From iPod and BlackBerry to Twitter and Wikipedia, we take a look at the processes and people who came up with the names for these iconic tech products.

Coming up with a great technology product or service is only half the battle these days. Creating a name for said product that is at once cool but not too cool or exclusionary, marketable to both early adopters and a broader audience, and, of course, isn’t already in use and protected by various trademarks and copyright laws is difficult—to say the least.

The makers of these 10 tech products—the iPod, BlackBerry, Firefox, Twitter, Windows 7, ThinkPad, Android, Wikipedia, Mac OS X and the “Big Cats,” and Red Hat Linux—all have displayed certain amounts marketing savvy, common sense and fun-loving spirit in settling on their products’ names. Here are the intriguing, surprising and sometimes predictable accounts of their creation.

[Check out the Slideshow on CIO.com]

Twitter is the canary in the coal mine of public opinion — for celebrities, politicians, and, of course, corporations. When European discount carrier Ryanair lashed out at “lunatic bloggers” after a Web designer reported a glitch on the airline’s site, its online reputation dipped as low as its fares. Conversely, Mars got a sweet treat when it posted Skittles-related tweets on its Web site, learning immediately how people felt about the candy.

Twitter’s explosion from microblogging curiosity to mass-media phenomenon [0] has awakened a lot of companies to just how fast memes spread on the Internet today. Make a mistake like Ryanair’s — or Johnson & Johnson’s offensive Motrin ads last winter — and the response is brutal. Get it right like shoe retailer Zappos and bask in the love. How can you know if your canary is singing or dead? These tools will help you monitor not just Twitter but everywhere the online conversation involves your brand.

TweetDeck [1]. To follow the raging tweetstream, you need a dashboard. This free download splits your Twitter feed into subgroups, letting you follow shout-outs (@replies) in one window and specific searches in other views. For instance, Pepsi could follow Mountain Dew, Gatorade, Tropicana, and Frito-Lay in four different search fields, receiving instant feedback on announcements and ad campaigns.

Scout Labs [2]. Need to monitor feedback on your new product? Scout Labs reads blog posts and social-networking comments from around the globe and judges them by their words and tone. The sentence “I love Amazon but the Kindle 2 is disappointing” gets properly parsed as a positive comment for Amazon but a negative one for its e-reader. This ultra-targeted approach allows clients such as Charles Schwab, HP, and Netflix to follow comments in real time and react quickly. Pricing starts at $99 a month for five searches.

BlogPulse [3]. This free feature from Nielsen Online searches the blogosphere for what’s happening with your brands. Type in a few keywords and track the number of mentions over the past six months, and view them in a handy fever chart. You can also trace the roots of a Web conversation and learn more about key Web influencers.

Vanno [4]. It’s Digg for reputation. Readers vote on news stories, opinion, and gossip about more than 5,800 companies, and Vanno mashes it up into a numerical score. The free site tracks these companies based on 25 topics, including job satisfaction, customer service, and social responsibility. At press time, Cisco was No. 1.

CoTweet [5]. This free service (currently in limited beta) allows multiple people to tweet from the same user name, using software to replicate the success of Zappos’s hundreds of staff bloggers, including CEO Tony Hsieh, within one account. Employees can delegate tasks, track conversations, schedule posts, and best of all, identify the people behind the brand.

TNS Cymfony [6]. If you need a more heavyweight tool (starting at $40,000 a year), TNS Cymfony goes beyond simple keyword analysis across the Web and analyzes grammar. It also includes crisis PR solutions that track key bloggers, journalists, and consumers. (Nielsen Online’s Buzzmetrics [7] service offers similar features.) During the past Super Bowl, TNS Cymfony reported that the teaser for the anticipated summer hit Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen earned seven times the buzz of the average ad during the big game.

Use these seven tools and you won’t have to worry about revenge; your brand will be transformed into an agile, respected member of the Web’s social swirl.

The most sacred of American annual rites is upon us: sitting through an over-hyped football game to see cutting-edge TV ads that occasionally rival feature films for production value and creativity.

But this year it isn’t just about television — the spotlight’s online.

Some of America’s biggest brands are experimenting with viral ads, user generated ads, online remixes and web-only versions that are too-hot-for-TV.

“The broad ‘digital swing’ this year is striking,” said Tim Lefkowicz, president of Collective Intellect, an online marketing company based in Boulder, Colorado.

Some familiar faces like General Motors and FedEX have decided to punt this year, but NBC has nearly sold out its Super Bowl XLIII ad inventory at up to $3 million for a 30-second spot. It’s worth it: Viewership always reaches stratospheric levels for the game, approaching 100 million people in the U.S. alone and about a billion worldwide.

It’s a challenge and an opportunity, and every year the bar is raised. This may be the year that geeky cred plays a big part in pushing the envelope.

“In years past only smaller, more tech-savvy companies relied heavily on digital methods, in large part due to the high cost of a Super Bowl second, but also because they understood the values and habits of its core consumer better,” said Lefkowicz.

This year, brands as big as Miller, Doritos, PepsiCo and Hyundai Motors are running ads with a major online component.

Doritos is experimenting online this year with an ad consisting entirely of user generated content. “Crash the Super Bowl” had people submit their own ads and vote on the which one should appear in the official spot.

The winner gets an additional $1 million if the ad makes it to the number one spot on USA Today’s Ad Meter. The online gallery of submissions includes a man chasing a bag of chips around the floor after teasing a cat with a laser pointer, and a guy who discovers the power of “The Crunch” where a woman loses her clothes and a policeman turns into a monkey.

In November, not two weeks after winning the election and still two months from becoming commander in chief, Barack Obama brought the government into the 21st century. Or at least that was what we were told when he released his first Web video address as president-elect. The clip, billed by some as a modern fireside chat, was embedded as a YouTube video on Change.gov, the incoming administration’s Web site. Sitting in a leather chair, framed slightly off center from his chest up, Obama delivered a three-minute talk on the economic crisis, vlog style.

The video quickly racked up hundreds of thousands of views, and within a few days hundreds of blogs were linking to it. Obama’s foray into viral video, the story went, heralded the beginning of a new era in government communication and transparency—”Franklin Roosevelt 2.0,” in the words of The Huffington Post. The Washington Post proclaimed the advent of the “YouTube presidency.”

1 million:
The number of views received by Obama’s first YouTube address as president-elect.

It wasn’t long, however, before savvy observers noted what was missing from this and other Obama videos: the chance for ordinary citizens to talk back. The campaign initially disabled the comment function on YouTube and prevented response videos from appearing alongside. A YouTube video without comments, some pundits groused, is more like a monologue than a chat, fireside or not. “I don’t see how one-way messages provide any more transparency for the work of the White House or government than the current old-style radio addresses,” blogged Ellen Miller, director of the Sunlight Foundation, a government-transparency watchdog group. “Is Obama ready,” challenged TechCrunch, “to be a two-way president?”

Of course, Obama’s transition team had good reasons for disabling responses. For starters, YouTube comments are typically the intellectual equivalent of truck-stop graffiti. (When the team belatedly allowed comments a couple of weeks later, the site was flooded with insights like “USA susks.”) Also, his team would have zero control over the potentially critical or embarrassing response videos that users would post next to the address. The real reason, however, was that Obama wasn’t actually trying to have a conversation with Americans via YouTube. Like every president before him, he was simply harnessing the latest tools to talk to them, one-way.

Technophiles who watched the campaign closely expected more, and now they are putting pressure on the White House to govern with unparalleled transparency and citizen interaction. Dan Froomkin of the Niemen Watchdog Journalism Project and The Washington Post summed up expectations in a blog post calling for Obama to embrace “wiki culture” in which “major policy proposals have public collaborative workspaces.”

150,000+ subscribers
follow Obama’s Twitter feed.

0 tweets
have been posted by Obama staffers since the election.

Obama has himself to blame for raising such expectations. During the campaign, he embraced every form of social media. At My.BarackObama.com, supporters could create profiles, talk to each other, and—by election day—plan some 200,000 offline dinners and living room fund-raisers. Users could log in from home to get lists of swing-state voters to telephone; this generated 3 million calls in the final four days of the race. Those efforts were combined with massive database-crunching to identify potential voters who could be approached door-to-door by last-minute canvassers, myself included.

As for John McCain’s efforts, well, he didn’t really have any. According to Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry, cofounders of the Personal Democracy Forum and the blog TechPresident, Obama had four times the number of Facebook supporters, 24 times the Twitter devotees, and three times the visitors to his site in the final campaign week. The public watched about 15 million hours of Obama campaign videos on YouTube. Along the way, Obama collected 13 million email addresses, more than a million cell phone numbers, and a half-billion dollars in online donations.

There’s also another reason to expect a tech-driven presidency: Obama promised it. He said he would expand government transparency by putting more data up on the Web, streaming meetings live, and letting the public comment on most legislation for five days before he signs it. He said he would bring blogs, wikis, and social networking tools with him into the executive branch—all overseen by a new national chief technology officer. Indeed, Obama’s transition site, Change.gov, offers glimmers of a potential digital presidency with its YouTube addresses, issue-based discussion forums, and inside-the-transition videos featuring future cabinet members responding to comments.

But turning his innovative campaign and transition into Government 2.0 won’t be easy. The nimble Obama startup is about to be absorbed into a stodgy, technologically backward behemoth: the federal government. Ahead are bureaucratic obstacles the campaign never imagined, along with the political land mines that transparency brings. Obama will have to preserve the enthusiasm of his supporters while engaging the larger group of people who either didn’t vote for him or didn’t vote at all. His task is to rebuild the personal connection that supporters felt they had with Obama the candidate, assuring them that he is listening to them—without being deafened by the cacophony. If he can do that, Obama can alter how the government engages its citizenry and accomplish what he really cares about: his own policy goals.

Building that intimacy from the Oval Office will be a delicate and complex task, and just letting “AcidTrout” respond to a YouTube address with “Who’s the black guy?!?” isn’t going to do it. “One of the things that gives me ulcers is that there are a lot of high expectations,” says an Obama aide. “But we’re going to have to change how government thinks about the Internet before we can do the things we want to do.”

500+ PDFs
submitted by third parties for viewing and public comment are available on Change.gov.

Still, Macon Phillips, the campaign’s deputy director of new media, who has served in a similar role for the transition, warns: “Day one is going to be a lot different than perhaps day 100.”

The basement of the General Services Administration building in Washington, with its maze of identical hallways and frosted glass doors, reeks of generic federal bureaucracy. But if the new administration plans to reboot the system, it will find a pair of guides here in Bev Godwin and Sheila Campbell, cheerful doyens of the executive branch’s Web strategy. Godwin, director of USA.gov, the federal government’s all-purpose information Web portal, and Campbell, head of the government’s Web Best Practices Team, know every manacle and chain shackling the government to the 20th century. In a drab conference room one afternoon in late November, they discussed their optimism—and detailed their concerns.

For starters, the federal government operates more than 24,000 separate sites, many of them years out of date. “Nobody stepped back and asked strategically, how do we do this?” Godwin says. “Whenever there is a new initiative or program, they put up a new Web site.” And the first thing they usually do on that site, she says, is post a bandwidth-hogging picture of the bureaucrat in charge.

3,701 comments
on health care were submitted online to secretary of health and human services designate Tom Daschle.

Godwin and Campbell have been pushing government agencies to treat citizens more like customers, rebuilding their sites to help visitors do things like find loans or obtain passports—rather than serve as static repositories for press releases and personnel photos. “At Housing and Urban Development, for example, one of the missions is to reduce homelessness,” Godwin says. “If you go to HUD.gov, can you find shelter? The answer is no.” If the government can improve itself in these little ways, they say, great. Don’t worry about trying wild stuff, like setting up federal social networks. Many agencies bar employees from even looking at sites like Facebook at work, much less building their own versions.

Progress has been achingly slow. There have been some notable exceptions—like a blog on the Transportation Security Administration Web site, open to comments and manned by five agency staffers, and NASA.gov’s numerous social media initiatives, including Twitter feeds from 20 missions and projects. But the successes are rare and isolated. “We know that there are a lot of people advocating for more open government,” Godwin says. “We’re saying, absolutely, put the data out there. But I think we have to be realistic.”

For example, many of Obama’s online campaign techniques would be impeded by a collection of obscure and well-intentioned rules. Amendments to the 1973 Rehabilitation Act, for example, require that all government Web content be made reasonably accessible—in real time—to disabled users. Also, six months of negotiations between the General Services Administration and Google to establish a federal YouTube channel have stalled over similarly intricate legal issues. Meanwhile, a Clinton-era law called the Paperwork Reduction Act requires that an agency undergo a laborious approval process any time it “surveys” more than 10 people. The result: “Agencies tend to avoid doing these kind of surveys,” Godwin says. Would having users submit information to a social network or wiki count as a survey? Nobody knows.

20.3 million:
The number of visits to Obama’s YouTube channel since its September 2006 launch.

Even triumphs like Obama’s 2006 Google for Government bill, cosponsored with Republican senator Tom Coburn, have been caught up in red tape. The bill led to the creation of FedSpending.org, a site allowing the public to track federal contracts and grants. Instead of building it in-house, the Office of Management and Budget decided to license something similar from a nonprofit watchdog group, OMB Watch—for just 4 percent of what the government had expected to spend. It was a striking victory for government efficiency, but the process behind the scenes “was extremely difficult,” says Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch. After floating the idea of donating the system to OMB (“the government can’t take things for free,” Bass quickly learned), the nonprofit had to sign on as a subcontractor and undergo three rounds, and six wasted months, of bidding before the deal was complete.

Changes to what is effectively the president’s homepage, WhiteHouse.gov, will encounter similar obstacles. David Almacy, a PR executive and new media consultant at Waggener Edstrom who served as the Bush administration’s White House Internet director from 2005 to 2007, recalls that following Hurricane Katrina, he posted the transcript of a speech to the site. In the text, where Bush had directed people to Redcross.org, Almacy helpfully inserted a hyperlink. “Within a few hours,” Almacy says, “I got a call from the White House general counsel’s office saying I needed to take out the link.” Some federal government Web pages, it turns out, are virtually barred from linking to nongovernmental sites to avoid the appearance of endorsing one product or organization over another.

The incoming administration is still working to assess the implications of the Presidential Records Act, the post-Nixon legislation requiring the preservation of all White House written communications. But that means that once any page goes up on the White House site, it can’t be altered, only archived and replaced, greatly slowing down the process of modifying and enhancing pages.

The Obama team was able to sidestep these kinds of troublesome rules on Change.gov, in part because, as a quasi-governmental site, it’s not subject to executive-branch restrictions. They were able to post videos on YouTube, link to outside sites, and even publish content under a Creative Commons license, allowing it to be freely shared.

24,000 Web sites
are operated by the US government.

When he does arrive at the White House, Obama or his CTO can lift some of the Internet restrictions with the stroke of a pen. Others will require congressional action or clever technology.

Even if Obama’s tech team gets a free hand to rework the federal webosphere, things can still go awry. Take the 2006 race of Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. Both David Axelrod, Obama’s top campaign strategist, and David Plouffe, his campaign manager, worked for Patrick, a little-known candidate who used Internet-driven grassroots support to win. In a precursor to My.BarackObama .com, the Patrick campaign placed the state’s voter list on its Web site, allowing its supporters to download phone numbers and call neighbors. “We believed in people’s ability to organize themselves and get involved,” says Charles SteelFisher, who ran the campaign’s Web operation.

No We Can’t

Barack Obama wants to transform the way the White House connects with the public. But there are plenty of obstacles standing in his way. After the election, the governor’s team launched DevalPatrick.com to keep supporters engaged. On a MyIssue page, registered commenters could propose, comment on, and vote for legislative ideas.

But the administration was immediately blasted when a database feature designed to verify Massachusetts residency was alleged (incorrectly) to reveal unlisted phone numbers. The privacy flap lured a collection of trolls and conspiracy theorists to the site, crowding out earnest discussion on gambling bills and income taxes with 9/11 chatter and religious debates. Critics, meanwhile, said that Patrick’s efforts were less about engaging the public than about running a permanent online campaign.

Eventually Patrick’s Web site recovered, developing a more sophisticated way of moderating comments and creating forums around the governor’s plans to reduce property taxes and add public kindergarten programs. The site also allowed people to create grassroots communities to work on issues they cared about. Still, the public isn’t exactly burning up the site: The leading vote-getter, a bill to promote fathers’ custody rights in divorce cases, had just 1,100 tallies as of mid-December. Offshore wind power, meanwhile, was losing, 16 votes to 15.

Obama’s team has moved carefully as it transitions from campaigning to governing. Between two wars and an economy in shambles, building an Oval Office social network has not topped the priority list. “Day one, do we need a White House My.BarackObama? I don’t think so,” says the Obama aide, who was required by the transition press office to speak anonymously. “It’s more important to step back and ask, what are the goals for the White House? And I think that making the government more accountable and transparent is more important than getting people to act.”

To that end, the transition team served up small accountability stuff first. Change .gov supplemented Obama’s weekly YouTube addresses with periodic videos from inside the transition process, everything from staff meetings to vlog-type updates from advisers. In early December, Obama’s public director of liaison and intergovernmental affairs announced—via video—a Change.gov feature called Your Seat at the Table, through which the transition would post every document received from every interest group and outside person throwing it advice. Users were allowed to comment next to the documents, while the Open for Questions feature let them submit and vote on questions for the transition team. The latter experiment illustrated the double-edged nature of feedback when the Senate-seat-selling scandal involving Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich broke. Supporters began flagging related questions “inappropriate,” and then Obama staffers buried the queries. ABCNews.com jumped on the story and the apparent hypocrisy. Obama Transition Web Site ‘Open for Questions’—Except on Blagojevich read the headline.

Change.gov does feature some Slashdot-like issue forums where user rankings send the most popular comments to the top. The first forum, in which two staffers appeared in a short video on health care policy and asked for comments, garnered thousands of horror stories and policy prescriptions. A week later, one of the staffers reappeared with future health and human services secretary Tom Daschle in a rehearsed-looking YouTube video response. “We are just so pleased that so many of you have written in,” Daschle said, appearing extra-pleased. “I spent a lot of the weekend actually reading the comments … We want to make sure that you understand how important those comments and your contributions are.” The comments the pair selected to discuss, however, seemed serendipitously aligned with Obama’s proposed initiatives.

550,000 responses
came in from supporters after Obama adviser David Plouffe requested feedback about the campaign.

In other words, with everything he’s done so far, Obama has been acknowledging feedback but not necessarily heeding it. And that’s what we can expect from Obama’s plan to post all pending nonemergency legislation online and allow the public to comment for five days before he acts on it. By mid-December, technology advisers were still struggling to determine the best way to implement the idea. The bigger question is, what will it accomplish? Even the system’s own architects concede that it’s unlikely that online comments and voting will sway the decision to sign or veto.

Nor should it. The Obama team, for all its Web enthusiasm, recognizes that an online community—no matter how vibrant—doesn’t represent all of the American public. “A lot of people consider online interactions and communications as representative of Americans. But we have a lot more high-speed Internet lines to drop before that’s true,” the Obama aide says. And even with ubiquitous broadband, online voting would remain the ultimate in self-selected polling. There’s no reason to believe that commenters would reflect Americans as a whole or even that they’d be Americans at all. Citizens also may not be as interested in the daily machinery of Obama’s workaday government as they were in his novel campaign. Case in point: By mid-December, views of Obama’s weekly YouTube address had dropped by half.

Still, the new administration wants to be able to marshal its supporters to act. Obama himself suggested as much last April. “Our database has a couple million people on there who are activated and inspired,” he told a small group in Indianapolis. “And so what I want to do is to continue that after the election.” In mid-November, Plouffe sent out a series of emails to supporters. The first directed them to a detailed survey of their campaign experience and policy interests and told them, “It’s up to you to decide how we move forward.” Later, a Plouffe missive declared that “you’ll be instrumental in generating support to pass legislation that puts America on the road to recovery.” At a closed-door meeting with its leading activists in Chicago in December, the Obama team took it a step further and told activists to be ready to pressure Congress on economic stimulus, health care, and energy legislation. A couple of weeks later, the campaign encouraged its supporters to organize “change is coming” get-togethers to discuss the future of the Obama movement, online and off.

Obama doesn’t want his 13 million-name email list to serve as just another political interest group. He needs it to be a tool to keep people engaged with his politics and policies. “Even if you push through the best government programs,” says Michael Cornfield, a political-science professor at George Washington University, “it’s hard to solve the actual problems” without effort from regular people. A national health care plan, for example, will work a whole lot better if former precinct captains are willing to explain it to their neighbors, just as they explained how to get to the polls. And a presidential Twitter feed, Flickr photos, or WhiteHouse.gov video Q&A sessions may not vastly increase transparency or deeply inform policy, but they create a valuable intimacy with citizens. “People who think they are being listened to tend to respect more the person talking,” says Rasiej.

That may not sound like a big deal. But contrary to what Web evangelists and the incoming administration would like to believe, Obama’s campaign was never a bottom-up endeavor. The incoming president didn’t crowdsource his view on the Iraq war or use Digg to determine how to allocate campaign dollars. He ran one of the most tightly controlled, top-down campaigns in modern history, to the point of pressuring outside advocacy groups not to advertise on his behalf. Rather, he asked his supporters for money and inspired them to get involved, giving them the tools to organize themselves and a message to sign on to.

Instead of turning WhiteHouse.gov into a governmental synthesis of Facebook and Wikipedia, or running a permanent campaign off the White House email list, Obama’s best shot at rebooting the government is to remember how he got there: making people feel that they were part of the solution and then enabling them to talk to one another and take action. “There is a relationship between Barack Obama and each individual, and that’s multiplied tens of millions of times over,” says Joe Rospars, the campaign’s director of new media. “But there are also millions and millions of relationships between our supporters. Both of those kinds of relationships didn’t end on Election Day.”

[via WIRED] by Evan Ratliff

Yesterday I gave a high-level overview of Technorati’s State of the Blogosphere Report for 2008.  Today I want to underscore a few more of the findings about blogging and brands, the growing credibility of blogs, and the active role of bloggers in other online activities.

The research shows that brands make up a major part of bloggers’ online conversations. “More than four in five bloggers post product or brand reviews, and blog about brands they love or hate. Even day-to-day experiences with customer care or in a retail store are fodder for blog posts. Companies are already reaching out to bloggers: one-third of bloggers have been approached to be brand advocates.”

The Technorati research also shows a general sense amongst bloggers that blogs are being taken more seriously as information sources.

37% of bloggers have been quoted in traditional media based on a blog post. Half of bloggers believe that blogs will be a primary source for news and entertainment in the next five years. Bloggers are less bullish on the prospects for traditional media — one in five bloggers don’t think that newspapers will survive the next ten years.

Bloggers are active Web 2.0 participants, using a variety of Web 2.0 tools.

Blogger Participation in Web 2.0 Activities

Bloggers are generally the first to learn about new web technologies and applications, such as RSS and Twitter. On average, bloggers participate in five of the ten Web 2.0 activities listed, with one-third regularly conducting more than seven Web 2.0 activities.

[via Grown Up Digital] by Don Tapscott

Behind every Twitter account is a person. But some of these people ‘hide’ behind organizational brands, obscuring their persona and therefore reducing authenticity and transparency.

While some brands do a decent job of engaging people on Twitter, many don’t, and one could further argue that brand names and logos, as opposed to full names and user images, are not in the spirit of the Twitterverse.

People Talk to People

Twitter is about people sharing information with other people. So how do one-dimensional organizational brands fit into this mix? When you really think about it, they don’t. As an analogy, when you call customer service, a human answers the phone (eventually) and tells you their name – and you’re not talking to “Sprint” or “Dell” but rather “Steve” or “Danny.”

So, does anyone really want to talk to @DunkinDonuts? Or would they rather talk to Bill Rosenberg, the founder of Dunkin Donuts of Canton, MA, or perhaps the local franchise owner on Capitol Hill, or a disgruntled but funny summer employee punching in at 4am? People connect with people, and so I think the latter.

Twitter is still deciding how to monetize, and one possible approach would be to charge organizations a fee for using the service as a marketing tool. Most brands are not yet tweeting, but selling a premium service might increase Twitter’s profile and suddenly seem like an attractive strategy. I think this would be a mistake from the viewpoint of people who use Twitter.

Twitter may become little more than an enormous number of feeds, mainly full of nothing of interest to you. And while the system is built to be opt-in, the prospect of wading through 100 or 1000 times more junk when you do searches, companies hiring SEO consultants to put key words in front of your face, and seeing @AnimalCrackers at the top of the TwitterGrader list in my local area are unattractive byproducts of this business model. (Alternatively, brands just might not buy in at all.)

No Brands on Twitter

Thinking about what might be best for people, in my opinion Twitter should not only not charge brands for membership, but also ban them altogether. Not unlike Facebook and other sites, every account would represent a person using a real name, location, and picture.

People could still tout their businesses, hobbies, and anything else in their handle, bio, or feed, but in an environment of authenticity and therefore increased trust. Some people will game the system, to be sure; but they will often get found out through the wisdom of crowds, so what’s the point?

New users would find having only real, authentic people on Twitter more attractive. Let’s face it, not many people use Twitter yet, and a company with a trusted brand like IBM could develop a platform with a better GUI and a few more features that my parents would be far more likely to try out, perhaps initially bankrolled as a public service. Twitter is far from invulnerable.
Personalities Might Help Brands

this-space-for-rentI think that authentic and transparent personal Twitter accounts – being yourself in an uncontrived way – may indirectly and intimately influence (I3) organizational brands, because of the level of trust involved in sharing information with someone over the course of time. Many people have increased awareness of the government through talking to me and reading my Twitter feed. But I am not a public affairs professional, nor the official brand of the Department of Defense – just an informed, empowered, and hopefully interesting individual.

Having just one personal account would also streamline Twitter’s user base, structuring it in a slight but possibly meaningful way. Why try to gain ambient awareness via TwitterFeed, when each person associated with an organization is a word-of-mouth advertising device?

Dr. Mark Drapeau is a biological scientist, government consultant, and regular contributor to Mashable.com and other venues. These views are his own and do not represent the official views of any organization.

[via Mashable] by Mark Drapeau

I’ve been fascinated by the analysis of the Obama campaign. In many ways, Obama’s campaign and its success is a big, bright, “LCD sign” of the times. New media has come of age in a very public way.

Most people seem to agree that the campaign used a number of techniques to capture an audience and even inspire the traditionally unenthusiastic. Some of my favorite attributions are:

Audacity – the fact that Obama wasn’t afraid to “redefine his target audience” and go after states like Indiana who this November voted for a Democrat for the first time in 44 years.

Mobilizing Large Numbers and doing it “Grass Roots” – unprecedented fundraising success by generating large numbers of small donations rather than small numbers of large donations to raise more than an estimated $600 million (McCain raised an estimated $250 million).

The Message Consistency – the message never waivered from the idea of being an “antidote” to the status quo.

But perhaps the most obvious and (to a techie like me) inspiring elements of witnessing this campaign was its focus on social technology to support and propel all of the other techniques.

The use of “new media” from friend building on Friendster to the seemingly simple text message proved to be a powerhouse for the campaign, as it extended the concept of “Team Obama” far beyond campaign headquarters literally into the hands of millions of Americans who voted and vocalized with their typing fingers.

For all the small business owners who couldn’t help wondering, wow – can I do that? My answer is Yes you can! (Sorry couldn’t help myself).

In taking a closer look, the technologies used form a rather familiar list:

• Official Web site: http://www.barakobama.com and http://my.barakobama.com
• Text messaging strategy – enabled via collecting phone numbers on a mass scale
• LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/barackobama
• Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/barackobamadotcom/
• Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/barackobama
• Twitter: http://twitter.com/BarackObama
• YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/user/BarackObamadotcom
• Meetup.com: http://barackobama.meetup.com/

The list reads like a “who’s who” of social media marketing.

But the real power in these technologies is understanding that the goal is not just to “set up” one tool or another, but to understand each tool’s potential. That potential in the Obama campaign was brought to fruition by:

• having a consistent message
• providing free and open access to “making a connection”
• *always* keeping the tool up to date
• providing pertinent digestible bytes of information that could be read, downloaded, passed on
• leveraging the sheer quantity of enthusiasts and supporters on each tool to disperse messages almost instantly across an unbelievably wide, new network of venues and communities that hasn’t been seen since the invention of television.

Think about the leverage that a database of 948,000 people on MySpace and 3.1 million people on Facebook provides when you have a message to communicate (and consider that vs. McCain’s 221,000 on MySpace and 600,000 on Facebook).

As you think about your business and consider the challenge to build brand, generate buzz and stay on the radar as a small business owner with limited time and a limited budget, there are some very simple lessons to learn here:

1. everybody needs a team. Whether you’re trying to build a team of millions of voters or a few thousand supporters of your business, build a team by building a venue for them to get involved. Even the simplest involvement can be powerful.

2. email, the Web, and cellular technology have created an unprecedented venue for that involvement. Know who should be on your team and know the different ways they like to be involved.

3. Use wisely. Learn how these technologies work and learn by example how they can be leveraged to build a community of supporters for you.

This is an advantage that won’t last forever. As businesses gain competency in these techniques and learn to invest wisely, these techniques will slowly become standards rather than competitive advantages.

But it is possible for a growing small business to build a strategic, cost-effective and impactful social media campaign. As “Team Obama” has shown – yes you can.

Another great article about Obama’s Viral Marketing in TIME MAGAZINE.

[via Inc Magazine] by Maisha Walker

There are two kinds of companies in the Valley: those that make money, and those that don’t have to. As the economy worsens, the former group behaves like firms in other sectors, making cuts and revising earnings expectations. For the latter group, living in a VC-backed candyland, it’s as good a time as any to spend half a billion dollars on something fun.

So it was this week with two contrasting companies: Adobe [ADBE [1]] and Facebook. Adobe announced Thursday that it will miss its earnings targets for its fourth quarter ending November 28th, 2008, and will implement a restructuring program that will eliminate 600 full time jobs worldwide. Facebook, meanwhile, tried to buy Twitter for $500 million, despite the fact that it doesn’t make any money, and seems to need increasingly more capital to function.

Adobe’s misfortunes are yet another indication that technology companies, usually insulated from larger economic fluctuations, cannot remain buoyant amidst the global economic crisis. The company had projected revenues of between $925 million and $955 million, but said Thursday that it would only achieve $912 to $915 million.

The gap in revenue Adobe attributes to weak sales of its new Creative Suite 4 software, which was released in October. To make up the difference, the company will eliminate 600 full-time positions, which an Adobe spokesperson says will affect “Everyone across the board, all regions, and all business areas.” The cuts should should save Adobe tens of millions of dollars, much of which can be recorded in the fourth quarter of 2008. The spokesperson declined to say whether Adobe will re-hire any of those positions should the economy show signs of recovery.

Facebook’s profligacy seems irrational by comparison. The company is predicted to earn revenues of only about $300 million this year, which is about the same as the overhead it takes to keep the office running, according to Michael Arrington [2]. But that hasn’t stopped the social network from reportedly trying to buy Twitter with a combination of cash and stock options. Twitter’s CEO, Evan Williams, declined the offer.

Twitter doesn’t make any money either; its revenues are close to zero. Both companies are well capitalized, but reports of Facebook’s CFO flying around the world talking to sovereign wealth funds suggest that Facebook is growing too fast for its own good, and reaching a hunger for capital that US firms simply can’t — or won’t — surfeit. Twitter too is reportedly [3] putting revenue at the top of its list of things to do, in anticipation of a weakening fundraising landscape. The company had previously said it would wait until 2010 to worry about making money.

While I don’t doubt that juggernaut Facebook has its telescopes pointed in the right direction, it’s hard not to second guess the company’s prospects. If it is to ever become profitable, it will need to learn how to monetize a tool that gleans 3 out of 4 of its users from overseas, and sells famously ineffectual advertising space. Owning and managing another unprofitable Web entity would only exacerbate the problem. Had the buyout succeeded, 2009 might have been the year that Facebook was forced to come back down to earth.

[via Fast Company] by Chris Dannen

At 37, Andreessen is a legend in Silicon Valley. He created, with Eric Bina, the first graphical browser while at the University of Illinois, then co-founded Netscape Communications with überentrepreneur Jim Clark in the early 1990s. Netscape’s browser brought the internet to the masses, set off the dotcom boom, and so angered Microsoft at the time that Steve Ballmer, now the software giant’s C.E.O., led employees in “Kill Netscape!” chants. By bundling its Internet Explorer browser into Windows, Microsoft eventually drove Netscape into the arms of a suitor: AOL bought Netscape in 1999 for $4.2 billion.

Andreessen hasn’t had a success of that magnitude since. But he did create another billion-dollar company, Loudcloud, a tech-services outfit that later changed its name to Opsware and was sold to Hewlett-Packard for $1.6 billion. More recently, Andreessen started Ning, a website that lets anyone create a mini social network. Its most prominent customer: 50 Cent.

Andreessen joined Face­book’s board this year, invested in Twitter, and generally manages to show up on the front end of new technology trends. His blog, Blog.pmarca.com, has been a tech-industry must-read, in part because he’s willing to be brutally outspoken. In February, Andreessen ignited emotions when he blogged that he was starting a “New York Times Deathwatch.” ( Watch an exclusive video of Andreessen talking about the future of newspapers.)

Condé Nast Portfolio’s Kevin Maney interviewed Andreessen at a gathering of Silicon Valley’s Churchill Club in Palo Alto, California. The following is an edited transcript.

How’s your relationship with Steve Ballmer now?
He’s my Facebook [makes air quotes with his fingers] friend. I’m going to stop there while I’m still ahead.

Do you carry around any bitterness?
I’m a big believer that it’s like in The Godfather—it’s business, not personal. Netscape was an unbelievable experience for me. We sold the company for a lot of money. After that, I’m on to the next one.

I have to ask the guy who created the browser: What do you think of Google’s Chrome browser, introduced in September?
It’s very meaningful. It’s going to force Firefox and Internet Explorer to accelerate their performance. Basically, the barriers to doing everything in the browser are falling fast. And that includes a whole range of things, like Google Docs, spreadsheets, presentation packages. The Chrome browser is going to really push forward the wave.

Does this open up possibilities for companies you’re working with?
I’ll give you one example: I just announced this company called Qik. It will turn every phone that contains a camera into a source of streaming video and audio [which works better in a faster browser like Chrome]. Anybody can watch live, and then it can all get recorded. It’s almost the reverse of George Orwell. In 1984, the government had cameras mounted everywhere. In a Qik-based world, it’s the exact opposite. Literally, everybody on the planet is going to be streaming video. Excellent reason to stay at home.

And blog in your underwear.
Exactly.

Qik raises some issues, like what if 10,000 people at a concert all broadcast the show live?
About a year ago, we went to see one of the major sports leagues—I won’t mention which one. We presented how they can have social networks and users can post videos shot at games and photos and all this stuff. And the main topic of conversation was how they could prevent people from recording video with their mobile phones and posting it online.

You won’t tell us which league?
I won’t. But, you know, it’s a whole new world. The presumption is that there’s going to be live video all the time.

You seem to have your fingers in a lot of Valley companies. Walk us through Marc Andreessen’s daily life now.
My third company, Ning, is my day job. The only corporate board I’m on is Facebook, which I think is a very important company. I’m doing angel investing with Ben Horowitz, my business partner from my previous company. We’ve invested in 15 companies or so in the past year and a half. Maybe one a month, give or take.

What’s your approach to investing in startups?
Have it be a small enough amount of money that if it fails, we can still talk to the founder without getting mad.

How much is that?
I usually put in $25,000 to $100,000 per company. So far, so good—which is to say, I haven’t gotten really mad at anybody.

You said Facebook is a very important company. That’s not always the opinion you get, right?
I’m on Facebook’s board because Face­book is a true, old-fashioned Silicon Valley company in the best sense of that term: super-technology-focused, super-product-focused, very innovative—much more than it gets credit for—and very determined to build out a service that’s going to reach a very large number of people.

Qik, Twitter, Facebook, and other social networks—who has time for all of it?
Consumers are freeing up an enormous amount of time that they were spending with stereotypical old media, and clearly, that time is going primarily two places: videogames and online.

If you were running the New York Times, what would you do?
Shut off the print edition right now. You’ve got to play offense. You’ve got to do what Intel did in ’85 when it was getting killed by the Japanese in memory chips, which was its dominant business. And it famously killed the business—shut it off and focused on its much smaller business, microprocessors, because that was going to be the market of the future. And the minute Intel got out of playing defense and into playing offense, its future was secure. The newspaper companies have to do exactly the same thing.

The financial markets have discounted forward to the terminal conclusion for newspapers, which is basically bankruptcy. So at this point, if you’re one of these major newspapers and you shut off the printing press, your stock price would probably go up, despite the fact that you would lose 90 percent of your revenue. Then you play offense. And guess what? You’re an internet company.

What’s your relationship like with Jim Clark after all these years?
I’ve had two critical mentors in my career. One was Clark. Another was Jim Barksdale, who was Netscape’s C.E.O. And it’s funny because they worked extremely well together, but they have almost polar opposite personalities.

Clark is intensely entrepreneurial, extremely passionate, extremely emotional, completely fearless, absolutely delighted to create a new business, loves if it causes a lot of controversy. Barksdale is a builder and an operator and a manager. Clark is off in Florida. He has largely opted out of the tech industry.

Yeah, we haven’t seen him in a long time. He is having a lot of fun. He is dating an Australian swimsuit model. Seriously. He’s been in the real estate business in Miami doing a bunch of different business things. He sails a tremendous amount. I’m pretty much the exact opposite. I don’t like to leave Palo Alto.

So you’re 37, and you’ve taken on this mentoring role to people like Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and other entrepreneurs.
There’s a new generation of entrepreneurs in the Valley who have arrived since 2000, after the dotcom bust. They’re completely fearless.

Does that create the danger of a new tech bubble?
If there’s been a crisis in a market, you don’t tend to have a new crisis in that market until the people who went through the last crisis aren’t in the system anymore. It was only eight years ago. So here we are in 2008, and there’s still no sign of a bubble in technology, which I can encapsulate in two words: no I.P.O.’s.

No tech I.P.O.’s—is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Well, a very important thing. Through the 1980s and ’90s, tech companies would basically get into their expansion stage and then go public. In part, it was to have access to capital, in part to have an M&A currency, in part as a branding and a credibility event, and in part because there was a base of investors who wanted to invest in high-growth technology companies. Those days are just over. It’s just frozen. Is it a crisis in terms of company formation? Not yet.

We haven’t talked at all about mobile internet.
There was mobile before this thing [holds up an iPhone], and then there’s mobile after. If you were trying to build software for mobile phones last year, you were in a world of pain, of incompatibility—you had probably seven different operating-system platforms you had to deal with. You didn’t have any way to do over-the-air distribution of software or content. The carriers, especially in the U.S., had a choke hold on distribution and would put up huge barriers. It was an absolute nightmare.

As of now, that hasn’t changed.
That hasn’t changed, unless you’re on an iPhone. The iPhone is going to be at 100 million units before you know it. This is going to force everybody else to raise their game.

Is Google the new Microsoft—the new big, scary, monster company in tech?
It is true that Google is doing a lot of different things, and some will compete with other Valley companies. But the pros outweigh any future competitive threat. Google does so much to make other startups possible. Google makes new internet efforts easy to find. Google runs a large advertising network that distributes money to people who run ads. It is training and educating a very large base of really sharp people, many straight out of college, many of whom are not going to spend their entire careers at Google. Google is fertilizing the base. So I think it’s been very, very positive.

How about all the fears that Google is too powerful?
I don’t see it yet—and a big part of why is Google C.E.O. Eric Schmidt. Eric literally does not want to run a company whose M.O. is to just gratuitously go around and stomp on people.

You’ve probably got a good 30 to 40 years left in the business. What do you ultimately want to accomplish?
I love what the Valley does. I love company building. I love startups. I love technology companies. I love new technology. I love this process of invention. Being able to participate in that as a founder and a product creator, or as an investor or a board member, I just find that hugely satisfying. And I think the outcome can be big and important and profound.

I hear you’re getting deeper into philanthropy—Stanford Hospital, Room to Read.
That is increasingly important to me, for a couple different reasons. Partly, it’s wanting to give back. And partly, my wife of almost two years teaches philanthropy at Stanford. So I am completely committed to philanthropy because if I’m not, I’m in a great deal of trouble. I can’t even tell you.

[via Conde Nast Portfolio] by Kevin Maney