Why I don’t love the Cloud

There’s a lot of talk about Cloud Computing lately. There’s been a lot for the past couple of years, but with Apple’s announcement of the iCloud, everyone’s doing the talking.

iCloud Media Cloud

This is also something Google has gotten into, with their Google Music and to an extent Google Docs. So this isn’t just a slam against Apple, they’ve just gotten all of the press lately.

Like most good ideas, iCloud is a simple one: Since there are so many devices you may have – an iPod, an iPhone, an iPad, and/or an Apple computer, iCloud would be the place where all of your files and contacts live, so all of your devices can be synced up easily. Rather than living on your base computer’s hard drive, and updating everything one by one, the Cloud will simply do it for you. What’s more, your files would be accessed wirelessly and not have to live on an old fashioned, poopy hard drive.

So where do I begin with my complaints on this? All of them stem from two things that drive me crazy with modern technology: The over-large corporation that tells its users this is a good idea, and the mass of users who go along with the hype.

First off, storing all of my files on an Apple server means I no longer have my own files. There is a flimsy contract between the provider and myself that my files will be secure and always waiting for me. What happens when they aren’t though? If I am a salesman, and I lose all my contacts through a snafu with their cloud, how will I be compensated for all the lost sales that would result?

Then there’s the purely selfish reason: I have a LOT of illegally burned content. Not necessarily stolen, but I do burn my own copies of CDs and DVDs – if you’ve been online for at least a few years, you do too. What’s to say the owner of the cloud service doesn’t bow down to the RIAA or Paramount or Universal, and let them look over my collection to see if there’s anything lawsuit-worthy?

Finally, assuming there aren’t any technical or draconian legal issues, there’s still the problem of bandwidth. Loading all of your music onto the iCloud and syncing it with your iPad on the go is great – until everyone else does it too. I actually like the idea of cloud computing to store some files. But what happens when everyone’s device relies on a mobile data plan to get its music?

What happens is everything will get slower.

It is possible to get enough servers and towers to make this work. That will be incredibly expensive, of course, and that cost will be passed onto the consumer – namely, you. And me, in fact, whether I use it or not. It wouldn’t surprise me if in a year or two Android or iPhone data plans drive the monthly cost up to $200 per month.

The current cost is already too high for something as simple as a phone in my opinion. All the market needs to do is tell companies they’re willing to spend twice as much on their service just to avoid manually syncing devices. Then they can charge almost as much as they want to.

All just so Apple can stop putting hard drives in iPods, and sell you more crap exclusively on iTunes? It sounds like we’re all lining up for a major screwing.

Service Code: Netflix’s other neat idea

We all know what Netflix is by now, so I won’t bother starting with that. Movies, ques, blah blah blah.

But I found something new about their site last night that is such a brilliant idea, I’m surprised other websites with a lot of Customer Service call volume haven’t adopted it: Online Service Codes.

Here’s how it works – you have  a problem with Netflix for whatever reason. You’re logged into their site, and you click the “contact us” link on their page. What you get is something that looks like this:

Netflix knows most people come to the “contact us” page because they have a problem. A lot of companies hide their customer service phone number on their site because they don’t want to hear from customers with a problem. Netflix seems to understand they need to be available to their customers if they want to keep them.

So they have a link to their customer service phone number plainly visible on the contact page. (Beneath the two other links for most common problems of course – still need to try to keep the call volume down!) But when you click on the CS number, you also get a wait time for your call, so you can try again later if it’s bad, and a service code.

This service code is what really has me jazzed. When you call in, rather than go through the standard giving of name, customer ID, address, phone number, secret question… you simply give this number while on hold, waiting for the operator. Since you can only get this code while logged in, the system generates a code that verifies you, and gets the operator into your account.

Simple! So why isn’t everyone using this? Why am I still trying to remember the Arizona state bird or my first girlfriend’s last name whenever I have password trouble with Bank of America?

Looking around, I see other write ups on Netflix’ service code dating back two years, so it isn’t exactly new technology – but it does seem to still be relegated only to Netflix. If anyone else is using it, either they aren’t big enough to notice or they aren’t bragging about it.

Still, it’s damn smart and I wish all companies with call centers were using it.

Schema.org – A new, bright way of informing search engines

Exciting news this week for SEO junkies: Google, Bing and Yahoo are all backing a new standard for web page meta data, schema.org. More than simply adding keywords into the existing title, meta keywords and meta description, this new markup gives the tags you used a context that helps search engines find results.

For example, if you wanted to rank for “golf bags in Arizona,” you might include that phrase in the meta keywords, the page title, and in a sentence or two in the description.

With this, however, you can include information that helps search engines understand why ranking your page for “golf bags in Arizona” makes sense.

Also, the placement of these tags inform the search engines where this relevant information can be found.

<div itemscope itemtype =”http://schema.org/LocalBusiness”>

This tag informs the search spider what kind of tab is being employed. Schema.org has several different definitions you can use, depending on the information you’re trying to call out.

Then you add similarly focused tags to call out the information that shows this as a “local business,” which you told them was coming in the line above:

<h1 itemprop=”name”>Sam’s Golf Shop</h1><span> itemprop=”streetAddress”>1212 W. Dobson</span>
<span itemprop=”addressLocality”>Tempe</span>
<span itemprop=”addressRegion”>AZ</span>
<span itemprop=”postalCode”>85284</span>
</div>

In a way, this is a step back for search engines. For years they have endeavored to create algorithms that could read the page, and make decisions themselves about what a page was, and what it meant. Since these programs cannot actually read and understand a page yet, they call on the webmaster to include context that makes the tags make sense.

Because of that, I have no doubt these tags can and will be abused by smart-yet-nefarious SEOs.

However, this now also gives all of the good SEOs a way to qualify those tags. That way, we can both start getting better search results.

DM Whacker – A Tool for Deleting all of your Twitter Direct Messages

I get way too many direct messages on Twitter – and there’s few of them I actually read. I’ve posted in the past about the annoyance of Twitter auto-responder messages. For some reason, people still feel the need to auto reply to anyone who follows them with something like:

“Thanks for the follow! Now read my blog!”

As if we followed this person for the sole purpose of helping them increase the number of views of their site. I’m surprised I haven’t heard someone go that step further and ask me to click on an ad because, “I have car payments, dick!”

I’ve found a great solution for this though: DM Whacker is a great way to delete ALL of your instant messages. Now keep reading, there are some instructions.

1) Go here to get the DM Whacker bookmarklet. Drag it into your browser’s toolbar.

2) Go to Twitter and sign in. While this tool really does work, it was made before Twitter’s layout update – so you’ll want to switch back to the old layout.

3) Once you’ve done that, click on the link in your toolbar. It will likely ask you if it can go to your messages. Click that “ok” button.

If you look on your right rail, you’ll see this:

The fields are pretty self-explanatory. You can either delete all of your DMs, or you can just delete DMs from a specific user. If you’ve got an active Twitter stalker, the latter is for you. But I get hit-and-run DMs from all of those dummies who read some blog post telling them to DM anyone who followed them. So I select “all dm’s.”

And a quick aside to the developer – it’s “all dms,” not “all dm’s.” That apostrophe is only necessary if you’re going on to say, “all dm’s on your profile are trash and need to be destroyed.” “All dms,” however, means all of your direct messages.

Anyway, if you also want to delete all of the DMs you’ve sent, check that box too. If you have a TrueTwit account, you’ve likely got hundreds of those. Also, shame on you for making people verify themselves. There aren’t THAT many Twitter bots out there you should be allowed to pester people who’ve been kind enough to show interest in you. I had to set up an account with them just to get all these messages to stop. Hypocritical? You betcha. Still, when TrueTwit wins, everybody looses.

Anyway again, you can also delete DMs with specific keywords in it, like, say, “TrueTwit validation service. To validate click here.” Then it will only kill those specific messages.

It would be nice if you could tell the app to delete all messages except those from specific users, but how badly do you really need your favorite DMs? If the person who wrote you was really that heartfelt, they’d have sent you a real letter. Or at least posted it to your Facebook Wall.

Because really, while DMs are supposed to be an easy way to get a quick, private message off to one of your followers, it’s been perverted by too many. Twitter isn’t going to do anything about it, so you may as well.

10 ways to be more interesting on Twitter

This is a video we produced for work – but these tips work for everyone.

If you’ve been on Twitter for even a little while, none of these tips are really all that ground breaking. The one I think is most important, though, is not being scared.

When people can’t get it together to write 140 characters or less, it’s usually because they’re afraid of making asses of themselves. Usually they either don’t want to get in trouble, or look stupid, or worst of all have someone tell them they’re wrong.

I have to ask: Does that describe you? Do you have trouble posting anything on line, that anyone can read, because you’re afraid of criticism?

There’s no right way to do Social Media

Answer this question: How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

  1. A cab, if you can get one
  2. http://www.carnegiehall.org/
  3. Practice

All of these are right. (Though that last one was more right back in the age of vaudeville.) It’s just a matter of what you mean, and where you’re coming from.

I read a lot of social media “experts” who tell of the “right” way to do social media, and it always cracks me up. They may have a way that works, or know of a company that killed with a particular approach… and then take the next step saying it is THE way to do social media marketing. 

When you hear that, you should be suspicious.


I can understand why they say this. There’s a huge market for people who can provide simple answers. Millions are still trying to figure out how to “make social media work for them,” so if somebody with a blog and a consulting business can step up and give it to them, they’ll get a lot of attention.

As someone who blogs about social media, of course, this could include me. I try not to give that level of sweeping advice myself, and instead focus on the things that people do wrong. Hell, I’ve buttered my bread with other people’s bad ideas for the sake of blog posts for years.

There are also plenty of people with good tips for success, and examples of campaigns that worked. When you see these, though, you have to take them in the context of the company and product that did them.

Old Spice’s success on Twitter and Facebook is a perfect – and common – example: Their success was based on an original and brilliant television commercial. If you mimicked everything Old Spice did on line but didn’t have that winning commercial, I don’t think you’d have the same success.

The only real advice anyone can give about social media is to do it a lot, experiment, and be fluid. (“Wha? Fluid? What the hell are you talking about?” Relax, I’ll get to it.)

If you’re consistently posting on that Facebook Fan Page or Twitter account, and you’re doing what you need to do to build a following, eventually you’ll get it. If you want that to happen faster, it’s going to cost you real money, likely in the form of an ad agency doing it for you.

As for being fluid, be sure you’re aware of what people are talking about, where they’re saying it, how they’re saying it… and keep up with them. The companies that scored big on Facebook are the same ones who learned how to use Myspace before it. The ones who succeeded in Twitter are the ones who learned the value of a hashtag and trending topics. Constant education is necessary in social media marketing – but the ideas for your campaign and your messaging will have to be your own.

Hey, you never know – over time you will get very comfortable with “thinking outside the box,” (which is the most insidiously inside the box expression of all time, but whatever,) doing your own messaging, and wielding these social media tools yourself. Then, you could be inspired to invent an approach no one else ever thought of, and force us to write blog articles about how brilliant you are.

Because there still aren’t any degrees for this stuff, and the majority of social media professionals are just guessing.

Got my GetGlue Stickers

Some of my GetGlue stickers

If you’re into checking into meaningless places or posting meaningless posts, GenGlue is probably for you. The short of it is you check in when you’re watching a show or movie or listening to music or reading a book… I suppose to let people know what you’re into. There isn’t much to it.

But, they do something great: They give you stickers for your check-ins. And I don’t mean digital stickers – electronic baubles that give you limited bragging rights but are otherwise nothing. I mean, they are that, but when you get enough of the electronic kind of stickers, they will actually send you copies of those stickers – as actual stickers!

I just got my pile from them, and they’re very high quality. I was expecting paper with glue on one side, printed with a four color ink jet. No, these definitely cost some money. And yet I wasn’t charged for them. I wasn’t even charged shipping!

It’s a great, fun incentive for using their site, and I applaud them for it. Granted, I got all of mine by gaming the system and taking advantage of the lack of verification check-ins require. (As if I’d actually pay money to go to a theater and watch, “The Lincoln Lawyer” – yeah, right!)

But it is a great idea, and there’s a lesson here: Giveaways keep people coming back to your site. Even if they’re brigands like me.

Welcome to the Facebook party, Tupperware – what the hell took you so long?

I admit I’m pretty snarky. When a company’s marketing is slightly off kilter, or completely off balance, or just plain stupid, I have to chime in.

Then there are times, like today, where I am so completely taken aback by what is before me I literally stagger trying to think of what to goof on first.

Last week, the New York Times did a story on Tupperware starting a social media campaign. Well, we’ve heard of companies doing this before – so what’s different here?

NOTHING! Not a single, solitary thing! Tupperware wanted to jazz up their brand’s image, so they decided to sprinkle a little magic social media dust on it and watch as it turns into The Dougie.

So how does The New York Times have space enough to write such a non-story about a company finally finding social media? Wasn’t anything else going on? It’s not like US Special forces shot Osama Bin Laden in the eye or anything… oh wait! US Special Forces DID shoot Osama Bin Laden in the eye! I’m pretty sure that effected the economy somewhat, didn’t it, New York Times!?! Even a little bit more than yet another company finding social media? Even if they did it about three years too late?

Just to make things worse, the NYT article didn’t include a link to Tupperware’s Facebook page. Perhaps they did this so they could say, “this isn’t an advertorial.” That’s a bad piece of luck for Tupperware, though. If you do a search for “Tupperware” on Facebook, you get a number of pages – none of them, apparently, Tupperware’s.

Because they got to the game so late, their own brand and several versions of it were snatched up by more enterprising people. If you want to get to Tupperware’s own profiles, either on Twitter or Facebook, you’ll need to use the button on their corporate site.

In other words, if you want to do them the favor of following their profiles, you need to leave Twitter or Facebook, then go to their site, then press the buttons that take you back to Twitter or Facebook.

The purpose of either of these sites is ostensibly to get you to follow a link from them to their website. So there’s not only added steps involved in becoming a fan, but one of them requires getting people to do something they weren’t planning on doing anyway. Yikes.

Oh! Something else – here’s a great blurb from the aforementioned article:

“The goal is to find ‘more disruptive methods’ to dispel perceptions that ‘we are your mother’s Tupperware,’ said Rick Goings, chairman and chief executive of Tupperware Brands in Orlando, Fla.”

To prove this point, today they posted this:

"Tupperware is Made for MOM's!"

So this isn’t your mother’s Tupperware – it’s just that Tupperware was made for Mom’s. That makes perfect sense, doesn’t it?

Finally, after their unprecedented NYT article, the number of people who have Liked their page is 8611 as of this writing. A nearly 100 year old, world-famous company, with a write up in the New York Times, only has some 8600 fans.

And don’t get me started on their Twitter account! There, the name is TupperwareUS – not TupperwareUSCA, which may be confusing to people who know of one and are trying to find the other. But we’ve all got to make a stand against Canada some time, and Tupperware seems to be making it on Twitter. Facebook is for US and CA, but Twitter will just be for the US. I guess. I’m not sure. It’s all a little too poorly thought out for me to get all at once.

But again, great success – because they now have 186 followers on Twitter.
Welcome to the party, Tupperware – you’ve got a LOT to learn.

Prestiq – The worst commercial ever made?

You’ve probably seen one of Prestiq’s commercials by now. Each time I do, I am deeply disturbed by them.

Okay – this is supposed to be a commercial for an anti-depressant. But this lady does not look happy. She barely looks conscious. The impression I get watching this commercial is that if you take Prestiq, it won’t help with your depression. It will simply make you so incredibly numb you won’t care anymore.

You know how your batshit-crazy sister in law complained that her meds made her feel like a zombie? That appears to be the benefit they’re pushing here: Take Prestiq, and you will be as dependably docile as a wind up toy. And oh hey! Here’s a wind up toy to illustrate the point.

And even the toy isn’t smiling!

I get that they don’t want to come out and say, “take this medication and you’ll be doing cartwheels and singing all the songs from ‘Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat.’” That’s usually the kind of promise products avoid when they can’t deliver on it.

The line, “Prestiq is thought to work” is particularly suspect. You don’t know how your product works? It’s a drug! I’m not feeling very confident about this if you don’t even know how it works.

I suppose if you’re really so far gone with depression, that’s good enough. What they’re shooting for is you may not end up happy, but at least you’ll get out of bed so you can go to work and stop crying all the time.

And as I said, the campaign’s been running for a couple of years now, so I have to assume it’s working at selling their happy pills – wait, no, their not unhappy pills. That suggests to me they really know how to talk to the medically dejected. If that’s the case, this becomes one of the smartest commercials of all time. It simply shows the rest of us how little hope needs to be promised to get sufferers of depression to cling to it.

It also says they aren’t concerned with people, just getting them to go to work. Prestiq isn’t about solving depression, but making people productive for their bosses, family or friends. It’s rather like giving a gunshot victim a new drug that doesn’t stop internal bleeding, but does keep them from leaking on the floor, which is so annoying and unfair to everyone else.

To me, that’s depressing.

Bad Creative in an actual Facebook ad

Look at this:

If it “gives men flat abs,” why is there a picture of a hot chick in the ad? Am I to believe this isn’t really a hot chick, but a man? If it’s a man, there’s no way I’m going to do this little known ab exercise, because I don’t want to look like a chick when I’m done! That must be what’s so damn “strange” about the video they want me to watch!

What’s more likely is someone created an ad for something targeting men, and cynically knew men pay more attention to ads with hot chicks in them than pictures of other guys who got results using the product.

Fair enough – this ad probably performs better than another one with the same copy, and a picture of some guy’s ripped stomach.

It doesn’t really matter either way – I don’t click on those Facebook ads any more than, say, anyone else on the planet does. So it will ultimately remain a mystery to us all.