Do not use Google Desktop, warns the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). At the user’s option the new Google Desktop software will “search across computers” and a new feature will store copies of the user’s Word documents and other personal files on Google’s servers. And, these files can be searched from any other computer of the user.

“EFF urges consumers not to use this feature, because it will make their personal data more vulnerable to subpoenas from the government and possibly private litigants, while providing a convenient one-stop-shop for hackers who've obtained a user's Google password,” urges a statement by the EFF today (Google Copies Your Hard Drive - Government Smiles in Anticipation).

"Coming on the heels of serious consumer concern about government snooping into Google's search logs, it's shocking that Google expects its users to now trust it with the contents of their personal computers," said EFF Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston. "If you use the Search Across Computers feature and don't configure Google Desktop very carefully—and most people won't—Google will have copies of your tax returns, love letters, business records, financial and medical files, and whatever other text-based documents the Desktop software can index. The government could then demand these personal files with only a subpoena rather than the search warrant it would need to seize the same things from your home or business, and in many cases you wouldn't even be notified in time to challenge it. Other litigants—your spouse, your business partners or rivals, whoever—could also try to cut out the middleman (you) and subpoena Google for your files."

Let’s put this into perspective: anyone can download a free copy of Google Desktop and if they don’t know what they’re doing, Google will start indexing their personal files which among other things can be open to subpoena.

If you think this is science fiction then you haven’t been reading the news. Last week the U.S. Department of Justice's demanded an amazing amount of search data from Google. Originally the DOJ requested all web addresses (URLs) contained in the Google database as well as a record of "all queries that have been entered into your company' s search engine between June 1, 2005 and July 31, 2005."  In other words, it wanted a list of every website in the Google database plus every search request ever made during a two-month period. Faced with resistance, DOJ settled on a random sample of one million web addresses as well as a list of every search string during a one-week period.

It is now confirmed by Google: Google admits it keeps and collates EVERY search query. While we’re not exactly sure how Google uses all of these, we do now know the company can be forced to divulge the information under court order.

A key problem highlighted by EFF is that the Electronic Communication Privacy Act (1986) gives only “limited privacy protection to emails and other files that are stored with online service providers—much less privacy than the legal protections for the same information when it's on your computer at home.” EFF is quick to point out that that very limited level of protection “could disappear if Google uses your data for marketing purposes.”

Furthermore, according to the EFF “Google says it is not yet scanning the files it copies from your hard drive in order to serve targeted advertising, but it hasn't ruled out the possibility, and Google's current privacy policy appears to allow it.”

Google is the most fearsome and now as well the most powerful company in the world. While only making profit approaching $2 - 3 billion per year it I am sure won’t be long before it catches GE as the most profitable as well.

Ironically, I love Google as a utility. I use it 20-30 times per day on average. But Google has now become a pop culture icon that is influencing our social fabric and is now a part of the daily routine of tens of millions of people. "Just Google it..." is as common in our lexicon as "Where's the bathroom?"

And Google doesn't want to be just a search engine they want to be the center of the human genome universe, the world's biggest media broker, the king of mapping and geography, and the list goes, on and on.

I love using Google and I wish I owned stock -- but at the same time they scare the living dickens out of me.

More on Google watching you:

Big Brother Google

When Google is not your friend

Bill would force Web sites to delete personal info

© 2006 Toby Ward - Prescient Digital Media

A common issue unites all companies, regardless of size and industry: there is never enough money to throw at every opportunity or threat. That fixed budget means investments in one area of the business come at the expense of others.

For Small and Medium Sized Businesses (SMBs), those budgetary decisions are especially difficult and visible. By definition, there’s fewer dollars available than in large corporations. And when there’s less than 100 employees and a relatively small customer base, it’s very apparent where resources are going and where they aren’t.

As result, investments are made in the areas that offer the most obvious return, and for many SMBs that is not perceived to be their website. Research indicates that 57% of SMBs are making money from their websites, either online or via offline sales. While it’s a growing percentage of revenue, it’s not yet reached the level where every SMB can quantify the benefits of investing in their website.

Every company can calculate the benefits of adding salepeople or investing in improved supply chain management systems, however, so it’s easy to understand why the website can lose out to other areas of the business.

This question of how to justify website investments was an important part of a seminar we presented to a group of business owners this week. Their companies ranged across a variety of sectors. Their websites, in turn, varied widely in functionality, content quality and visual appeal.

We reviewed ROI models that quantify the company-wide benefits created by a site that strongly links to organizational objectives. While each company worked with numbers that were unique to their business, there was one measure they all factored into their plans: 1/20^th of a second.

That’s the amount of time in which viewers judge your site, according to researchers in Carleton University’s Human-Oriented Technology Lab. They reached their conclusion by flashing websites for 50 milliseconds and asking study participants to rate them for visual appeal.

“Unless the first impression is favorable, visitors will be out of your site before they even know that you might be offering more than your competitors,” says Carleton’s Dr. Gitte Lindgaard. The research, which is reported in E-Commerce Times, suggests that the first impression forms an initital bias that dictates long-term opinions.

A positive first impression carries over to other features of the site, such as content. Since people like to be right, Lindgaard reasoned, they will continue to use a website that made a good first impression.

It’s an eye-catching stat, and one that certainly captured the attention of the business owners. While the benefits of a well designed site are difficult to quantify, the risk of creating a negative impression in a fraction of a second can be quickly understood.

And with that understanding comes an obvious justification for improving the design of a website.

RELATED ITEMS

Which comes first: resource allocation or strategy?

Design I: Making your site pretty can get ugly

When you launch your web browser, are you engaging in civic-related communications? Or are you initiating a commercial transaction? Your answer may determine what role you would accept for government involvement in your online experience and what responsibility you believe corporations have for enabling your communications and transactions.

Why is this significant for web strategy? Because, in western democracies, we have the luxury of assuming that businesses and their customers will have guaranteed access to the Internet at a reasonable price. That assumption rests on decisions made by governments regarding how to regulate, or not, the Internet. It is also shaped by how the companies who create and manage the backbone of the Internet interpret their responsibility toward customers and shareholders.

In a high-profile example of what can happen in countries that lack our democratic tradition, we witnessed Google agreeing to censor its site in China. The move has been criticized, but not by Bill Gates, who defended his rival’s decision. Gates said that Internet technology contributes to political freedom and added that “I think [the internet] is contributing to Chinese political engagement . . . Access to the outside world is preventing more censorship.”

A recent article in The Nation, “The End of the Internet?” suggests we shouldn’t take inexpensive Internet access for granted in North America. The writer, Jeff Chester, states that: “If we permit the Internet to become a medium designed primarily to serve the interests of marketing and personal consumption, rather than global civic-related communications, we will face the political consequences for decades to come.”

People who launch their browser to participate in political dialogue will nod enthusiastically at this point, lobby their government for greater regulation and propose clear responsibility for corporations in enabling citizens to engage in free discourse.

Many, many more people, who use the Internet to research and make purchases, will roll their eyes, perceive no role for the government and expect corporations to be responsible for delivering better products at a cheaper price.

Chester’s article can’t be easily dismissed, however. For one reason, telecos and cable companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to deliver a return on their investment. To that point, he quotes Ed Whitacre, chairman and CEO of AT&T, who told Business Week, “Why should they be allowed to use my pipes? The Internet can’t be free in that sense, because we and the cable companies have made an investment, and for a Google or Yahoo! or Vonage or anybody to expect to use these pipes [for] free is nuts!”

For another reason, Chester points out that these large corporations are aggressively lobbying the U.S. government to enact legislation that will support their revenue goals. “Under the plans they are considering, all of us—from content providers to individual users—would pay more to surf online, stream videos or even send e-mail.”

An imminent threat? No, but it’s certainly an issue to include in your “environmental scan” as you assess your Internet strategy.

In the meantime, you can take in the ACLU’s projection of how web technology and rich data can turn a simple transaction, ordering pizza, into an interaction with Big Brother.

People read differently online compared to reading for print. But make no mistake about it, people read online – a lot. (No need to go and read about the Super Bowl – my Seahawks lost).

Some would argue however that people only want quick hits of information online. A general argument for this can be made. For example, people are far less likely to read a book online than in print. Who wouldn’t?

T.J. Larkin is a well-known professional communicator who recently wrote an article called Change the Communication Channel for Communication World magazine (the trade association magazine for the International Association for Business Communicators). In his article, Larkin makes the case that the Web is only good for “small pieces of data” such as:

• Finding the temperature for a welding operation
• Locating a mailing address
• Checking the accumulated value in a 401(k)

Hmmm, yes all of those are good bits to get using a browser and mouse. However, the web is more than “small pieces of data.”

Larkin rationalizes his argument stating…

• “Not everything belongs on the web.” – True
• “The Web… is best for short quick information retrieval.” – Partially true
• “Messages that are new, long and complicated belong on paper, not on web pages.” – Wrong

Ever read news online? Ever research a school assignment online? Ever read a financial prospectus or an analyst report online? Ever use the web to research a purchase and read a detailed specifications sheet? I’ll bet you’ve even read a product sheet and wish it had more information…

I don’t need to convince you with rhetoric of the illogicality of Larkin’s assertion (I’m sure he’s a fine person, but clearly his experience with the web is limited). Instead, here’s some recent statistics that speak for themselves:

• 53.6 million Americans read online newspapers per month - up 30% from last year (Newspaper Association of America)
• 35% of first-time car buyers said they consider the Internet to be their most important informational tool, compared to 8.2 % naming TV, 4.4% listing magazines, 3.6% citing newspapers and 1.1 % utilizing radio (Polk Center)
• The Internet is cited as the biggest influence on luxury purchasing (cited by 44% of affluent purchasers) (IAB)

Larkin attempts to bolster his argument by citing a study that suggests students have less retention studying online than studying from paper. Well, duh. Of course, they would have less retention with more distraction (e.g. links, colors, moving animation, etc.). I’ll bet they have a study that also shows that that those studying in front of the TV have less retention than ones with no TV on. Having said that, it doesn’t mean that TV is a poor medium for learning. Nor does the study mean that the web is only good for “small bits of data” – an extraordinary, exaggerated extrapolation.

People will read anything online if it fulfills a need – be it small pieces of data or feature stories or reports. However, users do want to be able to find information quickly. However, if it’s what they want they will be willing to stay and read (providing it fulfills a need).

A key difference between print versus the web is in the presentation of information. Users demand tighter, more succinct sentences and paragraphs, and cues that break-up the text (e.g. bullets, headers, callouts, etc.). So whereas ‘small’ clues and indicators or directors (e.g. labels, icons, links) are key to directing users to the desired information, users will stay and read more than just “small pieces” if it is in a web friendly format and relevant to their world.

RELATED ITEMS:

Writing For The Web

--

I’m taking a two-day hiatus for the birth of our new baby! My wife is a scheduled c-section delivery at 9:40am PST. Keep your fingers crossed… I’ll post a baby update by the end of the day. Now let’s see if I can get any sleep tonight…

© 2006 Toby Ward - Prescient Digital Media

If you’re a marketer and want to antagonize a salesperson, just tell them that Peter Drucker says: “The aim of marketing is to make selling superfluous.” Why would you want to antagonize a sales person? Because you can, and they antagonize real good.

Properly understood, Drucker’s point is that marketing’s job is to make the salesperson more efficient, not redundant. The antagonism can contribute to healthy competition between sales and marketing: sales challenges marketing to develop great programs, and marketing challenges sales to close deals.

By defining the target audience, creating a clear value proposition unique to that audience and then communicating that value in advance of a sales call, marketing makes the salesperson’s job easier. But marketing doesn’t close the deal. A focused, knowledgeable, professional sales person does, especially when the product is software designed to increase the effectiveness of complex websites.

A colleague recently experienced what happens when a salesperson who lacks the qualities mentioned above fulfills a request created by effective marketing.

But before learning from his story, let’s get a refresher on how to create effective marketing programs. In a recent article in CMO called “Going Guerrilla”, Michael W. McLaughlin provides five guerrilla marketing rules that will assist marketers in professional services to boost sales.

1.    Stress how your firm solves specific problems. That will get the attention of the right clients.

2.    The best companies are able to create evangelists of their people. Use low-cost, high-return marketing tactics like nonsponsored speaking opportunities, e-newsletters, blogs, webinars and surveys to make your experts a part of your marketing and sales processes.

3.    In professional services, clients are the richest source of new business and referrals. For that reason, focus roughly 60 percent of marketing resources on cultivating those relationships. Use 30 percent of your marketing efforts to reach prospects in your target market(s). Save the final 10 percent for building visibility in the business community.

4.    The needs of professional-service clients vary too widely for generic marketing. So a critical guerrilla marketing principle applies: One size fits none. Tailor marketing to meet the precise needs of clients and your market.

5.    Answer the tough questions. Before using resources for any marketing program, ask these questions: Why do we need this program? Is it aligned with client needs? What are the desired results? How will we measure effectiveness? How will the company be involved in rolling it out? Is there a better way to use these resources?

Great suggestions. Now let’s see what happens when the sales rep doesn’t follow the script.

My colleague was sourcing web software in a crowded space in which there were little opportunities for differentiation. The situation called for due diligence, so he prepared a detailed RFP and then contacted key vendors.

One company had managed to stand out by securing a high rating in a respected industry study, and my colleague was suitably impressed by the focused, marketing explanation featured on the vendor’s website regarding how the product would solve his specific problems. Textbook marketing up this point, with a rep receiving: a highly qualified lead complete with champion, timeframe and budget; decision-criteria set favoring the vendor’s solution; positive brand awareness.

Here’s what happened when my colleague contacted the salesperson:

·      The salesperson refused to respond to the RFP: the product’s features would sell themselves in a demo and the product was priced to “own the market” (yes, he put that in an e-mail). In other words, even a minimum level of sales effort was superfluous.

·      A refusal to allocate a development resource for the requested demo. Because the rep judged the sales value to be too low, he thought it best to utilize a service technician instead (yes again on the e-mail communiqué).

·       Following an impressive demo, in which the technician suggested to my colleague that a brief conversation with a developer would be beneficial, the sales rep prevented that conversation from taking place because the sales value was too low (written in an e-mail? Oh yeah.)

·       After this antagonism, my colleague still saw enough value in the software to schedule a conference call between the six-person purchasing team and the sales rep to finalize a price. The rep issued an electronic invitation for a time that suited him… and then missed the call.

Guess who didn’t get the sale.

Unfortunately, the experience has left my colleague wishing the sales role was superfluous. Or non-existent.

RELATED ITEMS                                         

Put the sales team back into your sales strategy

E-commerce sales now 7.7% of offline sales

Last week Yahoo! reported record profits – double the profit of last year. What was Wall Street’s response? Hammer it. The stock dropped quickly because it failed to reach the expectations of a few analysts. Those ‘expectations’ were off a couple of pennies per share. Yahoo’s stock is now less than it was a year ago despite doubling its profit on tremendous grouwth. Yahoo’s price-to-earnings ratio now sits at under 27.

Pessimism continues to proliferate Wall Street and Main Street. Ironically, this is the complete opposite of the trend six years ago when Wall Street couldn’t buy enough Internet stocks – sending prices to outrageously high and unconscionable levels. Those same sage investors now turn down their noses at Internet stocks, driving the prices to levels lower than would otherwise be seen as reasonable to outside onlookers. USA Today’s index of 50 Internet stocks increased just 1% in 2005. Without Google, it would have lost 8.2%.

Does this mean you should hesitate to invest in your website? An informed decision is required. Let’s take a look at some of the numbers:

• Almost 80 percent of North Americans have Internet access.
• More than 50 percent have made online purchases.
• A majority use the Internet as a decision-making tool.
• Online retail sales in the two weeks preceding Christmas were up 29% over last year to US$3.03 billion.
• The Internet is cited as the most influential channel on luxury purchasing (cited by 44 percent of affluent purchasers).
• 35% of first-time buyers consider the Internet to be their most important informational tool, as compared to 8.2% naming TV
• Online newspaper reading is up 30% to 53.6 million visitors a month during the fourth quarter of 2005
• 39%of North Americans use online banking.
• 73.5% of e-commerce sites estimate sales growth of 15 to 35% this year.
• 60% of chain retailers estimate web sales growth of 25-200 percent.
• Time spent online by adult Canadians has increased 50% since 2002 and Internet use is ready to overtake watching television.

Those numbers reflect a different story then the dogged, pessimistic tale woven by Wall Street. Its credibility as it relates to Internet stocks was ruined in the bubble of 1999 – 2000. That credibility continues to fail today.

“And it's not for a lack of profit,” writes USA Today’s Matt Krantz in Dot-coms' song and dance no longer entertains investors. “Forty-eight of the current members of the Internet 50 that were public in 2000 have seen their profits as a group quadruple since then. Google and Salesforce.com were private in 2000, so that doesn't even include Google's massive profit contribution.”

Here’s another key fact: according to the IDC FutureScan, all the indicators depict an expectation of 5% growth in U.S. IT spending this year. In other words, off the street and in the offices, business is investing in IT and the Web.

Don’t be scared away by Wall Street. Instead, listen to and embrace what your customers demand.

RELATED ITEMS:

Online Marketing: Mastering the Basics

© 2006 Toby Ward - Prescient Digital Media