What is Google+ (Google Plus) and do I need it?

A most amusing video animation that describes not just Google+ but Social Media's place.

Silicon Valley Mixer

Come by Rudy's in Palo Alto on Weds, 7/27 to see me and PBS MediaShift founder and editorial director Mark Glaser.

Find the guy in the hat for a free drink. And sign up here, on Facebook, to let Mark know you’re coming!

Wednesday, July 27 · 6:30pm - 8:30pm
Location
Rudy’s Pub
117 University Ave.
Palo Alto, California

Rebutting @NYTKeller's Assertion that #twittermakesyoustupid

Memorization was once a tool for preserving information. But today the more important skill is the ability to process and filter it. To quickly decide what needs to be analyzed and responded to, and what ought to be ignored. That's not a cognitive loss, it's an evolutionary advancement.

This is from an eloquent piece (New York Times Editor Is A Horrible Troll Who Doesn't Understand The Modern World - Gizmodo) rebutting New York Times editor Bill Keller, who (somewhat famously, now -- at least if you're on Twitter) started a Twitter discussion about whether #TwitterMakesYouStupid.

Of course, it doesn't, though, as Mat Honan notes in the piece, it can be one of the things that, in this technological age, changes the way we think. It may even lead to changes in our neural pathways. Honan is right to point out how every medium has been decried as the end of human thinking -- including, he says of Socrates, writing -- and this is just one more.

He also points out that we no longer can remember everything we need, nor should we want to. Einstein, I have read, said that he didn't remember his own phone number because why memorize something, and use that brain power, for something you can look up?

I admire the Times, a lot, and the amazing work it does every day, and am willing to forgive it its gaffes. I am waiting, too, to see how open-minded Keller can be in learning from the responses to his Tweets. They can be part of an intelligent discussion about media and technology, and launch longer essays. They do not make someone stupid, though they may reinforce the tendencies of someone who already is headed in that direction.

Social Media ROI, via Social Media for #smwknd

Here's the Storify.com version of Tweets form folks who attended the "Social Media ROI" seminar I gave at Columbia University. And the presentation is on my company's website, TeemingMedia.com.

. They're in reverse chronological order.

CPMs and Pressure on Them

I've been talking with folks recently about ad networks, and how viable they are as a business. They can be, with enough volume -- especially if there's some differentiation, an argument one can make that it's not just another "me-too" network, but rather provides better targeting, more engagement, a new way to reach people in some way or other that's unique, or at least a unique mix.

Still, for a marketer, there's a balance of price and efficiency. If my ads are half as targeted over here, but cost 1/3 as much as buying them in the more targeted place over there, maybe I'm willing to put up with the inefficiency for the cost savings. So there's a lot of downward pressure on prices. The new CEO of an ad re-targeting company (the story linked below explains retargeting) of course makes the case that the network he's heading does have that targeting & efficiency offering. But this quote, I think, points out the challenge for ad networks today, and a reason it makes sense for content producers to look for multiple offsetting revenue streams.

"The difficulty today is there’s so much inventory. I really believe there’s going to be a further compression of CPMs as the proliferation of networks and DSPs and content continues to grow. One of the things that kept up at night was the ability to continue to hold onto high CPMs."

DIGIDAY:DAILY - Why Greg Coleman Bet on Retargeting

Search, Serendipity and Fleetwood Mac

There are those who lament that in the digital age we've lost the ability to browse, as we do in a bookstore or at a newsstand, who say we lose the serendipity of finding the un-searched for, the unrelated, the completely quirky, the thing we might not have considered while strolling past a shelf or gazing over a shoulder.

I have an answer for those doubters: Fleetwood Mac. I was searching the online offerings of my local library today to see what they might have from the old rock band, an interest rekindled via my wife when we and our children watched a recent episode of the "Glee" TV show that featured a song by the group.

There weren't any Fleetwood Mac online-only offerings, but there were eBooks about "Mac" computers, how to code them, hack them, use Applescript and so on. It happens that tinkering with computers is a hobby of mine, and I grabbed a couple of the books, which will be fun and help me do a little coding and hacking, for work and pleasure.

My friend and sometimes colleague Rafat Ali has pointed out how links, tags and feeds can lead to "the serendipity of tripping over fascinating articles about things I would never" have explored. (I'd give the link, but the PaidContent site appears to have moved or deleted the post.)

I couldn't agree more. It's not that we no longer have serendipitous discovery. It's that the nature of it has morphed a bit. Besides, you can still go to a bookstore or magazine stand if you like. It's not either-or. It's additive.

Quoted on SEO by Columbia Journalism Review

CJR Column Mentions The Simpsons : CJR: "“Generally speaking, what’s best for human beings, to find and understand something on the web, is what’s best for the machine,” said Benkoil. “A lot of people will come across what you’re offering via a short link and perhaps a snippet of text. If that headline is cutesy or elliptical or hard to understand, and somebody doesn’t know what he’s going to get, he’s less likely to click. If it’s straightforward and honest about what it’s about, they’re likelier to click. And that’s the same for SEO.”"