If times weren’t hard enough American FTC have decided that in some cases it’s wrong to review products and to implement a fine of upto $11,000.

Until now online promotions via blogs were not covered by any guidelines and this worried some consumer groups. The issue being that the links between the products being reviewed or talked about, the publishers (companies & individuals) and the companies selling the products was not transparent. i.e. if I reviewed ‘product A’, I didn’t need to tell anyone that I was an affiliate for that product and I would get a commission if my reader bought that product through my link.

I understand that it was a 30 year old law that has been updated, in order to get in touch with the times and I can appreciate a need to protect web users but all so often laws are implemented by people who have read reports but have not a clue how the web works or how to implement the said changes.

These changes come into effect on December 1, 2009 and you can read for yourself the FTC Final Guides Governing Endorsements, Testimonials:

What struck me was that everyone in the Internet Marketing business is going to be affected when I read this.

“Under the revised Guides, advertisements that feature a consumer and convey his or her experience with a product or service as typical when that is not the case will be required to clearly disclose the results that consumers can generally expect. In contrast to the 1980 version of the Guides – which allowed advertisers to describe unusual results in a testimonial as long as they included a disclaimer such as “results not typical” – the revised Guides no longer contain this safe harbor.”

The new policy will also apply to Twitter, Facebook, Yelp and other forms of new media advertising.

Today is the first anniversary of the collapse of Lehman which as we now all know was the catalyst for the world wide recession we have all had to endure.  Vast sums of money have been pumped in to support and bail out financial institutions and other big businesses which has supposedly made the effects of the financial collapse less than they could have been but at what real cost?

Last night I watched a report from the BBC’s Robert Peston where he said that level of UK support has cost each of us in the UK £43k (we’ll be paying that for years to come) and in his interview with Prime Minister Gordon Brown yesterday, the world-wide figure equates to $2000 for every person on the planet.  Given that huge numbers of the worlds population struggle on less than a dollar a day and we have global issues with water and climate I personally still struggle to come to terms with having had to support banks and businesses that should have known and done better.

I know in the grand shape of things I’m a no-one but I can’t help but wonder if our world leaders have missed a big opportunity to really straighten things out more effectively.

Banks have been ripping us all of for years with unreasonable charges and less than adequate services while hiding behind their terms and conditions.  And still the dinosaurs at the helm of these once respected institutions deem it appropriate to pay themselves vast bonuses.  One thing that they all seem to forget is that these days having money does not equate to having power.   The real power these days is having power or energy.  Ask yourself where these practicing dodos would be if they didn’t have electricity

I also feel that our leaders have also missed the boat by supporting car manufacturers and other ‘dirty’ industries in the way they have.  I understand that we need these companies for transport and jobs but surely …. our climate should have taken a much higher priority.

From my viewpoint rather than pander to ‘dirty’ motor manufacturers we would have all been far better off if our ‘leaders’ realised that the majority of the ‘voters’ knew how bad things were and had the balls to make the big changes needed.  Rather than heading for ‘as close to old business as usual’ why didn’t they think outside of the box.  Why didn’t they opt for something radical like saying “OK.  There’s a big problem so lets make a massive changes no we have the opportunity”?

There may be green shoots of recovery on the horizon for some but the damage for many has been done.  I sure that as time moves on and linked data technologies improve that person on the street will have the last laugh.  The internet is a wonderful thing, it’s amazing what you can find out if you look hard enough.

We are not out of the woods yet but as long as we all live within our means and plan ahead smartly things will improve.

What are your thoughts?

According to Wikipedia the world population is approximately 6.8 billion people.

According to the BBC financial bail out figures,  in the US and UK the cost of the bail out is $1,575 Billion ($700 Bn in the US and £500 Bn in the UK)  These figures do not include other countries.

Said quickly, we know it’s a lot but it doesn’t really comprehend.

However … if we divide the cost of the banking industry and money market bailouts by the world population (1575Bn / 6.8Bn) that means everyone on the planet could have been given $231Million.

Now that can’t be right.

So lets divide the world population by the cost of the bailout (6.8Bn/1575Bn)

Hey that’s much better – everyone on the planet has could have been paid $0.004Bn  (whoa – is that $4Million each)

Considering my bank has screwed me for unfair charges, fees and who knows what else for years (and got away with it so far) it makes me sick that now as a tax payer I (and probably my kids) are expected to be paying for the banks negligence.

Personally I’d rather I was given my $0.004Bn – At least I know I can be trusted to spend it wisely and contribute to the economic growth of the planet.

What about you?

Improving the effectiveness and profitability of online advertising looks set to become much easier and accurate thanks to semantic technology.

Well established Italian software company Expert System yesterday announced the launch of a new contextual advertising solution with semantic intelligence called Cogito.

In his post ‘Semantics in Advertising‘ for ZDNet, Paul Miller of Talis says “On the surface, a release phrased in that way might easily be dismissed as jumping on the ’semantic’ band-wagon, but there appears to be substance behind the sometimes over-hyped language.” and that will interest many.

In Expert System’s release we read:

The main issue limiting the online advertising market today is the disconnect between advertisement placement and the relevance of the copy. This is due to the reliance on keyword frequency without considering the meaning. Oftentimes, ads may appear on pages that have little significance to the assigned page or may produce counterproductive effects. For example, an ad for a Caribbean vacation package may inadvertently appear near an article about a massive hurricane that ripped through that region.

I can’t remember where I saw it but the best example I’ve seen to date on negative or counter productive advertising was a news item about a cruise liner (or was it a ferry?) sinking and right next to the article was an advert for Caribbean cruises.  What the ??.

That’s like saying “Hey why not come on our cruise.  If you don’t sink you’ll have a great time”.  – Not quite what the advertiser wanted I’m sure but ongoing semantic research is starting to bring about change.

Semantic technology does have the capability to make a huge impact in targeted advertising for all of us.  While it’s not all of the way there yet, I can see that in the near future I’ll be able to say “I want my ads to appear only to website visitors who are Male, aged between 40 – 55, who live within 5 miles of X and are interested in Y”

I hope to be able to add in more parameters and cover more than one ad network but for the time being I’ll have to live in the ‘here and now’ and keep an eye on the other emerging semantic research companies who are helping to shape the future of ecommerce on the web.

This is a warning for anyone who has ever bought resale and usage rights for templates, artwork or image packs. Ignore it at you peril.

I’m pretty angry right now and I can’t name names because of legal issues (mores the pity) but the bottom line is that there are some ‘marketers’ out there who are acting illegally and you and me are the ones that will end up paying.

Here’s why.

These ‘marketers’ provide you, me (and whoever else) with packages to use or resell as our own. These packages contain images that are in fact licensed by another company and these ‘marketers’ don’t actually have the right to even use them. Let alone sell them or give them away. And don’t get me started on what will happen if you actually sell a licensed image. Even by mistake.

How does it cost you money? Read the rest of this entry »