website and serve that does all the testing for you and ensures your Facebook account is properly secured.

Are you interested in testing and then ensuring your Facebook privacy settings are set correctly?

I stumbled across this interesting site today that helps you determine you level of privacy online.  Check out reclaimprivacy.org and test your online privacy. When you hit the reclaimprivacy.org site, read the instructions very carefully and run their tool against your Facebook privacy settings.  The service will offer up recommendations to tighten up your Facebook security and actually fix them for you.

Give it try to see if you have any privacy holes that need filling.

Tags: Blog software, canada, Carrie-Ann Skinner, Criticism of Facebook, Facebook, Facebook Beacon, Facebook Inc, Internet privacy, LinkedIn Ltd, Microsoft Corporation, Microsoft Windows, online privacy, online service, Online social networking, privacy, reclaimprivacy.org site, representative, Social information processing, social media, Social network service, social networking service, social networks, Technology/Internet, Twitter Inc, United Kingdom, web 2.0, World Wide Web
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off

Does Facebook ever stop being in the Canadian news?  I am sure the guys at Facebook head office would wish the Canadian Privacy Commissioners office would just go away.  But, maybe the PR is something they enjoy as well.

Last week I shared with you some information I found in the Calgary Herald on the Canadian Privacy Commissioners latest challenges with the online giant, Facebook.  There is a buzz in the Canadian press right now on Facebook privacy, not sure if it actual real news or simply propaganda generated by the Privacy Commissioner’s office.

Here is what I think about this whole privacy debate.  Facebook still has never come to my Calgary home and put a gun to my head and said “Open an account or die”.  Even since I have been in the States they have never tracked me down to go through this registration ritual.  It is a total voluntary thing.  You open an account, you understand the risks associated, you agree by reading the terms and conditions…and away you guy.  You click upload, you click “like”, you click “share”….you do things, they don’t do things on your behalf.

Why the big mess about Facebook?  I haven’t seen any news in the US Papers this week about Facebook and privacy.  Is it only a Canadian concern?  Perhaps, is it valid…of course to some who have kids and perhaps they share every bit of information about what they are doing online.  Just like many, I am  disgusted that some pervert would take Facebook pictures of kids and post them on some website for him and his buddies to enjoy…but is that a fault of Facebook?

Actually, in a recent Facebook article from Vancouver Sun reporter Gillian Shaw, many online services are mentioned, not just Facebook.  Flickr and the list goes on.  Can Facebook tighten their security, of course…so can Microsoft, Apple and everyone else in the IT world.  But remember, you don’t have to be on Facebook to survive in today’s world.  You still elect to open your account.

I do recommend that you put online the files, pictures or status updates that you feel comfortable with.  This is what you get with a free service.  Want more security, want more privacy…it is time to open your wallet and maybe fork over a few dollars per month to ensure you have the heightened security you are comfortable with.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder of Facebook has been quoted in the papers and stating he doesn’t believe in privacy.  I think privacy in the free online community is long gone as well.  No one wants to take ownership of privacy, so they leave everything wide open…it is the wild west in the social media world today.  I think we need to get over it or simply turn off the computer.  Like I said, no one is holding a gun to your head forcing you to create an account, post pictures and share information.

Here is an interesting email that came from a friend in the nursing industry in Ontario.  Their licensing agency is also concern professionally about the whole online world…driving professionals underground!

Unfortunately being a nurse and being out here on a public forum don’t always go together. The College of Nurses, the regulatory body, that issues our licenses to us each year sees our professional and private lives as a bit of a grey area, especially when it comes to social networking.  It is for this reason that I have decided to merge my two face-book accounts. I have one under my pen-name and one under my birth name. Now they’ll both be under my pen-name.

Where do you stand with this whole online privacy thing? Would love to hear what you have to say?

Tags: Calgary, Calgary Herald, College of Nurses, Criticism of Facebook, Facebook, Facebook Beacon, Facebook Inc, founder, free online community, Gillian Shaw, Human Interest, Internet privacy, Mark Zuckerberg, Microsoft Corporation, nurse, online giant, online privacy thing, Online social networking, online world, Ontario, privacy, Privacy Commissioner, reporter, Social information processing, social media world, Social network service, social networking, Technology/Internet, the Calgary Herald, the Canadian news, the Canadian press, Vancouver Sun, World Wide Web
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off

After successfully clearing Homeland Security at YYC this morning, enroute to Dallas for a couple of days with the Heartland Tech Group (HTG) peer group meetings, I noticed a headline in this morning’s Globe and Mail.

Facebook users risk blackmail, privacy czar warns

It looks like Jennifer Stoddart is one the warpath with Facebook once again (Read the Globe and Mail article).  I am confused by her stand against Facebook and the privacy of Facebook users data.  Facebook, like many other social networking sites are not forcing people to sign up for accounts or even volunteer information.  Facebook membership in Canada is not mandatory, you have a choice not to sign up.  Besides your name, email address, birthdate (which is used to verify those 13 and over) and gender information, I can’t think of any other information that I don’t have an option to share, not to share and even hide from those I don’t want to share it with.

I am confused with Canada’s Privacy Commissioner on why she would be overly concerned.  Facebook is not a bank where personal information is required to confirm your identity and where your money is managed.  I believe there is more risk in all the non-protected computers running without anti-virus software and even those who fail to patch their Windows computers each month than risks with Facebook.  There is more risk to security from people who still send credit card numbers via email.

I am not saying you don’t need to be vigilant, you always need to be on guard with everything you do online (even on Facebook).  Hackers, virus writers and script kiddies are turning to Facebook, Twitter and other online social media sites as vehicles to spread their worms and other malicious code to unexpected users.  Just like email, always practice caution, even on Facebook.

Application programmers which link their third-party apps to link into Facebook are now (according to the Globe and Mail article story) able to store your data forever instead the 24 hour period once enforced.  What data, your bank accounts, letters to mom, your MP3 collection…what data are they talking about – the pictures you put on Facebook.  I am sure that there is some acknowledgement in the terms and conditions prior to installing or participating in these activities.  Who is at fault if you fail to understand the T & C’s. I don’t think it is Facebook’s issue.

Here is a simple tip for Facebook users who don’t want their photos and other information shared, don’t put them online.  Sounds simple.

Haven’t we been through this before?

Once again, Facebook is not a substitute for picking up the phone or other forms on social interaction.  You don’t have to sign up.  Facebook membership is not mandatory in Canada.

Here are some of the terms and conditions, relating to privacy on Facebook – notice the remove or do not add warnings throughout the text below.  Read more about Facebook privacy.

This section explains how your privacy settings work, and how your information is shared on Facebook.  You should always consider your privacy settings before sharing information on Facebook.

Name and Profile Picture. Facebook is designed to make it easy for you to find and connect with others.  For this reason, your name and profile picture do not have privacy settings.  If you are uncomfortable with sharing your profile picture, you should delete it (or not add one).  You can also control who can find you when searching on Facebook or on public search engines using your search settings.

Contact Information. Your contact information settings control who can contact you on Facebook, and who can see your contact information such as your email and phone number(s).  Remember that none of this information is required except for your email address, and you do not have to share your email address with anyone.

Personal Information. Your personal information settings control who can see your personal information, such as your religious and political views, if you choose to add them.  We recommend that you share this information using the friends of friends setting.

Posts by Me. You can select a privacy setting for every post you make using the publisher on our site.  Whether you are uploading a photo or posting a status update, you can control exactly who can see it at the time you create it.  Whenever you share something look for the lock icon.  Clicking on the lock will bring up a menu that lets you choose who will be able to see your post.  If you decide not to select your setting at the time you post the content, your content will be shared consistent with your Posts by Me privacy setting.

Connections. Facebook enables you to connect with virtually anyone or anything you want, from your friends and family to the city you live in to the restaurants you like to visit to the bands and movies you love.  Because it takes two to connect, your privacy settings only control who can see the connection on your profile page.  If you are uncomfortable with the connection being publicly available, you should consider removing (or not making) the connection.

Gender and Birth Date. In addition to name and email address, we require you to provide your gender and birth date during the registration process.  We ask for your date of birth to verify that you are 13 or older, and so that we can better limit your access to content and advertisements that are not age appropriate.  Because your date of birth and gender are required, you cannot delete them.  You can, however, edit your profile to hide all (or part) of such fields from other users.

Tags: anti-virus software, bank, bank accounts, canada, Commissioner, Criticism of Facebook, czar, dallas, E-mail, Facebook, Facebook features, Facebook Inc, Globe and Mail, guard, heartland tech group, Jennifer Stoddart, Microsoft Windows, MP3, online social media sites, Online social networking, privacy, public search engines, search settings, Social network service, social networking sites, Technology/Internet, the Globe and Mail, Twitter Inc, World Wide Web
Posted in Alberta Business | | Comments Off