Dystonia Cure Within Reach for Tyler's Hope

I've blogged here before about Tyler's Hope and wanted to share a big day for Tyler and his family. This morning CNN.com posted the video below and TylersHope.org is getting bombarded with people wanting to help find a Dystonia cure. How can you help?

1) Watch this video;

2) Learn more at TylersHope.org;

3) Join the Tyler's Hope Facebook Cause; and

4) Help Tyler find a cure by giving and inviting friends to help!

Tyler Staab is a classmate of my daughter's and I'd personally appreciate anything you can do to help...

When Marketers Collude, Bloggers Lose

As an active investor in social media, I've followed the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA) since it's founding by a handful of marketers back in 2004. The growth of marketers in the organization is a testament to the power unlocked by consumer generated content. The core of that power rests with the content creators such as bloggers, podcasters, vloggers and even to the granularity of social network participants. I think WOMMA understands that, but I fear they've been led astray by a minority of marketers who want to dictate payment terms when engaging bloggers. Sure, they want the exposure bloggers can deliver, but they only want to pay bloggers in free markers, coffee mugs, products, trips and passes.

Normally the market would sort that out, rewarding marketers who recognize the value of bloggers and weeding out those looking for free product reviews. Unless, of course, the largest marketers band together to declare that barter (non-cash) is the only allowed means of transaction. That's what recent WOMMA Code changes are attempting to do: declare that cash is not allowed, whereas non-cash is fine -- even with the exact same level of authenticity and disclosure for each transaction.

As you'll see in the comments below, I disagree with that stance from many perspectives. I feel that cash and non-cash transactions carry equal levels of conflict, but with authenticity and disclosure they can both deliver win-win-win for bloggers, marketers and readers. WOMMA is currently accepting comments on the topic and I've provided my comments below. Agree, disagree? Do you think it's appropriate for marketers to dictate terms to bloggers in this way? Speak now or don't complain when future sponsors say "I'd love to compensate you for your published feedback, time and effort, but my industry association won't let me...how about a branded coozie?"

--------

1. Dan Rua
   June 3rd, 2009 at 12:48 | #3

   Reply | Quote

   As a marketer, blogger, and WOMMA stakeholder (via IZEA investment) I’ve lived this topic firsthand from many perspectives. To share those experiences as clearly as possible (and to enabled threaded dialogue), I’m providing separate comments from each view. From all perspectives, I believe the WOMM market and its participants are best served by allowing and requiring the same standards for cash and non-cash compensation in WOMM campaigns.

   To start, as a marketer, I believe even your topic “Paid Blogging: Ethical or Not” misses the point. WOMMA’s code already allows “paid blogging”, so long as payment is done indirectly via products, gifts, passes, trips etc. Therefore the real question is whether advertisers who do it directly via cash should be held to a different standard than those who shroud their compensation in non-cash forms. So long as both advertisers follow WOMMA’s Honesty ROI, I see no reason for such a distinction other than to protect the “old guard” who have built their agency businesses on shrouded influence and compensation. Let’s embrace and encourage transparency of all forms of compensation.

   Likewise, I believe a cash vs. non-cash distinction creates an inappropriate “caste system” between advertisers with large-ticket items and those with small-ticket items. For example, the recent “Bloggers at Sea” boondoggle arranged for a group of large and small bloggers such as Kawasaki, Scoble, and Sernovitz to visit the USS Nimitz is a free trip worth thousands of dollars and probably an experience of a lifetime. There is no way one can argue posts about the trip are not paid blogging — typically without disclosure of free airfare etc.. However, the owner of a free content website has nothing of that value to exchange for similar blogger coverage. Why should the former be allowed “paid blogging” when the latter is not? Those agencies wielding free gifts to provide such as cars, electronics, consumer goods etc. may not like it, but cash gives everyone a shot at social media coverage — something WOMMA should support.

   Finally, cash and systems based upon cash rather than manpower can be more efficient, delivering ROI in a social media world that still struggles with unlocking marketing ROI. I’m sure there are some who might claim non-cash compensation delivers better ROI, but who’s right in a specific case study doesn’t really matter. The question is whether WOMMA should foreclose an approach, assuming Honesty ROI is followed, while the industry is still so young and in need of creative solutions. Like cash-based sponsored content today, cash-based sponsored search ruffled the status quo when Overture/Yahoo and Google leveraged it to deliver better ROI. Sponsored search is arguably the most successful online business model ever, powering all of the innovation at Google, Yahoo and much of the online ecosystem. Imagine if the largest trade association of the time had disallowed it before the world realized its potential? As a beneficiary of those innovations, I believe such a move would have been short-sighted and, frankly, tragic to the future of the medium.

   Thanks,
   Dan (Marketer)
2. Dan Rua
   June 3rd, 2009 at 12:49 | #4

   Reply | Quote

   As a blogger, I also believe the distinction between cash and non-cash paid blogging is inappropriate. So long as I blog with disclosure and authenticity (including follow all FTC guidelines), I don’t believe it’s appropriate for marketers to collude on the terms I’m allowed to charge for my time, effort and publication. If I’ve built an online media business that is worth $1,000 in goods/freebies/trips, it’s equally worth $1,000 in cash. Coordinating marketers to disallow the latter payment terms is tantamount to price-fixing.

   Given discussions I’ve had with other bloggers, it’s obvious to me that cash/non-cash distinctions in WOMMA weren’t driven by bloggers. Depending on the product or service in question, bloggers will decide what’s appropriate for their blog/audience, but they almost universally agree that cash (with transparency) should be one of many valid options.

   I believe the closest analogy for the majority of bloggers is talk-radio hosts - even more obvious as bloggers do podcasts & videos. Like most bloggers, talk-radio hosts are more discussion-starters and entertainers than journalists. They grow their audience by topic, geography and/or talent. Some are small-town voices that wouldn’t be recognized elsewhere and some are national celebrities. However, they almost universally accept cash and non-cash payment from sponsors — mostly cash — to speak in their own voice about the sponsor. The FTC allows this radio model, even without disclosure, so why in the world would we handicap radio’s online counterparts with an arbitrary distinction between cash and non-cash sponsorship even when Honesty ROI is followed?

   Thanks,
   Dan (Blogger)
3. Dan Rua
   June 3rd, 2009 at 12:56 | #5

   Reply | Quote

   As a WOMMA and industry stakeholder, I believe dictating non-cash terms is inappropriate, unnecessarily risking the industry, the association and it’s members in one fell swoop.

   I’ll start with the most dangerous risk: trade association antitrust. In the interest of brevity, this DOJ speech (and multiple related guides) provides a decent summary of Trade Association Antitrust risks: http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/0106.htm One example in that speech is US vs. Association of Retail Travel Agents, whereby the association attempted to dictate pricing terms and transaction structure. Similar to current WOMMA “stand against” language, members of the association boycotted doing business with any providers who didn’t meet their pricing structure/terms. The DOJ’s view was as follows: “This is the kind of trade association activity that is of serious competitive concern. ARTA developed a position for its travel agent members on the prices and terms upon which they should be compensated, and then invited and encouraged members not to deal with travel providers that did not follow its prescription. This amounted, in effect, to an invitation to engage in price-fixing.”

   The penalties for such trade association activities can be severe (up to treble damages) and can extend to collaborating members. As such, setting all other arguments aside, I believe disallowing US legal tender in a social media marketing transaction puts the association and members in unnecessary legal jeopardy. I believe WOMMA probably understood this at it’s founding because it’s own 2004 antitrust guidelines specifically state: “Since both the Sherman and Federal Trade Commission Acts prohibit combinations in restraint of trade and since an association by its very nature is a combination of competitors, one element of a possible violation is already present. Only the action to restrain trade must occur for there to be a violation.” It may be understandable that WOMMA accidentally wandered into antitrust territory by competitive members, but now that multiple members have raised the question, the association won’t be able to claim ignorance. Therefore, I believe WOMMA should immediately remove any pricing structure/terms distinctions in the code.

   Although I’ve already covered the industry risk for disallowing a young, promising marketing model; as a WOMMA stakeholder, I believe there is another industry risk at play: wasted association energy/resources. The WOMM industry will be better served helping everyone understand compensation and conflict exists whether payment is cash or shrouded in non-cash forms. The FTC makes no distinction between the two and, in fact, recent FTC Guide updates added specific examples for social media non-cash transactions to make their concerns clear — all compensation and conflicts must be disclosed. There are multi-billion dollar industries, such as social media affiliate marketing, that will not abandon cash payments, but could be encouraged by WOMMA involvement/cooperation to increase transparency. Focusing WOMMA’s resources on driving Honesty ROI across all social media marketing will serve the industry far greater than drawing arbitrary lines on an unsettled topic that, by your own words, “is driving strong points of view on all sides.” Find common ground within your membership and focus WOMMA’s scarce time and dollars where we can agree…

   Thanks,
   Dan (WOMMA Stakeholder)

Spymaster Game on Twitter

An area I've been digging into lately, Twitter Games, got a boost today with the launch of http://PlaySpymaster.com -- created as a "side project" by the iList team. First impressions are good, quality implementation, but I wonder how the tweet noise will impact users as more games hit the stream. Luckily SpyMaster is early so game-fatique hasn't set in...yet.

Strength in the game comes from the size of your "spy ring" so if you'd like to join the fun comment here or follow/@ me on twitter.

Top Tech Trends 2009 and Beyond

Rafe's coverage of the Churchill Club Top Tech Trends is worth sharing.

Jurvetson's observations about distributed search are very similar to some I've been investigating. For every explicit action people take on the web (e.g. creating a link that GOOG indexes), there are 10X+ implicit actions (e.g. browsing, scrolling, video abandons) that are not being indexed for intelligence today. There are distinct efforts happening within content indexing, social feeds and webmaster analytics (largely implicit action data) that, when combined, will deliver maximum search intelligence. Much of the "Real-time web" excitement around Twitter, FriendFeed, Facebook and others still focuses on explicit actions (e.g. status updates), but the best value will come from the real-time, socially-curated, implicitly-indexed web.

What are your thoughts on the 12 trends highlighted below?

Silicon Valley VCs don't want Obama's money, think Google is passe
by Rafe Needleman (via cnet)

I always enjoy wild hand-wavey prognostications about the future, so I was pleased to attend the 11th annual Churchill Club Top Tech Trends event last night, moderated by my former co-workers from Red Herring, Tony Perkins (now running Always On) and Jason Pontin (publisher of MIT Technology Review). Of the 12 trends, two really made me take notice. Most of the rest, which you can see at the end of this story, were pretty standard projections from existing market circumstances.

Trend prognosticators, left to right: Tony Perkins, Vinod Khosla, Steve Jurvetson, Ann Winblad, Ram Shriram, Joe Schoendorf, Jason Pontin.
(Credit: Rafe Needleman/CNET)
Interesting trend #1: Centralized search will fall
Venture capital whiz-kid Steve Jurvetson gave an impassioned pitch for this trend, which he called, "The triumph of the distributed Web." He said the aggregate power of distributed human activity will trump centralized control. His main point was that Google, and other search engines that analyze the Web and links, are much less useful than a (theoretical) search engine that knows not what people have linked to (as Google does), but rather what pages are open on people's browsers at the moment that people are searching. "All the problems of search would be solved if search relevance was ranked by what browsers were displaying," he said.
Jurvetson believes that the future is "federated search," in which the Web's users don't just execute search queries, they participate in building the index by the very act of searching, immediately and directly.
What I find most interesting about this concept is that we can see it already happening, although via a different technological vector. Twitter Search is real-time search. It tells you what people are saying right now, and on popular topics, it gives you far more current information than Google. I think Twitter Search also shows us that Jurvetson's vision of search, while compelling, is incomplete. To get the real-time wisdom of the crowds for the purpose of search, you have to know not just what Web pages people are displaying, but exactly what is on those pages, and you probably also want to know what's showing up on users' computers in apps other than the Web browser.
I am not sure the Web's users will want to participate in the creation of this search engine, nor am I convinced that there's a lot of value in the concept for obscure or "long tail" search queries. But the idea is interesting, and I certainly agree that the value of real-time searching, as well as social-network-aware searching, will increase dramatically and quickly.
Interesting trend #2: Washington D.C. will prove to be a poor VC
Moderator Jason Pontin, a self-described liberal who "finds our president as dreamy as the next man," broke party rank and echoed a popular sentiment in the room of wealthy (and traditionally mostly Republican) venture capitalists, to say that the Obama administration's plan to invest in new technologies is doomed to fail. While acknowledging that the administration's heart is in the right place, he pointed out that traditionally, direct investment in technology by governments doesn't work out well. He said the United State's subsidies on ethanol, France's decision to skip the Internet in favor of the state-sponsored Minitel, and Japan's direct investment in supercomputers as it tried to spend its way out of a recession were examples of poor investments. "Government is a particularly poor judge of new technology," he said.
Other panelists agreed, including the strongly Republican co-moderator Tony Perkins. Panelist Joe Schoendorf of Accel said, "The VC model works. Tech doesn't need more capital." (Of course, nobody wants the government moving into their turf; Accel is a venture firm.)
While I agree that best role of government, when it comes to new technology, is to encourage ends and not directly fund means (you can encourage energy independence in general without paying for particular technologies), it's not always the case that government can't play well in this field. The CIA's venture firm, In-Q-Tel, for example, actively fosters the growth of start-ups, and many of the technologies developed on those dollars have national security as well as economic benefits. In-Q-Tel portfolio company Ember, for example, has contributed to the development of the ZigBee wireless standard that will end up in the next generation of smart appliances.
Panelist Vinod Khosla's earlier trend, "Maintech not Cleantech," was in the same vein. Khosla doesn't think government subsidies will drive down carbon emissions. (He also thinks that "fringe" environmentalists don't make much of a dent. "Five percent of Californians will buy anything," he said, referring to the Prius.) Khosla's money is where his mouth is: His "renewable portfolio" has funded companies working on fuel technology, engines, building materials, and plastics. "Nobody wins betting against Vinod," panelist Ram Shriram said.
All the trends
1. The millennials are here. Everything changes. The current generation of graduating college students won't remember a life offline.
2. Advanced batteries will be most popular energy investment in '09 and '10 and will provide best returns in the medium term.
3. A deluge of unstructured data creates the next great information leaders. ("The dark matter of the enterprise is unstructured data," said panelist Ann Winblad.)
4. Wireless broadband will be one of the only IT sectors to see increased funding this year and in the future.
5. Maintech, not Cleantech
6. Power and efficiency management services will see a flowering through investment and innovation.
7. The triumph of the distributed Web. (This is Interesting trend #1.)
8. Health care administration will be the fastest-growing sector. (The panelists were so bored by this trend they didn't even discuss it.)
9. Consumption of digital goods on mobile devices is the growth story of the coming decade.
10. Electronic displays will prove the hottest investment in hardware this year and next.
11. Washington D.C. will prove to be a poor VC. (This is Interesting trend #2.)
12. The rumors of the demise of the reporter have been exaggerated.

NVCA Four Pillar Plan to Restore IPO Market

The National Venture Capital Association (NVCA) annual meeting kicks off today with a great mix of sessions and speakers. At a policy level, NVCA Chairman Dixon Doll is also announcing a four pillar plan to help increase liquidity via IPOs.

Pillar I - Ecosystem Partners: consolidation and attrition has limited the number of mid-tier accounting/legal/i-banking firms who can help smaller companies reach the public markets -- at least at a manageable cost. The NVCA is encouraging a new set of ecosystem participants and partnering with the largest players in the industry to do the job better.

Pillar II - Enhanced Liquidity Paths: The NVCA is endorsing alternative distribution between buyers and sellers that grows buyers and their commitment to holding long-term. One example provided was Inside Venture, which pre-screens cross-over investors who agree to hold long-term.

Pillar III - Tax Incentives: From globally competitive capital gains rates, to carried interest taxation, to one-time IPO-related tax incentives; the NVCA advocates a suite of tax initiatives that will encourage investment and company growth.

Pillar IV - Regulatory Review: Sarbanes-Oxley and a host of other regulatory moves have created various unintended negative consequences and costs for smaller venture-backed companies. The NVCA advocates a tiered approach to regulation to recognize the different circumstance of large and small public entities.

The full NVCA presentation can be viewed below. It contains a good set of data behind these recommendations, including the impact venture-backed companies have on our economy (12.1M jobs created).

NVCA 4-Pillar Plan to Restore Liquidity in the U.S. Venture Capital Industry

View more presentations from NVCA.

Investor Pitch: Excite, Engage & Exit with the Ask

I've recently been coaching some entrepreneurs presenting at upcoming investor conferences. It's something I've done for years and still enjoy. I remember the first investor pitches I gave and the first I heard, and can appreciate how "blind" many entrepreneurs are flying when doing their first investor presentation.

Although my advice is always tailored to the entrepreneur and company at hand, there is one nugget I try to share with all. Remember the goal of your presentation and don't wander too far from it. In most situations, the goal is to Excite, Engage & Exit with the Ask.

Excite: Focus on what is most exciting about you and your business. Don't get bogged down in re-hashing your business plan. If your technology is truly disruptive, make that point clear. If your team brings significant experienced or unique relationships, hit that. If customers are seeing immediate ROI from your products, put that front and center. Your number 1 job in an investor pitch is to generate excitement, preferably very early in your presentation. Getting audiences to shift forward in their chairs and pay attention is much more important than hitting the "textbook" areas of business analysis.

Engage: If the forum is a conference, then Engage means to deliver your message in a way most people will understand. Ditch the technical jargon and provide real-world examples of creating value for customers. If there is a unique pain point for your customer, share that story because it could evoke immediate understanding/emotion from your audience. If the forum is a partner meeting, then also look for opportunities to bring the audience into a discussion. Ask "how often X has happened" to them, their companies or their families -- something you fix. Ask about the firm's approach to investing so you understand them better and can relate to that in your presentation. Do something to drive two-way discussion -- a partner meeting presentation that goes one-way is almost always deadly.

Exit with the Ask: Always, always, always end with a slide that details what you're asking for or proposing. Don't douse audience excitment with a dead-end close. You need to funnel the audience's interest in your presentation into a decision point. Note, however, that the ask isn't always just an investment amount. To the contrary, the ask at a conference may just be to get audience members to your booth for further questions. The ask at a partner meeting typically involves a dollar amount, but also includes understanding process "next steps" -- driving due diligence or a subsequent meeting. By presenting your Ask to an excited and engaged audience, with your key Ask, you've maximized your chances for success. At the worst, making the Ask will help you avoid wasted time. If you didn't excite the listener and they don't react to your Ask, it's a good sign to improve your pitch and focus your energies on your next prospect.

Related posts: steve tennant, don dodge, wil schroter, matt ridenour

Highlight NoFollow Links: Chrome "Plugin"

The combination of Google Chrome's speed and a fatal Firefox bug has converted me to Chrome full-time.  The biggest loss of such a switch is my treasure chest of great Firefox plugins.

Unfortunately Chrome doesn't offer plugins yet (actually, they do for select parties found via this Chrome URL hack), but there is a close approximation for many needs: bookmarklets + javascript.  In fact, there's a site offering various Chrome "Plugins" using this approach: ChromePlugins.org.  That was a really savvy domain/focus -- thousands of Chrome plugins seem inevitable long-term and the site is well positioned for that future.

I've pulled multiple plugins from that site, but one was missing for exactly my needs.  I wanted a plugin that would highlight nofollow links, not just the text, but the background of the text -- for easy viewing across sites with diverse text colors.  ChromePlugins had a plugin that changed text color to red, but sites like ReadWriteWeb (image above of pagerank passing paid links) already color their links red.  Therefore, I tweaked the code to highlight nofollow links with a yellow background (and red text).  The code is below:

javascript:var%20t=document.getElementsByTagName('a');for(i=0;i<t.length;i++){if((t[i].rel.toLowerCase()=='nofollow') | (t[i].rel.toLowerCase()=='external nofollow')){void(t[i].style.color='red');void(t[i].style.background='yellow');}}

To install it, you only need to drag this icon to your Chrome bookmarks bar: 

Let me know how it works for you...

UPDATE: I received a great suggestion in the comments, to also highlight 'external nofollow' links.  I've updated the javascript to do this.  If you grabbed the prior, just delete it and drag the current icon of my face to your bookmark bar.