Best of 2012: Most Useful Business Gadget of 2012

Arthur Goldstuck (@art2gee) picks devices that can save your social, business and career life.

What defines a great gadget? Arguably, it can be captured in a single word: desire. The high end of smartphone, tablet and laptop ranges depend heavily on this basic concept for their market share.

But then there are the rest of the gadgets, as well as the rest of the market, where both consumer and business users are looking not only for the best value for money, but also the highest utility.

One way to sum it up is: can this gadget save your life? And here we’re talking about social life, business survival and career success.

The Most Useful Consumer Gadgets of 2012

1.     Vodafone R205 WiFi Router

Made by Huawei, this portable Wi-Fi hotspot disappears in a pocket, but delivers up to 21Mbps download for up to 8 users. There are many mobile Wi-Fi alternatives, but this one offers the best value for money.

Price: R879 once-off (Vodacom). R159 per month with 2GB data for 24 months (Vodacom).

Best contract option: Huawei E5331 Router. R998 once-off (8ta). R248 per month with 10GB data for 24 months (8ta)

2.     PowerTraveller

The PowerTraveller is one of a wide range of novelty accessories from Power Monkey, but this is no gimmick. With one charge of the device, it can recharge a typical smartphone three times, and a range of adaptors means it also works with MP3 players and e-readers. Given that the average high-end smartphone cannot deliver a full working day’s performance, and that a working trip may cover several days without quick access to a power point, this is a business and social lifesaver.

Price: R700 (from outdoor and electronics retailers)

(Full details at: http://www.wintecsolutions.co.za)

3.     Wireless Wipes

It is now general knowledge that computer keyboards carry more germs than a dirty bathroom. Before long, realisation will dawn that tablet and smartphone screens are just as bad. Wiping with a dry cloth cleans the dirt but redistributes the germs. Wet cloths leave streaks and blotches. If only there were the equivalent of baby wipes, but without the pungent odour and the excessive wetness, right? Now there is: called Wireless Wipes – specifically designed for smartphones, tablets, laptops and other touchscreen devices.  They disinfect but are not too wet, so are fast-drying, non-streaking and non-corrosive. Like baby wipes, they come in re-sealable pouches, each containing 12 wipes. They come in a variety of subtle scents, too, namely Pomegranate Citrus, Green Tea Cucumber and Rosemary Peppermint.  It’s not strictly a gadget, but it will keep your gadgets from killing you.

Price: R55 per pouch

(Full details at: http://www.wirelesswipes.co.za)

The Most Useful Business Gadgets of 2012

Next up are the gadgets that enhance your business life, especially if you run a small business, or home office.

Most Useful Business Gadget of 2012: 3M Pocket Projector MP410

The 3M MP410 projector is a delight. It fits in the palm of the hand, but has the power of a typical boardroom projector. It can be linked to a computer, or slip a USB flash drive or SD card into the back, and it projects a high quality image onto a wall or screen.

Price: R7999 (recommended retail)

(Full details at: http://solutions.3m.co.za/wps/portal/3M/en_ZA/PocketProjectors)

3M Pocket Projector MP410

Most Useful Printer of 2012: Kodak ESP Office 2170 All-in-One Printer

First, there are the usual features: all in one printer, scanner, copier and fax, and Wi-Fi printing. But it also allows you to scan to PC, e-mail, network folders, and – especially usefully – to memory cards or USB flash drives. Take photos on a smartphone and, via an app called Pic Flick, print out on the 2170, even if you’re on the other side of the world. Most usefully of all, the cost of replacement cartridges makes all competitors look ridiculous: R99 for black ink, R149 for colour.

Price: R1499 (recommended retail)

(Full details at: http://www.gadget.co.za/pebble.asp?relid=3600)

Most Useful Deal of the Year: Uncapped Wi-Fi from Nashua Mobile and Wireless G

Nashua Mobile has launched a near-uncapped Wi-Fi service (after 3GB of use, the speed is throttled down) over Wireless G’s Wi-Fi hotspot service, G-Connect. Not only are there more than 1 800 G-Connect Wi-Fi hotspots across South Africa, but the price includes in-flight Wi-Fi on all domestic Mango flights. The monthly subscription is cheaper than the cost of using Wi-Fi on a single Mango flight as a once-off service.

Price: R39 a month

(Full details at: http://www.gadget.co.za/pebble.asp?relid=5465)

* Arthur Goldstuck heads up World Wide Worx (www.worldwideworx.com) and is editor-in-chief of Gadget. Follow him on Twitter on @art2gee. Reprinted from Gadget.

Industry news you will make time for. Subscribe here. It’s free!

The lousy record of “hyper-targeting”

by  Bob Hoffman (@adcontrarian) In the past I’ve written a couple of posts (here and here) about the lousy record of “hyper-targeting.” My bottom line on this has been…

“As we have developed the ability to target people more and more precisely on the web, click-through rates of these hyper-targeted ads have dropped dramatically.”

The question is, why? If you believe conventional advertising wisdom, being able to target people based on individual behaviors, attitudes, and demographics ought to make advertising substantially more effective. And yet no one’s smarter than the facts. It hasn’t made online ads more effective. So what’s going on?

A thoughtful friend of mine, Bob Knorpp, who hosts the BeanCast, wrote the other day to offer his opinion. Bob said,

“The trouble with targeted marketing is no one is really willing to do it. We take a few data points, hit lame demographic messaging and call it one to one. Then people like you (correctly, I might add) point out that it isn’t as effective as mass.

Obviously mass is effective. Targeted marketers who claim otherwise are full of shit. But saying that targeted marketing doesn’t work based on the fact that no one is doing it effectively is not proof against the practice, as much as an indictment against marketers’ improper use of the tools.”

If I may paraphrase Bob’s point, it is this: The problem is not with the theory of hyper-targeting, the problem is that it’s not being executed very well. Only time will tell if Bob is right about this, but I’m unconvinced.

I have watched digital media people do what they do, and as far as I can tell, they’re pretty damn good. I don’t think that’s the problem. I think the problem is deeper and falls into two areas.

First, I think that the smaller we slice and dice populations the quicker the returns are diminished. Once we get beyond a certain point, we are just playing math games and are not really increasing effectiveness. Vinny Warren says his old boss once told him, “You can’t parse humanity.” While Vinny’s ex-boss may have overstated his case a bit (there’s no future in trying to sell golf balls to tennis players) I do believe there is an inverse relationship between the granularity of our targeting and its productivity.

Second, I think that the quality of the message provides us with far more opportunity than the meticulousness of the targeting. The marketing industry seems to have bought into the fantasy that media strategy — not the message — is where the leverage is. It is pretty clear from the results that, so far, this hypothesis has been wrong.

Maybe Knorpp is right and we just need to execute more effectively. I’m officially skeptical.

– The Ad Contrarian is Bob Hoffman, ceo of Hoffman/Lewis advertising in San Francisco and St. Louis. Hoffman is the author of The Ad Contrarian and 101 Contrarian Ideas About Advertising. Reprinted from his blog The Ad Contrarian.

– Industry profiles you’ll make time for. Sign up for our free newsletter!

Best of 2012: Tablet of the Year

Arthur Goldstuck (@art2gee) picks the best tablet computers of 2012.

The best tablet on the market is not always the best value for money on the market.

While most major technology manufacturers make tablets, not all are able to bring them to market at prices that makes sense. As a result, no-name brands compete alongside the biggest names in the business. They can’t match the quality of the big guys, but their prices are often unbeatable.

The choice for the best tablets of the year takes both of these factors into account.

The tablet ranking is divided into 10” devices or thereabouts, those with screens smaller than 9”, and then the overall choice of Tablet of the Year.

10” Tablets 

The Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 has one differentiator that looks pretty mundane when you merely examine the specs: a detachable stylus – the S-Pen – for writing and drawing on the tablet screen. It’s pressure sensitive, which allows it to come into its own for creating art that requires the simulation of different levels of pressure. The Note includes a tilt-to-zoom feature, which takes some getting used to, but can enhance photography and gaming alike.

The iPad 4 whips the Note on price but, beyond the dazzlingly sharp retina display, it has introduced little differentiation from its predecessors. The screen does put it ahead of Samsung’s other 10” play, the updated Galaxy Tab, though, despite the latter adding facial recognition to the mix.

Little separates the top three, with each claiming the edge in one or two departments. The honorable mention, however, may be a surprise. The iPad 2 is now 18 months old, but for that very reason Apple has slashed its price, despite it being adequate for most tablet tasks. That makes it the best value for money 10” tablet on the market.

  • Samsung Galaxy Note 10.1 N8000, with S-Pen stylus. 1 GHz Dual Core processor, 2GB RAM, 600g. Ships with Android 4.0 (Ice Cream Sandwich). R7699 (Foschini Group)
  • iPad with Retina Display (4th generation). R5195 (iStore)
  • Galaxy Tab 2 P5100 10.1”, Android 4.0, 1GHz Dual Core processor, 1GB RAM, 32GB storage, microSD slot, face recognition, voice calls. R5899 (Foschini Group)

Honorable mention iPad 2, R4199 (iStore)

Tablets – 7”-9”

The iPad mini is a surprise package in every sense of the word. While we know the screen is close to 8”, the number 7 in the specs fools us into ipad minithinking it is on a par with standard 7” screens. It isn’t. It’s not very much smaller than a full-sized iPad, yet is so thin and light, it is far more portable.  The operations are smooth, the battery life is satisfying and the price … that price! Considering that the name-brand equivalents available in South Africa, from Samsung and Huawei, start at around R4500, this is one of the great tablet buys of the year.

It’s worth mentioning the budget tablets here as well, and three of the ones I have used give a satisfying price-performance ratio: Colpad 2 from TabletWorld, the no-name brand 7” from Android-tablets.co.za, and the locally adapted Wise Touch from Wise Tablets.

  • iPad mini, 7.85” screen. R3395 (iStore)
  • Samsung Galaxy Tab P7300 8.9” screen, 1GHz processor, 1GB RAM, 16GB storage, 3G, Wi-Fi, USB. R6198 (8ta)
  • Colpad 2 3G, Android 4.0, 7” screen, 1GHz processor, 4GB storage, dual SIM slot, 3G and Wi-Fi. R1999 (Tabletworld.co.za)
  • Android-tablets 7”Gen 1, Android 2.3, 1.2GHz processor, 4GB storage, microSD slot, 3G and Wi-FI. R1150 (Android-tablets.co.za)
  • Wise Touch 7” Gen 1, Android 2.3, 1GHz processor, 4GB storage, microSD slot, Wi-Fi, localised apps. R1395 (wiseshop.co.za)

Tablet of the year

Finally, the Tablet of the Year, chosen from the devices above: the iPad mini. Give it a USB port, and it would be my overall Gadget of the Year.  That honour goes to a non-consumer item, the Alcatel-Lucent lightRadio, a cellular base station that fits into the palm of your hand. It is so small and portable you probably will never spot one in use, yet it has the potential to solve most of the problems with holes in urban network coverage that bedevil mobile communications.

The iPad mini is not designed to solve anyone’s problems except those of Apple itself. It introduced the device as a result of watching its competitors taking ownership of the 7” tablet market, which late CEO Steve Jobs insisted would never be viable.

The current slump in Apple’s share price is partly ascribed to the fact that the iPad mini for the first time positions Apple as a follower rather than leader and innovator. But it also shows that, even when following, Apple is hard to beat.

* Arthur Goldstuck heads up World Wide Worx (www.worldwideworx.com) and is editor-in-chief of Gadget. Follow him on Twitter on @art2gee. Reprinted from Gadget.

Industry news you will make time for. Subscribe here. It’s free!

#MagLoveTop10: The worst magazine covers of 2012

MarkLives.com runs a regular slot featuring the best local and international magazine covers every week. We recognise well thought out, powerful and interesting (and hopefully all three in one) magazine covers and celebrate the mix of pragmatism, creativity and personal taste that created each of them. By media blogger MediaSlut.

Previous TOP 10 lists:

It’s impossible for us to see all the covers published during 2012 so we’re sure that are worse covers out there.  This is a selections of covers we found or that readers sent us. If one of your covers were selected – it’s nothing personal! Remember that you can leave a comment to let us know if you agree, or think we totally missed the mark…

Coming up:
4 January 2013: The 10 sexiest magazine covers of 2012! Tweet your nominations to @mediaslut!

Special mention: Pulp, #4, 2012-12-20

Pulp

Hair-ball-explosion!

10. Cosmopolitan (Poland), June 2012   

Cosmo poland

Poor Katarzyna Cichopek is photoshopped to death on the Polish edition of Cosmopolitan. She might as well not have been at the shoot.

9. Playboy South Africa, January / February 2012

tumblr_lxl5s9fTP01qe63ue

I love the simple (and sexy) Black & White picture with the pink text, but unfortunately, as someone pointed out correctly, it’s been  photoshopped way too much. And what on earth is going on with her toes…?

8. Food & Home, April 2012

Food & Home 4 April 2012

I generally like the Food & Home covers, but unfortunately they dropped the ball (or what ever that thing is…)* with their April 2012 (winter?) cover. Too many brown-tones, and then there’s a big blop of something in the middle that doesn’t make it look very appetizing. *It’s Plum and Apple Crumble. [The odd combination of fonts lets it down as well – ED)

7. Amica (Italy), December 2012   

30942_4053291847406_1108777911_n

Scary! [Understatement – ED]

6. The New Republic, 12 July 2012

120710_kate-middleton-new-republic-magazine-cover

Something might be ‘rotten’ in Britain but it’s not cool pushing your agenda (and sales) by giving Kate Middleton bad teath…

5. TV Guide, 10 September 2012   

jimmy-kimmel-dress-up-like-the-khaleesi__oPt

I like Jimmy Kimmel, but I did not need to see him dressed like this… Maybe it’s an American thing that I don’t get. [More Gaga than Vogue’s attempt below. – ED]

4. Vogue, September 2012

lady-gaga-v-639-083012

Firstly, it doesn’t look like Lady Gaga, and there’s no chance in hell that her body proportions can really look like this. Especially not when looking at this behind-the-scenes video… I get that it’s a high-fashion cover, but for a title like Vogue to go this drastic route is a big no-no for me.

3. Magazine Fuera de Serie, August 2012

michelle-obama-mag-2

One of the magazine covers that caused the biggest uproar in the world in 2012 and rightly so. A deserving number 3.

2. Marie Claire South Africa, August 2012  

Cover_Aug.indd

I get the concept of the cover, and completely support it. You can read my personal view on the cover here (and the story behind it all). When I asked my Twitter followers which cover they would put in this Top 10 list the most replies via Twitter and e-mails related to “The Kate Middleton Marie Claire cover”. The twitterati have spoken! A cover that will unfortunately haunt Marie Claire for years to come. [She should have sued for being photoshopped into _that_ dress – ED]

1. Africa’s Bowhunter, October 2012

Bowhunter

And at #1… Africa’s Bowhunting magazine! And yes – it’s an actual magazine with a circulation of just under 10 000. Do you think they’re trying to make Bowhunting sexy? Not really working…  The cover model looks extremely uncomfortable. [Why did nobody do his hair before the, uhm, shoot? – ED]

– Industry profiles you’ll make time for. Sign up for our free newsletter!

Advertising’s 5 Biggest Lies

by  Bob Hoffman (@adcontrarian) Among our fellow citizens, it is commonly believed that we ad hacks get paid to lie. While I am not prepared to stipulate, I do concede that sometimes we don’t quite tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

So when you set out to write a piece entitled Advertising’s 5 Biggest Lies, you are begging for trouble. It’s like writing Las Vegas’s 5 Worst Buffet Dinners or Pepsi’s 5 Dumbest Marketing Ideas. No matter what you pick, someone’s got something to top you.

Nonetheless, trouble is my business. So here we go — advertising’s 5 biggest lies:

1. We’re all creative.
We’re not all tall. We’re not all handsome. We don’t all have nice complexions or charming personalities. But, according to the lore of advertising agencies, we’re all creative.

A good idea can come from anywhere, is the mantra. Yet, remarkably, good ideas seem to come from the same people over and over again. And, similarly, so do bad ones.

If you believe that we’re all creative, I’m afraid you also have to believe that it’s just a coincidence that Shakespeare wrote dozens of brilliant plays and Whoopi Goldberg didn’t.

Not only are we not all creative, even most of us who are paid to be creative aren’t.

2. The big idea is dead
Among the many really dumb platitudes that the age of digital marketing has spawned, one of the dumbest is the claim that a lot of little ideas are better than a big one.

This is what’s known in the trade as making a virtue of necessity. You see, agencies have been so lousy at coming up with big, successful online advertising ideas that the only defense is to claim that big ideas are no longer necessary — or even desirable.

It tries to sneak by us the preposterous notion that a weakness is actually a strength — that web advertising (specifically content marketing and social media) are more effective because of their low impact.

Of course, the question is — where are they hiding all these brandsthat have been built with little ideas? I’m having a hard time finding them.

As I’ve said previously, we are a culture that is hooked on stimulation. We like our stimulation loud and we like it in hi def.

In this environment, little ideas have little chance.

3. The consumer is now in charge
The people who keep hitting us over the head with this cliche tend to be callow digi-crusaders who know very little about the history of marketing, and have a skewed perspective on the current state of things.

There are two parts to this lie. The first is the assumption that sometime in the dim past — say, way back before Twitter — the consumer wasn’t in charge. Somewhere these people got the idea that there was a time when consumers were helpless zombies who did whatever we told them. I must have been sick that week.

The quickest way to disabuse yourself of this notion is to look at the failure rate of new products. As long as I’ve been around advertising (which is hundreds of years) the failure rate of new products has been in the 90+% range. Not exactly a monument to us crafty marketers leading submissive consumers around by the nose.

The second dumb part of this lie is the startling blindness to the dangers of digital marketing . Businesses are now collecting shockingly large quantities of information about us. Unprecedented amounts of personal data are in their hands.

To believe the consumer is in charge you also have to believe that knowledge is not power.

Fanboys often tell us that Facebook is worth $100 billion because of the enormous amount of powerful data at their fingertips. Then, in the next breath, they tell us the consumer is in charge. Sorry, fellas, you can’t have it both ways.

4. Online advertising is interactive
The thinking went like this: People like to interact with the web, therefore they’ll want to interact with advertising on the web.

This has turned out to be a massively toxic delusion. No one, and I mean no one, wants to interact with web ads. Banner ads have a click-through rate under one in a thousand. And if the average web user is like me, that one click is the exasperating result of faulty eye-cursor coordination.

But this hasn’t stopped advertisers from pouring money into display advertising. This year in the US, advertisers are poised to spend about 9 billion on banner ads.

This lie has legs.

5. It’s all about the work
It’s not just the digital crowd that’s delusional. Traditional agencies are just as susceptible to silly nonsense.

If you hang around agencies for about 15 minutes you’re sure to hear that “it’s all about the work.” It’s a pleasant little fantasy, but a fantasy nonetheless.

Advertising is like baseball, and “the work” is like pitching. It’s the most important element, but it’s far from “all.” Advertising is a very complicated and unpredictable business. In order to be successful you have to be able to pitch, hit, play defense, sell hot dogs and give away bobbleheads.

The fact that some of our most famous creative agencies also seem to have the highest turnover of clients has not penetrated the consciousness of the people who believe this simple notion.

If you could get inside the heads of our clients, I’m pretty sure you’d find that as far as they’re concerned, it’s not all about the work. It’s mostly about the money.

– The Ad Contrarian is Bob Hoffman, ceo of Hoffman/Lewis advertising in San Francisco and St. Louis. Hoffman is the author of The Ad Contrarian and 101 Contrarian Ideas About Advertising. Reprinted from his blog The Ad Contrarian.

– Industry profiles you’ll make time for. Sign up for our free newsletter!

Ad of the Week with Oresti Patricios – You’ve got the power

MarkLives Ad of the Week with Oresti Patricios – You’ve got the power

Given that this is the last ‘Ad of the Week’ for 2012 it feels good to celebrate the power of the individual with an advert that comes to us from Cell C, and which is very reminiscent of those legendary Apple ads, that famous campaign that put the company back on track when it had lost its way.

You know the ads, probably off by heart. But for the sake of nostalgia, let’s read those words again:

“Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits.The rebels. The troublemakers.The round pegs in the square holes.The ones who see things differently.

They’re not fond of rules. And they have no respect for the status quo.You can praise them, disagree with them, quote them,disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.About the only thing you can’t do is ignore them.Because they change things.

They invent.They imagine.They heal.They explore.They create.They inspire.They push the human race forward.

Maybe they have to be crazy. How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?Or sit in silence and hear a song that’s never been written?Or gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?

We make tools for these kinds of people. While some see them as the crazy ones,we see genius.Because the people who are crazy enough to thinkthey can change the world, are the ones who do.”

Now that campaign for Apple – which was called‘Think Different’ because that was the slogan for the ads – was created by TBWA\Chiat\Day in Los Angeles in 1997, a year that Apple Computers (now known simply as Apple) was in trouble. Steve Jobs exited the company following a palace coup in 1985, and what followed for the Apple brand was about eleven years in the wilderness.

The ‘Think Different’ campaign followed Job’s return to Apple – he had spent the previous decade creating Pixar and delivering the animation studio’s first feature Toy Story. Jobs, of course, led Apple’s return from the wilderness and took it into its ‘golden years’, which saw the company make computing cool, introduce the iPod, open iTunes and really nail the mobile device market.

In South Africa, it will be interesting to see if Cell C’s campaign in celebration of the self does the same thing for the mobile network, which has been under the helm of Alan Knott-Craig Snr since 1 April 2012. Up till then Cell C had pretty much been in the wilderness too with only an acting CEO to guide it, following the sudden departure of Lars Reichelt for personal reasons in July 2011.

After Vodacom and MTN, Cell C had always been seen as the third cellular brand or a bit of an also-ran. But Knott-Craig (who of course cell cpioneered the mobile market in SA with Vodacom) looked set to change that, and the market bristled with the announcement of his move to Cell C.

And Knott-Craig didn’t waste a second, wading into the market like an ‘Alexander the Great’, determined to cleave off the competition’s customer base. As TechCentral, who made Knott-Craig Snr its Newsmaker of 2012 wrote: “Cell C CEO Alan Knott-Craig has been making headlines all year –and winning consumer kudos in the process – as he wages a war for market share against the company’s bigger rivals.”

The effect of Knott-Craig Snr’s return to the market has been a massive boon for consumers, who have benefitted dramatically from the price war between the operators, in what was to date a fairly stagnant, if not complacent, market.

Which is why this campaign is so pleasing. It is all about the people that the mobile networks seemed to have forgotten about with their huge charges, complex bundles and mystifying product offerings. It is about you, and me. It is about the customer and about putting the power back into the hands of the customer.

It’s too early to tell what the impact of this campaign will be, but on the back of a brilliant business strategy that champions the consumer it can only be good. Cell C wasn’t top of mind for the right reasons for the longest time. Now it is. Let’s see if it will stay there, grow and make the mobile sector as competitive as it should be.

Well done to Alan Knott-Craig Snr for making 2012 the year of the mobile customer, and to Ogilvy Johannesburg for ‘The Power is in Your Hands”, an ad that truly celebrates and uplifts consumers.

Ad of the Week is published on MarkLives every Wednesday. See past selections here.
Oresti Patricios is the CEO of brand and reputation analysis company Ornico.

– Industry profiles you’ll make time for. Sign up for our free newsletter!

South Africa’s top 10 most popular YouTube videos in 2012 – Made and Viewed by SA!

The most popular YouTube video results for 2012 are out. The list shows the South African videos that recorded the largest number of views on the popular social media platform over the past year. The list is ranked in order of South African popularity, determined by views:

1. I FINK U FREEKY’ by DIE ANTWOORD (Official)

2. Izikhokho Show – Jesus is a Shangaan

3. The Soil -Sunday

4. Trevor Noah: Crazy Normal – President Jacob Zuma’s Speech

5. Izikhokho Show – RDP house in Limpopo 1

6. DIE ANTWOORD – BABY’S ON FIRE (OFFICIAL)

7. Zahara – Loliwe

8. MI CASA – Heavenly Sent

9. Joyous Celebration – Opening Medley

10. The Perfect Hail Storm Dowerglen Edenvale Part1

Sign up for our free newsletter!

antw

Tech Law: Media myths about the new Instagram Terms of Use

by Paul Jacobson (@pauljacobson) A number of media services are clinging to the idea that Instagram is selling users’ content and that Instagram has the right to do this in perpetuity. As usual, many of these media services have not taken the time to actually read and understand the Terms of Use or the changes that are coming next month.

The user-centric license model

The fundamental shift from the model in the current Terms of Use and in other services like Twitter and Flickr to the model in the new Terms instagranof Use is pretty dramatic. The current model is, essentially, that Instagram can present ads to you, drawing on your personal information to make the ads more relevant to you. If you accept that you will be presented with ads to support the service that you otherwise use at no cost (aside from your attention and personal information), this model is not all that surprising.

This is what Flickr’s terms and conditions (actually, Yahoo’s, considering that Yahoo owns Flickr) say:

With respect to photos, graphics, audio or video you submit or make available for inclusion on publicly accessible areas of the Yahoo! Services other than Yahoo! Groups, the license to use, distribute, reproduce, modify, adapt, publicly perform and publicly display such Content on the Yahoo! Services solely for the purpose for which such Content was submitted or made available. This license exists only for as long as you elect to continue to include such Content on the Yahoo! Services and will terminate at the time you remove or Yahoo! removes such Content from the Yahoo! Services.

Similarly, Twitter’s terms of service have a slightly different approach and focus more on the license required to make Twitter users’ content (including photos) available both on Twitter.com as well as through companies working with Twitter to publish Twitter users’ content:

You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).

Tip: This license is you authorizing us to make your Tweets available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.

You agree that this license includes the right for Twitter to provide, promote, and improve the Services and to make Content submitted to or through the Services available to other companies, organizations or individuals who partner with Twitter for the syndication, broadcast, distribution or publication of such Content on other media and services, subject to our terms and conditions for such Content use.

Tip: Twitter has an evolving set of rules for how ecosystem partners can interact with your Content. These rules exist to enable an open ecosystem with your rights in mind. But what’s yours is yours – you own your Content (and your photos are part of that Content).

Essentially, the licenses found in the current Instagram Terms of Use, the Flickr/Yahoo Terms of Service and the Twitter Terms of Service focus on the following permissions:

  • Using users’ content and personal information to present targetted ads based on users’ preferences and profile data; and/or
  • Allowing the service and companies working with the service to publish users’ content as part of making the service available.

Typically these licenses are limited to the purpose for which the users make their personal information and content available.

The social influence license model

The new Instagram Terms of Use’s provisions dealing with users’ content and personal information mirror the Facebook Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. Both sets of terms and conditions have a different focus based on some user psychology which Facebook exploits pretty effectively. The basic idea here is that you, as a user, are more likely to be influenced by what your friends are doing on Facebook and Instagram. Unlike the user-centric license model where the emphasis is more on the user more or less in isolation, the social influence license model exploits the underlying social nature of these services and how they are architected.

This model is a smart evolution of a popular legal framework by adapting it to fit the social sharing model far better. This model focuses on associating users, their identities and their content with a brand or product based on their personal information and activity on the service (the example we used in our previous post was of a Facebook user who “liked” a brand).

So far this isn’t new to anyone who has used these services but two things emerge from the new paragraphs in the new Terms of Use. Firstly, Instagram isn’t so much selling users’ content as it is selling access to users, their content and personal information to brands. Secondly, by relieving itself of the obligation to point out when ads are ads (or similar sponsored content or promotional updates), Instagram gives itself the freedom to present these ads and sponsored content as if they were updates and posts voluntarily published by users as endorsements of the particular brands or products.

Why do they do this? Well, it’s pretty simple. Other users will be more likely to take more of an interest in brands or products their friends seem to be interested in. The catch is that the users apparently endorsing those brands and products through an apparent association with them may not even be aware that they have been associated with those brands or products. In fact, as some commentators have pointed out, the person associated with the brand or product may not even be the user who published the content but rather other people in the photos concerned.

You could find that a photo of your kids has been used to promote kids’ toys or some recreational activity without your knowledge. Kids between the ages of 13 and 18 could be used to promote some trendy service and Instagram creates a presumption that the teenagers’ parents or guardians have consented through assumptions in the Terms of Use (which may not have occurred anyway), leaving these kids to prove they didn’t obtain the consent in the first place. This may not even be legal in countries with stricter privacy laws.

Put another way

Comparing the current Instagram Terms of Use to the new Terms of Use could also be framed as follows:

Targeted ads vs selling social engineering to advertisers

Content sales is an indirect benefit of the new licensing model but it is not what the new licensing model is all about. Exploiting our relationships with each other and the underlying social referral dynamic of the social Web is what the new Instagram Terms of Use and Facebook’s revised legal framework are designed for.

– Paul Jacobson is founder and director of Web•Tech•Law. Web•Tech•Law / CC BY-SA 2.5

– Industry news you’ll make time for. Sign up for our free newsletter!

Tech Law: Media insight — What changes to Facebook’s governance structure mean for users

by Paul Jacobson (@pauljacobson) Facebook’s changes to its Statement of Rights and Responsibilities and its Data Used Policy generally attract a fair amount of attention and consternation. Its latest changes are no exception and while there is reason for some concern, the proposed changes won’t have the radical impact many fear it will. In a post titled “Proposed Updates To Our Governing Documents”, Facebook’s Vice President for Communications Public Policy and Marketing, Elliott Schrage, introduce the changes as follows:

Today we are proposing some updates to two documents which govern our site: our Data Use Policy, which explains how we collect and use data when people use Facebook, and our Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (SRR), which explains the terms governing the use of our services. These updates provide more detailed information about our practices, reflect changes to our products, and improve how we conduct our site governance process.

Changes to the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities

The most significant change to the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities (this is what Facebook calls its service terms of use) is the proposed removal of a participatory which it introduced in 2009 which notionally gave users the opportunity to vote on proposed changes to Facebook’s governing legal frameworks. This voting mechanism provided that if more than 7000 users –

… post a substantive comment on a particular proposed change, we will also give you the opportunity to participate in a vote in which you will be provided alternatives. The vote shall be binding on us if more than 30% of all active registered users as of the date of the notice vote.

The proposed changes are being put to a vote in terms of this existing voting mechanism and this will be the 3rd, and quite possibly the last, Paul Jacobsonvote under this particular framework. In a sense, it’s not surprising that Facebook has made the decision to remove this mechanism (although it is unfortunate given that Facebook has not made a substantive effort to publicise votes in the past). The 1st vote introduced this voting mechanism and the 2nd vote took place in June 2012. According to Ars Technica, both votes “had a turnout of well under one percent of Facebook’s user base”. Facebook only announced the votes on its blog and on its site governance page so that poor turnout was not unexpected. In addition, it’s probably fair to say that most users don’t take an interest in Facebook’s governance except where there is a flareup in the media.

Granted, Facebook’s threshold for the votes was fairly high when the mechanism was initially introduced and, with roughly 1,000,000,000 users, a 30% vote represents a substantial number of Facebook users taking an interest in the changes being voted on and voting in one or another direction. That said, the mechanism represented a degree of participation in Facebook’s governance which was, and remains, largely unprecedented on the Web. In its place, Facebook proposes a 7 day notice period for substantive changes to its governance frameworks although Facebook will not notify users of changes “for legal or administrative reasons, or to correct an inaccurate statement”. The “legal or administrative reasons” category is somewhat vague and it remains to be seen just what sorts of changes this includes.

Other changes to the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities include a clarification of the prohibition on using your personal timeline for your own commercial gain by qualifying that with an allowance for some commercial gain as long as your use is not “primarily” for your own commercial gain. Facebook requires you to use a Facebook Page for commercial use.

The proposed changes to the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities has prompted a hoax on Facebook where Facebook users are encouraged to publish certain notices including the following one:

In response to the new Facebook guidelines I hereby declare that my copyright is attached to all of my personal details, illustrations, comics, paintings, professional photos and videos, etc. (as a result of the Berner Convention). For commercial use of the above my written consent is needed at all times!

(Anyone reading this can copy this text and paste it on their Facebook Wall. This will place them under protection of copyright laws By the present communiqué, I notify Facebook that it is strictly forbidden to disclose, copy, distribute, disseminate, or take any other action against me on the basis of this profile and/or its contents. The aforementioned prohibited actions also apply to employees, students, agents and/or any staff under Facebook’s direction or control. The content of this profile is private and confidential information. The violation of my privacy is punished by law (UCC 1 1-308-308 1-103 and the Rome Statute).

Facebook is now an open capital entity. All members are recommended to publish a notice like this, or if you prefer, you may copy and paste this version. If you do not publish a statement at least once, you will be tacitly allowing the use of elements such as your photos as well as the information contained in your profile status updates

The proposed changes to not affect the licensing provisions in these terms and conditions and this notice which some Facebook users are publishing in the hopes that this will restrict how their content is used on Facebook will not have any impact on the licence which they have already granted to the service and which is recorded in the Statement of Rights and Responsibilities –

For content that is covered by intellectual property rights, like photos and videos (IP content), you specifically give us the following permission, subject to your privacy and application settings : you grant us a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post on or in connection with Facebook (IP License). This IP License ends when you delete your IP content or your account unless your content has been shared with others, and they have not deleted it.

Changes to the Data Use Policy

Facebook’s Data Use Policy is a substantial document of 16 pages. It describes what personal information Facebook collect from its users and what it does with their personal information. It is a particularly important document which most users have probably not read and the proposed changes are interesting to say the least. In some respects, the changes clarify the existing wording and, in others, they will expand the range of uses that Facebook already has in respect of users’ personal information. Although the proposed changes don’t specifically refer to Instagram, the proposed changes reference Facebook’s affiliates and include the following addition:

We may share information we receive with businesses that are legally part of the same group of companies that Facebook is part of, or that become part of that group (often these companies are called affiliates). Likewise, our affiliates may share information with us as well. We and our affiliates may use shared information to help provide, understand, and improve our services and their own services.

The implications of this proposed change of that Facebook may make use of personal information which it collects through services like Instagram, which it owns, and make use of that personal information within the Facebook service itself.

Facebook also proposes removing a similar voting mechanism in the Data Used Policy and replacing it with a 7 day comment period and simple notice of changes being made to the Policy.

Generally speaking, the Data Used Policy highlights just how much personal information Facebook collects, how it collects all of that personal information and just how important it is that users take an active interest in the privacy controls which Facebook makes available to them in order to better control how much of their personal and profile information can be shared across the service. These proposed changes have inspired another preformatted status update which users are publishing in the timelines –

To all my FB family and friends: I want to stay PRIVATELY connected with you. However, with the recent changes in FB, the “public” can now see activities in ANY wall. This happens when our friend hits “like” or “comment” ~ automatically, their friends would see our posts too. Unfortunately, we cannot change this setting by ourselves because Facebook has configured it this way.

PLEASE place your mouse over my name above (DO NOT CLICK), a window will appear, now move the mouse on “FRIENDS” (also without clicking), then down to “Settings”, click here and a list will appear. REMOVE the CHECK on “COMMENTS & LIKE” and also “PHOTOS”. By doing this, my activity amongst my friends and family will no longer become public.

Now copy and paste this on your wall. Once I see this posted on your page I will do the same for you.

As with the bogus copyright notice which I mentioned above, this privacy notice has no impact on the permissions a user grants Facebook through the Data Use Policy. It also reveals an ignorance about how many of Facebook’s privacy controls actually work. This particular notice attempts to address one of the truisms about sharing information through Facebook. When you read the Data Use Policy one of the things that stands out is that a user’s ability to control personal information and updates shared on Facebook is hardly absolute. The only way to relatively effectively control which of your updates and personal information other users may see and share is to make judicious use of the privacy and sharing controls in your profile settings. One of the cautions Facebook includes in the Data Used Policy (and this is an addition to the Policy) is the following –

When you hide things on your timeline, like posts or connections, it means those things will not appear on your timeline. But, remember, anyone in the audience of those posts or who can see a connection may still see it elsewhere, like on someone else’s timeline or in search results.

The Policy also points out that information shared with 3rd party applications and services through Facebook is not automatically removed when you start making use of those applications or services and, further, even if you request those applications or services to remove your personal information, they may retain your personal information in order to comply with some or other compliance requirement of their own. The service also shares a considerable amount of your personal information with a variety of parties including other users and your Facebook friends for various reasons which are variations of “improvements” to your experience of the service.

The proposed changes to the Data Use Policy will not radically change the Facebook privacy model. It is fairly permissive and broad already. What it highlights is the cliche that if you are not paying for a service then you are the product. This has, however, almost always been the case with Facebook.

– Paul Jacobson is founder and director of Web•Tech•Law. Web•Tech•Law / CC BY-SA 2.5

– Industry news you’ll make time for. Sign up for our free newsletter!

Weekly Top 10: Fastest rising search terms from South Africans on Google

With the help of Google Trends we are publishing the top 10 searched for phrases (minus the sexy stuff of course) by South Africans on Google over the previous seven days.

anne hathaway

Fast rising searches

anne hathaway Breakout
cput +250%
miss south africa +160%
mangaung +110%
computicket +90%
nelson mandela +90%
iphone 5 +60%
fb +50%
groupon +50%
justin bieber +50%

Top 10 search terms

1. facebook
2. youtube
3. google
4. gumtree
5. gmail
6. fnb
7. game
8. absa
9. news
10. games
11. weather
12. yahoo
13. standard bank
14. facebook login
15. christmas
16. whatsapp
17. music
18. news24
19. unisa
20. maps

Top 10 search terms minus social media/mail/search

1. youtube
2. gumtree
3. fnb
4. game
5. absa
6. news
7. games
8. weather
9. standard bank
10. christmas

(For past data click here)

* Google Trends is intended for general analysis of volume patterns.
* When you see Breakout listed instead of an actual percentage, it means that the search term has experienced a change in growth greater than 5000%.

Online CPD Courses Psychology Online CPD Courses Marketing analytics software Marketing analytics software for small business Business management software Business accounting software Gearbox repair company Makeup artist