That whole Balloon Boy saga was a huge blow to the credibility of news organizations everywhere. It really showed that nobody was above covering sensationalistic news. Perhaps, at a deeper level, it also explained why the Internet has eclipsed traditional media as the news channel of choice for so many people.

I don’t dislike traditional news as an industry. It’s strange to be part of the generation that gets to witness the transition of what was once nontraditional into the new norm. And to watch the aging dinosaurs buckle at the knees, one by one. Things like the Balloon Boy hoax showed how easy it was to exploit traditional media and how desperate those outlets were to break a story that people care about.

And that is why I totally support the criminal charges brought against Balloon Boy’s parents. The advent of the 24 hours news cycle has done wonders to undermine the integrity of TV news. Hopefully, with lessons learned from this hoax, the industry will regain some shred of dignity. If it’s not too late, that is.

But really, who would have thought that parents who named their kid Falcon could be desperate for attention?

It’s no secret that Android phones will soon be flooding the market. The latest product in this category is the myTouch phone from T-Mobile.

From the looks of their commercial, it seems like a solid product and another entrant in the long line of supposedly serious iPhone competitors.

However, what is their target audience? I assumed that since I’d been seeing these commercials a lot (no matter what program I was watching) that I was within the target demo. But then again, look at who’s in the commercials.

Whoopi Goldberg, for one. As far as I’m concerned, the last time she was relevant was when she was in the movie Ghost. But now she’s hosting The View, which is for older women.

Phil Jackson is also in this commercial. Former Chicago Bulls coach and current LA Lakers head coach. Are viewers who aren’t basketball fans supposed to know who he is?

And the last person in this ad is Jesse James from the show West Coast Choppers. I don’t watch the show, but I assume the audience is mostly male. I didn’t even recognize him in the commercial. I actually thought it was Fred Durst.

And the commercial is set to song by (the artist formerly known as) Cat Stevens. So obviously, they’re trying to target an older audience… who is both female and male… who watches basketball, TV shows about building bikes, and The View.

The other major point of the commercial is that customization is the key feature of the phone. While that’s all well and great for young people who like to have individualized everythings, I don’t think adults particularly care for a cartoon vampire caricature of themselves on the back of their phone.

But hey, maybe when I grow up some more that’s what I’ll want.

This is what happens when you want to copy/paste part of an AP article:

I swear, the Associated Press has no idea how the Internet works.

I know that other people hosting AP stories hurts the company’s bottom line (in terms of ad revenue), but this is just ridiculous. I don’t even know where to start with this.

They think people will pay $12.50 to quote up to 25 words from an AP article? The price for the same verbiage drops down to $7.50 for those using it for educational purposes.

What’s next? Are they going to start adding all their articles to a robots.txt file so Google News won’t index them?

Lack of exposure (or publicity) is what hurts news organizations the most. AP sure isn’t going to recoup all of their lost revenue by charging by the word.

If they do, then I’ll eat my shoe.

Link: The Time Has Come To Regulate Search Engine Marketing And SEO

Here’s a quote from the article that speaks volumes to me (with my emphasis).

“Here’s where the parallel to free trade breaks down. There are no perfect paradigms looking at free trade and import/export laws that exactly define or address this challenge.”

And now my thoughts regarding the rest of the article:

1) I believe that the article is most definitely written by an employee of a competing search engine challenging the Google model.

Google is the gold standard of online search, which means they are and have been doing something right. If users didn’t find results to be consistent and relevant, then Google would not be as dominant as it is. This may come off as common sense statement, but I think a lot of users just take it for granted that Google exists and is as powerful as it is.

2) It’s true that the Internet marketplace is incredibly saturated. And unlike the real world, where people choose a store based on location, personalized customer service, and visual appeal, the Internet doesn’t work that way. Google will tell you which sites are the most relevant based on what your keywords say you’re looking for. The overlap between Internet and real-world shopping is word-of-mouth. Where the Internet trumps real life is that word-of-mouth travels at lightspeed over the Net. Think about how many times customer service horror stories have made their rounds on the Web. The Internet is both the best tool for PR and its worst enemy.

3) Google is not the be-all and end-all of online commerce. Certain specialty “watchdog” sites that compare products, prices and merchants (the latter two of which Google has a market share) via user reviews are really where experienced buyers will look to first. Seasoned Internet shoppers know how to find the best prices for goods, the best sites for individual product reviews, and ratings for online stores. I feel that the author of the article underestimates the ingenuity of the Internet populace.

4) Wikipedia probably has the best model of collaborative effort on the Web. But how would you apply this paradigm to the search industry? First and foremost, you would need community moderation- the staple of Wikipedia. You would need people willing to spend their time in order to improve results, eliminate biases, and ultimately convey the “truth” behind the SEO smoke and SEM mirrors. I am certain that Google believes that those they employ can do a better job than the combined efforts of the Internet community. And who can blame them? Look how far their trust has brought the company.

5) Google pretty much singlehandedly drives the SEO/SEM industry. The ever-changing and evolving secret algorithm keeps these marketing and optimization companies in business while also helping to prevent abuse.

I interned for a successful search marketing agency, and I can tell you that results can be delivered for new companies without using black-hat tactics. It takes hard work and real insight (which is why so many companies outsource).

And here’s one of the most important lessons I learned while working there: You have to believe in your clients. If you don’t, then your chances of improving pagerank will certainly diminish. On the other hand, if your clients believe in their goods and/or service and your SEO/SEM company informs them of changes they should make to improve both content and User Experience, then you’re already many steps ahead of the competition.

6) Google does not police the Internet. Google polices its own service. The article’s main analogy is flawed in that it doesn’t consider other continents. I suppose comparing Google to a country is more apt. The country imposes its own laws on its citizens the same way Google moderates search results. And there are smaller continents with their own sets of rules for those who don’t wish to become citizens of Google. Google is not a monopoly. Of course, it would be ignorant to state that Google is not a huge factor in online business success, but there is definitely room for improvement. Do you think Microsoft would sink upward of $100 million into Bing had they not done their market research? If Google doesn’t give the people the kind of search engine they want, then there is definitely room for another company to develop one. Bing offers a somewhat fresh search model based on their own laws. But only time will tell how big and powerful Bing country becomes.

7) Google is not a malicious dictatorship. I firmly believe that both profit and user experience are equal drivers of development and innovation for their products. It’s true that Google will pull site listings that are, for lack of a better word, ‘fishy.’ SEO/SEM veterans have warned me about how to avoid angering Google moderators, but have also told me about how Google can be merciful. There exists an appeals system and Google will consider reviewing your infraction. You just have to make a case that you’re above using sneaky methods and that you really deserve a spot on Google.

That last part is so important that I’ll repeat it: You have to make a case that you deserve a spot on Google. The search spiders and Ad buying will only take you so far. User behavior will let Google know which sites people like the most and how accurate meta descriptions and keywords really are.

At the end of the day, it’s the users who have the most power, and not a single search engine.

Link: 5 Corporate Promotions That Ended in (Predictable) Disaster

Proof that hindsight really is 20/20.