Insider Chatter by Donna Bogatin

Adrian Holovaty was granted $1,100,000 by the “Knight News Challenge” to “release open-source software that links databases to allow citizens of a large city to learn (and act on) civic information about their neighborhood or block.”

The EveryBlock “project” which opened for “business” yesterday, however, is not content to do its unique civic duty. Instead, Holovaty also takes the typical Web 2.0, easy user generated content redistribution tack, diluting the hard, real local news that drives the real workings of real urban centers’ citizens everday with the same old personal musings of a minority of Internet users, anonymous ones. 

Holovay knows that the real value he brings to the local table online is what is unique to EveryBlock, aka “civic information”:

Building permits, crimes, restaurant inspections and more. In many cases, this information is already on the Web but is buried in hard-to-find government databases. In other cases, this information has never been posted online, and we’ve forged relationships with governments to make it available.

Flickr, Craigslist and Yelp, however are NOT buried, are NOT hard to find, and are already on the Web, ALL over the Web in some cases: Yelp redistributes, free of charge, its anonymous babble about food to any takers.

Holovaty calls the tack on snippets of non-representative, anonymous Web posters “fun from across the Web.” EveryBlock’s value proposition, however, is NOT Web 2.0 UGC “entertainment.”

EveryBlock ought to be about what it is uniquely supposed to be: Real world “civics” real goings on, undiluted.

ALSO:  Yellow Pages Get Reprieve? The Myth of King Google Local Advertising ROI and Judy’s Book: What’s On Sale? WE ARE! Ten Reasons Why

PLUS: Facebook To Particls: What IS Your Data Portability End Game? and Craigslist Q & A: Craig Newmark Philanthropy Matches Google’s Page and Brin and Facebook Davos PR Blitz: Beware Scoble Hype, Users Still at BIG Risk

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Nick Ciarelli is NO Bob Woodward or Carl Bernstein. What’s more, His Think Secret so-called sources are no “Deep Throat.” Most importantly, the unauthorized public release of proprietary corporate competitive information is NOT a noble endeavor, as was the Pultizer Prize winning journalism achieved by The Washington Post in investigating the arrest of five burglars at the Democratic National Committee offices in the Watergate complex.

Why did Ciarelli succumb to Apple’s contention that he is NO journalist and shut down his blog? The Think Secret unprofessional tag line, an embarrassment to the professional practice of journalism, solicits “GOT DIRT?” encouraging  ANONYMOUS VOICE MAIL “tips,” hardly the modus operandi of professional publications.  

The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and its Code of Ethics does NOT encourage anonymous “sourcing”:

Members of the Society of Professional Journalists believe that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth.

But truth is hard to come by, without naming names.

The SPJ on naming sources, or not: 

Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.

Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information.

Readers ought to question any and all stories based solely on unidentified sources, no matter the editorial masthead. The facts are clear: The reliability, or not, of a story based on unamed sources can not be determined.

Apple and Think Secret have settled their lawsuit, reaching an agreement that results in a positive solution for both sides. As part of the confidential settlement, no sources were revealed and Think Secret will no longer be published. Nick Ciarelli, Think Secret’s publisher, said, “I’m pleased to have reached this amicable settlement, and now will be able to move forward with my college studies and broader journalistic pursuits.”

Next time, Ciarelli may be naming names.

ALSO: Gawker: Will Nick Denton PAY For Media Respectability? and Google Zeitgeist: $200 University Payola AdWords Scam and Digg: TechCrunch Bails on Arrington Web 2.0 Fave

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

Are consumers really in control in this Web 2.0 era of local social media? Citysearch President Jay Herratti shared in his Kelsey Interactive Local Media keynote yesterday that merchant requests for removal of consumer reviews is the number one ”complaint escalation” he is called upon to arbitrate.

I met with Herratti following his presentation to discuss how Citysearch aims to help both merchants and consumers “make sense of” and “sort out” the burgeoning, and increasingly cacaphonous, world of online user generated content in the local space. 

Reputation management is an increasing imperative for local merchants as consumers become more and more active in sharing their experiences online, Herratti said. The passionate pleas from local businesses, and legal letters from lawyers, that reach the Citysearch president’s desk on a regular basis underscores the influence consumer opinions now have on SME’s prospects, he indicated. 

Merchants request removal of consumer reviews from Citysearch that they deem to be inaccurate and/or damaging, according to Herratti. During his keynote, Herratti described the cases of two restaurants that sought consumer review deletions from Citysearch.

When a restaurant in San Francisco changed ownership, the new management claimed that its prior track record, as described by consumers at Citysearch, no longer applied. Herratti determined, however, that as the restaurant continued to operate under the same name, the new investors acquired the business reputation along with its hard assets: No removal of reviews.

After a patron had an unfortunate experience under a pigeon while dining at one establishment, the customer was unable to find pleasure in any aspect of the restaurant’s experience and shared all online. While the merchant pleaded that pigeons don’t ordinarily interfere with their customers, Herratti determined the consumers’ review to be consistent with Citysearch’s “Ten Commandments” because the review added value by describing an actual consumer experience: No removal of review.

I asked Herratti if the two restaurants he described were Citysearch advertisers. Herratti said he was unaware, because client status does not factor into his decisions. Nevertheless, Citysearch sales reps will seek consumer review arbitration on behalf of client accounts. Regardless, most consumer reviews remain, Herratti told me.

I asked Herratti if, and under what circumstances, he WOULD agree to remove a consumer review. Citysearch consumer review decisions are based on its explicit Terms of Use, Herratti told me. Unacceptable review content includes:

1. Offensive, harmful and/or abusive language, including without limitation: expletives, profanities, obscenities, harassment, vulgarities, sexually explicit language and hate speech (e.g., racist/discriminatory speech.)
2. References to illegal activity, malpractice, purposeful overcharging, false advertising or health code violations (e.g., food poisoning, foreign objects in food, etc.)
3. Reviews submitted by the reviewed business’s employees (past or present) or competitors as determined by Citysearch.
4. Reviews that do not address the goods and services of the business or reviews with no qualitative value (e.g., “this place is great!”) as determined by Citysearch in its sole discretion.
5. Reviews commenting on other users.
6. Content that contains personal attacks or describes physical confrontations and/or sexual harassment.
7. Excessive damage caused by business or service to person or property.
8. Personal information or messages including email addresses, URLs, phone numbers and postal addresses.
9. Messages that are advertising or commercial in nature, or are inappropriate based on the applicable subject matter.
10. Language that violates the standards of good taste or the standards of this website, as determined by Citysearch in its sole discretion.

To assist local businesses in managing their reputations online, Citysearch offers a “merchant reply tool.”

To help consumers filter the hundreds of thousands, and counting, consumer reviews available at Citysearch, a new “Reviews Dashboard” is offered. Citysearch aims to give users a manageable, one-screen, snapshot of the aggregate consumer reaction to local establishments.

The Citysearch “Reviews Dashboard” features a “Ratings Roundup” and “The Verdict.” Local merchants will nevertheless undoubtedly continue to contest consumers’ verdicts.

MORE FROM KELSEY CONFERENCE: Google Beware: Facebook Takes Local Advertising Gloves Off, ILM REPORT and
Local Advertising Online: SMEs Hold the Billion Dollar Keys, ILM ANALYSIS and
Google Apps & Maps: Enterprise and Local Business STILL Missing and
The Future of Local IS (Google) Search: ILM REPORT and
Local is Global: $134 billion in Yellow Pages, Classifieds and Internet Advertising, ILM REPORT and
Jason Calacanis: ‘I Am Wrong About Local Too,” ILM REPORT

ALSO: Sony Jeopardy! Union and Studio Egos in the Way? WGA STRIKE INTERVIEWS

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

The future of all varieties of local search will be analyzed, debated and predicted over three days of The Kelsey Group’s Interactive Local Media Conference set for Los Angeles, post-Thanksgiving holiday.

I am a five year, multidisciplinary veteran of the Kelsey local intensives: From academic analyst, to startup entrepreneur, to professional blogger, I have experienced the annual event for interactive local media execs and local search practitioners from all angles and always look forward to the high-level local pow-wows.

This year, I have the pleasure of joining the Kelsey Group analysts on stage to wrap up the three-day local meetup in helping evaluate if we are in the midst of a local revolution, or an evolution.

Local media play AnchorFree, for one, would undoubtedly vote for local revolution, thanks to its ”hotspot media network.”

I met AnchorFree co-founder and CEO David Gorodyansky, and team, at the Ad-Tech conference in New York City earlier this month when the Silicon Valley based startup hosted a Silicon Alley Happy Hour. While many Ad-Tech exhibitors laid claim to the latest and greatest ad network innovations, the AnchorFree value proposition is indeed compelling:

The largest Hotspot media network, representing more than 10,000 Hotspot locations, generating more than 400 million page views through five million user sessions per month. The location-based ad network is a new marketing channel for brand and direct response marketers to deliver interactive, timely and targeted advertisements to laptop and mobile device users when they are away from the home or office.

What is so “revolutionary” about the AnchorFree ad network? In a telephone interview this week, Gorodyansky proudly told me his company can target local ads better than Google and Yahoo! As the leading search engines rely on IP addresses for ad serving precision, both Google and Yahoo work under 30% to 50% margins of error, Gorodyansky indicated.

AnchorFree serves ads “pinpointed to street level location,” Gorodyansky told me. AnchorFree may even be able to target Yahoo local ads better than Yahoo itself; AnchorFree has an ad sales and delivery partnership with the number two search engine:

Advertisers are guaranteed 100% accurate location-based targeting, as AnchorFree’s geo-targeting capabilities are based on the access location of the consumer, and not on the less reliable ISP data.

The AnchorFree sales pitch: “We connect advertisers with millions of consumers in a captive, persistent manner that is highly measurable and geo-targeted to users’ exact locations. Any business, from coffee shops and restaurants to hotels, airports and malls, can leverage the AnchorFree network to offer their patrons free Internet access while generating new revenues with no financial investments required.”

AnchorFree aims to build a nationwide broadband advertising network providing 1-to-1 connections with attentive consumers, Gorodyansky told me. Whats more, the out-of-home laptop and wireless device users that engage with AnchorFree’s free-to-the-consumer, ad-supported hotspot network, are highly desirable to brand and direct marketers, Gorodyansky indicated.

Brands currently running across the AnchorFree network include American Express, AirTran, Circuit City, Clorox, Ford…AnchorFree commands CPMs of about $12.50.

While Gorodyyansky hails the local advertising appeal of its service for the media business, AnchorFree also sees its mission as revolutionary for the world at large:

The company enables a grass roots movement of thousands of locations around the world that come together into the largest public, ad-supported Wi-Fi community.

AnchorFree’s hotspot concept does sound “hot.” The hot local space nevertheless has lots of companies vying for “revolutionary” honors.

Dozens of other prospectively “hot” local plays are unbdoubtedly gearing up to make their own best advertising and/or technology cases to the hundreds of local decision makers set to convene in Los Angeles from November 28 to 30!

SEE YOU THERE? BE SURE TO STAY TO THE VERY END! CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

MORE INSIDER CHATTER CEO INTERVIEWS: MerchantCircle CEO Aims To Disrupt Local Advertising $39 billion Spend: INTERVIEW AND Stepan Pachikov: EverNote Web 2.0 Perfect Mobile Storm To Hit in 2008, INTERVIEW

UPDATE:  CBS To AnchorFree WiFi: WE Own The Ad Billboard, Online AND Off

Kevin Rose proudly commands his Digg troops to “Digg On,” now at Wall Street Journal, and they are trying their darndest to live up to their leader’s expectations!

Rose’s blog exhortation (dutifully ‘dugg’ with 968 ‘diggs’ and counting) to “view Wall Street Journal Online articles from Digg” is short, AND short on clarity. Nevertheless, his legion’s of faithful Diggers are stepping in, and stepping up, for Digg.

A Digg user wants to know “How can we create a bot to submit every WSJ article to Digg automatically? I want access!” A fellow Digger offers “Try Ruby or PHP.”

BUT, why must Rose’s Diggers seek to “hack” WSJ.com to get what they want, free? After all, Rose declares:

The WSJ Online is adding Digg buttons across the entire site, and you’ll now have full (free) access to the articles submitted to Digg. The Digg buttons have started appearing on WSJ.com articles tonight.

How is an average, non-WSJ paying subscriber, Digger to get access to the WSJ stories for Digging, though, if they are stubbornly behind the WSJ paywall? Does Rose and/or WSJ want the world to believe that the entire WSJ Online is now available free, via Digg, thanks to a convoluted paid subscriber Digger scheme?

Moreover, a good, popular chunk of the WSJ Online is already largely free, directly at WSJ.com, no thanks to Digg.

The “big” Digg announcement reads as more than it really is, i.e.; WSJ is the latest mainstream media publication to add Digg buttons in the hopes of gaining more ‘free’ traffic.

And the great Digg drive to “democratize” digital media powers on.

MORE ON DIGG: Who Needs Digg? We Got Twitter, Stumpleupon, Facebook…

ALSO EXCLUSIVE: NYTimes.com on TimesSelect End: ‘Too Early To Declare Victory,’ Ad-Tech Report

PLUS: Stepan Pachikov: EverNote Web 2.0 Perfect Mobile Storm To Hit in 2008, INTERVIEW

ALSO: Google: U.S. Taxpayers To Finance GOOG Riches

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN

” Advertising will pay the way” on the Internet, Viacom and CBS Chairman Sumner Redstone reconfirmed today at a New York City conference. At the same time, the New York Times attested to the power of ad-supported online media, at another NYC conference.

Nevertheless, NY Times $10 million Free News Bet NOT a Sure Thing I headlined when the old gray lady knocked down its pay wall. The GM of NYTimes.com suggested same this morning, during an Ad-Tech panel on “Publishing in the Digital Age, How Companies Are Extending Their Reach.”

Vivian Schiller began her presentation by sharing just how much the venerable “dead tree media” has extended its reach online since it dropped its fee plans for featured opinion columnists and the archives: Search referral traffic has increased 133%, Schiller said.

Nevertheless, “it is too early to declare victory,” Schiller advised. In other words, the content must be free game–at the cost of $10 million in yearly subscription revenues–is NOT a slam dunk.

Schiller remains bullish, however. Under the TimesSelect regime (which represented about 10% of content), direct navigation represented approximately 55% of NYTimes.com traffic, search referrals about 45%. Since opening up “opinion and archives,” search referral traffic has “tripled, quadrupled,” Schiller said.

For the NYTimes.com, online subscriptions and direct navigation is akin to “appointment viewing”; Share of such traffic has decreased, as search referral traffic increased.

Schiller extolled the New York Times brand and the quality of audience it delivers to its advertisers. During the Q & A, I discussed how overall audience quality is impacted by the new influx of search referred traffic.

I asked Schiller:

1) As search referred traffic outpaces direct navigation, how will advertisers react?

2) Are CPMs lower for search referred traffic versus direct navigation?

3) How does NYTimes.com deal with fickle search referred visitors who sometimes don’t even finish the clicked-on story, let alone browse other areas of the site?

NYTimes.com advertisers are pleased with the greater access to a higher number of monthly uniques representing new, diverse demographics, Schiller indicated. Moreover, CPMs for advertising at NYTimes.com are not based on source of visitor origination, so CPM dilution is not a concern, according to Schiller.

Schiller acknowledged that average, overall time spent at NYTImes.com will decrease as the percentage of search referred traffic grows. The site is subject to the typical 80-20 rule, whereby a small number of loyal users drive a large portion of revenues, Schiller indicated.

BUT, if it is too early for the New York Times to “declare victory” on the “opening up” of NYTimes.com, it may also be premature for the company to conclude that there will no negative impact on CPMs going forward. After all, while the New York Times may not break out traffic by source for ad pricing, advertisers may very well judge the overall audience quality inferior at some point, and subsequently put downward pricing pressure on NYTimes.com CPMs.

In analyzing the New York Time’s future CPM prospects when it announced its farewell to TimesSelect subscriptions, I underscored that as page view increases will be derived from fleeting search engine and link-fueled visitors, it is unlikely that NYTimes.com would be able to continue to command high CPMS as it has been accustomed to with its dedicated readership.

Rupert Murdoch did a silmilar analysis in reporting to Wall Street yesterday on the future prospects for WSJ.com:

The wsj.com, making it free, we are examining the possibilities of doing that. There are a lot of pros and cons. We passed 1 million people now who are paying for it, and getting very, very high cost per thousand for advertising.

On the other hand, if that was to jump to 10 million or 20 million people around the world, it could be a wonderful thing for the brand. We would be selling the ads at a lower cost per thousand but I think we’d be in front.

NYTimes.com has already bet that it will be in front.

MORE AD-TECH EXCLUSIVES: NBC STILL Playing YouTube Games with Google: Ad-Tech Report and IAB Blasts FTC: Cookie Police Threaten $20 billion Internet Ad Economy, Ad-Tech Report

PLUS: YES! Facebook IS Scarier Than Google! AND WSJ.com Beware: Digg Users Plot Paywall Hack

CONTACT DONNA BOGATIN