The post TikTok Ban Could Impact Influencers And Social Media Creators appeared first on Social Media Explorer.

The post Facebook Has Been Targeting Users Who Visited Pregnancy Center Sites – How Could That Data Be Used? appeared first on Social Media Explorer.

The post New Mozilla Project Aims To Reveal Facebook’s Tracking And Data Collection Practices appeared first on Social Media Explorer.

The post Business Owners Increasingly Rely On Social Media To Gather Customer Data appeared first on Social Media Explorer.

As privacy-related stories go, it caused quite a ruckus online. Re-connecting with a childhood friend can be nice. Your name and other identifying details delivered to strangers who might be psychos is less nice.  It also raised the question, once again, of where to draw the line. When does personalization cannibalize privacy?

Privacy is a touchy point these days. It makes folks jumpy and itchy all over, especially when multi-billion corporations shrug it off nonchalantly. More recently, it was Uber’s turn to be like, “What? Totally innocent, no monkey business here, dudes,” after it changed its tracking policy to extend its location-tracking to five minutes after the passenger was dropped off. Privacy watchdogs like the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) vented their frustration with unnecessary data collection, while Uber claimed to be doing it for the sake of better service.

Who’s right? It doesn’t matter. Let’s agree that both sides were right: the EFF was right to be concerned, and Uber had a right to aspire to improve its service. But these things happen all the time: the pangs of struggle between the opposing forces of privacy.

Are we to assume that all companies (secretly) advocate for a total shattering of online privacy? I’m not sure, and again, it doesn’t matter. Coca-Cola can aspire that I will choose Coke 100% of the times I buy a beverage. That doesn’t mean it will happen.

Locking Horns

The Uber story illustrates the growing tensions between the privacy concerns (of people) and the desire to improve services (of companies). There is no doubt that familiarity improves interaction; I enjoy the sense of comradeship at my local bar, the grocery store closest to my apartment, my favorite wine shop…did I just give two alcohol-related examples out of three?

Back to my point: privacy and marketing are going to lock horns on the matter of personalization.

Personalization is evolving. It’s getting more nuanced and precise. Its goals are getting more ambitious. The only way to fine-tune personalization is by getting more personal information about our audience. At this point, we are tiptoeing around the fine line that crisscrosses privacy and personalization.

But let’s roll back for a sec to make sure that we are on the same page about what personalization is all about.

The Flair of the Past & the Future

In every aspect of our life, we are fed up with the generic. I know it sounds like a cliche, but we are constantly looking for an angle. That’s why it irks us a bit when we get an email that was obviously sent in a blast. We’ve learned to accept it, we open and read them emails, even clicking through here and there. But we aspire for more. And that’s a good thing. The personalization token that started all this, the now-ridiculed hello {firstname}, was the harbinger of an era when the internet copycatted the offline world.

Websites tried to look like newspapers or magazines and the infamous skeuomorphism design concept was all the rage. Along with trying to appear real, the internet tried to adopt the personal, face-to-face style of interaction that folks have favored for a few tens of thousand of years. The virtual assistant came to be; who can forget Clippy, the most annoying paperclip ever to not clip papers.

Then, instead or trying to appear real, the internet took a turn, zooming in on providing a tailored experience, fitted for every user. As we mentioned earlier, familiarity improves the quality of interactions – the goal became to maximize the potential of every interaction.

(It’s funny how the tables have turned. It is now the offline world that’s trying to imitate the online one. The internet is setting the design tone, hashtags have #ttyl crossed over and the epitome is the newly announced Amazon Go store. Everybody was rightfully puzzled when Amazon opened a brick-and-mortar bookstore in Seattle in late 2015, now everything falls in place. The Amazon Go is a store sans-human interaction, just like Amazon dot com. It provides an online shopping experience in the physical world. If the universe managed not to crumble into itself just yet, well, it might just now.)

So, personalization is the effort to make the interaction between a brand, or a company, and its audience more effective. Not need to be naive about things. Personalization isn’t driven by kindness, altruism or Feel Good Inc. It is a relevancy vehicle to drive up conversions and engagement, CTR, time-on-site, or any other metrics that can be monetized.

Here’s the impact of an automated, algorithm-backed personalization solution on a network security company’s website overall performance in the B2B space:

Source: BrightInfo

Personalization Thrives on Data Collection

E-commerce is a fine example of the potential of personalization. It started with segmentation – “customers who bought this item also bought” – but made the leap to as-real-as-it-gets personalization – “you might also like” that relates directly to items you browsed, purchased and abandoned.

How is this form of personalization possible? Machine learning, AI-algorithms and massive, relentless and shameless data collection. You just know something isn’t 100% naive when it’s given a cutesy name like cookie.

The Clash of the P-Titans

Personalization relies on collecting personal data. Whether backed by real time engines or marketing automation platforms that cataloge leads for nurturing, the way we attempt to personalize the buyer journey is by learning all that we can about the prospects in every touch point.

Now how can we ensure that we aren’t crossing any lines here? Given the option, what would our leads (leads are people too!) choose – their privacy or a personalized buyer experience?

We can’t ignore the fact that customers are expecting a personalized experience. On the other hand, privacy advocacy is hot and heavy online. Even folks that aren’t 100% sure what they are protesting against, do so vehemently. And I think I understand why.

Nobody cares if a specific company files the different types of content marketing pieces you’ve read on their website, or which emails you opened and eBooks downloaded, so next time they email blast their 45k mailing list they can integrate their marketing automation with their email client and send you one of the three versions of text that their marketing team penned.

So what do we care about when we care about privacy? That lines will be crossed. Here’s an example.

This SEO agency I work with, its CEO asked me not to keep the content I write for them on Google Docs; keep it in our DropBox, he said. When I smirked and asked why, this is what he said:

Google reads everything. Google is also in charge of search, the space where we do work for our clients. The day is not far when Google will be able to digest everything as one, gigantic cookie. So I don’t want anything to interfere, or affect, the SEO work we do. That’s why I don’t use Gmail, or keep anything on Google Docs. I don’t want my personal and business correspondence and documentation to weigh on the work my agency does.

Now you can call him paranoid, but truth of the matter, what he says makes a lot of sense. Google will say – is already saying! – it’s reading your emails to serve you more personalized ads, so are we to assume it’s not reading our docs? What’s the diff? Your search history, your communication with others, the stuff you put down in writing (whether for your work or private life) it is all ones and zeros that make up who you are.

Here is the Google Trends graph for the search term “duckduckgo” – a search engine that doesn’t track.

Ha! The irony!

Looking ahead, these two verticals, privacy and personalization, that are advocated so passionately by their proponents are bound to clash. Uninhibited personalization cannot co-exist with a sensible privacy policy. Sooner or later, we’ll be forced to choose.

The Lesser of Two Evils?

If I may collude in forecasting, I’m putting my bets on personalization; all in. And I’m not alone: according to a Janrain study, nearly three-fourths (74%) of online consumers get frustrated with websites when content (e.g., offers, ads, promotions) appears that has nothing to do with their interests.

Privacy, to my mind, has lost the battle already. What we deem today as privacy is a mere illusion, a fata morgana in the vast desert of data collection. If you think I’m wrong, get this: according to a Experian survey among 250 US respondents from a variety of functions, all of whom have knowledge of data management practices – the biggest challenges with personalization are gaining insight quickly enough (40%), having enough data (39%), and inaccurate data (38%).

Still think privacy stands a chance?

But that’s OK, because personalization will improve our online experience. I’ve been reading the NYTimes for years now, almost every day. I’ve never clicked on any article in the sports section. I still see the sports section. C’mon.

I’m fairly certain that in the near future we’re all going to be ‘logged-in’ all the time with a universal identity token. No matter what site we visit. And technology will catch up, ushering in the Dynamic Website. This won’t be a website as we know it, it will be a content pool that modifies itself in real time based on my interest and needs. Kind of like the difference between a traditional TV channel, and Netflix.

Netflix uses personalization. My home screen on Netflix is different than yours. But the streaming service doesn’t abuse the data it has on me, it doesn’t cross any lines, nor pretends the lines are blurry; at least not yet. If in the future, after I’d have a conversation with a friend about a film I want to see and the next time I open Netflix it would recommend me that film – that’s it for me. I’m going back to torrenting.

The post The Fine Yet Blurred Line Between Personalization and Privacy appeared first on Social Media Explorer.

The utility and novelty of smart home technology like Echo is undeniable. After all, who isn’t excited about the prospect of ordering pizza without having to lift a finger? However, it is important to recognize that this type of technology may undermine your privacy. With Echo’s aural interface, the device is always listening, just in case someone gives it a command. In other words, “Big Brother is watching you”.

Should You Be Worried?

It could very well be possible that Alexa is recording and storing every conversation in your home. However, Amazon claims otherwise. According to the company, Echo only streams/stores a fraction of a second of audio before it detects its “wake word”, along with the audio of the command itself. Since Alexa is powered by AI, “she” stores your command history to help make her “smarter”. That way, Alexa can better respond to your future commands. While Amazon’s reasoning behind storing your command data is sound, imagine what could go wrong if someone else gets access to that data?

Amazon does let you delete specific voice recordings in the Alexa App. You can also delete your entire Echo history on Amazon’s website. However, Amazon cautions against doing so, warning that deleting voice recordings “may degrade your Alexa experience”. On the flip side, Amazon is also seemingly dedicated to protecting its Echo customers’ privacy. The company is refusing to provide authorities with the Alexa data of a man accused of murder. Amazon defended its action, affirming that it will not allow data access to third parties “without a valid and binding legal demand”.

While this move sets precedent for future concerns about Echo data, user information is still vulnerable. Police claim that they eventually extracted information from the alleged murderer’s Echo device without Amazon’s help. Whose to say that others couldn’t easily do the same?

The post Is Your Data Safe With Amazon Echo? appeared first on Social Media Explorer.

That concern makes sense when you consider the countless number of companies and individuals who have lost contact information, social security numbers, employment information, passwords, and credit card information to hackers. So when WhatsApp announced a major update to its terms and privacy policy that allows it to share users’ data with its parent company, Facebook, it didn’t sit well with a lot of people.

Do You Know What Data You’re Sharing?

According to WhatsApp, the information being shared with Facebook includes your phone number and “usage data.” However, experts suggest that a lot more might be shared than you think, like who WhatsApp users communicate with and how often, and any online activity on platforms connected to users’ WhatsApp accounts. WhatsApp’s new policy says users’ information is being used to fight WhatsApp spam, and to inform targeted Facebook ads and friend suggestions. While sharing your data for these purposes might seem harmless, we’ve all seen the nasty aftermath when information from one’s online past is dug up and made public.

While WhatsApp users were informed of changes to the privacy policy, many do not know what those changes entail; maybe you didn’t even know yourself untill you read this article! So while there are ways to disable Facebook’s access through WhatsApp privacy settings, not everyone knows they should. Those who have taken steps to maintain their privacy have found the opt-out process to be unclear and complicated. The policy itself is also vague about what data WhatsApp stores in its servers and for how long, even if you’ve “deleted” that information on your end.

Other Risks

There are also security risks of WhatsApp beyond its relationship with Facebook. While messages are now encrypted end-to-end, this feature is essentially useless when you consider that a surveillance software called CatchApp claims to be able to pull encrypted WhatsApp information from phones within close proximity. Another privacy threat includes the fact that if your physical smartphone is misplaced, access to your WhatsApp account can end up in the wrong hands, not to mention the potential for phishing.

Concerned about violations of their consumer and data protection laws, India and Germany have issued court orders that forbid WhatsApp to share user data with Facebook in their respective countries — and to delete data they have already obtained. Other nations are also investigating to see if they should follow suit, including the U.S., U.K., Italy, and Spain. The fact that many government officials around the world use WhatsApp at work only worsens the matter.

Data: Like Dust in the Wind

If the security controversy surrounding WhatsApp is something you can’t wait for your government to take a stance on, there are other options for your communication needs like Viber and Google Allo. However, we have found that the messaging app, Dust (formerly called Cyber Dust), is the best choice for maintaining privacy. Billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban created the app after his own private messaging and email data was used against him in an SEC trial where he was falsely accused of insider trading. After the experience, Cuban realized that with existing channels of communication, users surrender control and ownership of their messages to the recipient and platform. Dust attempts to bring possession back to the user to create a safer place to text.

According to Dust, the app allows people to communicate with each other without leaving a trace of the conversation. Dust does not record or store any of its users’ data on its servers, and messages are heavily encrypted so not even the platform has access to them. Messages automatically erase after 24 hours, but users can delete messages on their phones and on recipients’ phones whenever they’d like. There is even a setting that erases messages as soon as they are read. So if you want to get rid of your texts, you can be sure that they’re gone forever. Your identity is also kept anonymous, even in screenshots, so information cannot be traced back to you.

The app was recently revamped and is now available for iOS and Android. There is also a plan in the works to create a Web version. We will warn you that Dust takes some time to get used to, but it’s definitely worth it to protect you and your messaging data. While the app has yet to really take off, we can see its popularity growing in the future as people seek peace of mind in an unsecure cyber world.

Image credits: Blue Coat Photos, Johan Vilrok, Elaine with the Grey Cats

The post Worried about Privacy and Hackers? Here’s the Best Alternative to WhatsApp appeared first on Social Media Explorer.

Google recently stopped passing keyword data from searches to analytics platforms. This change means that reports within Google Analytics, Hubspot, and any other kind of analytics program will not provide keyword analytics for all of their Google search traffic.

As a Google stock owner, it filled my head with dollar signs.

The decision to withhold keyword data struck me on many levels. As a marketing analyst, it was a blow to how I carry out daily activities. As a business owner, it diminished my ability to monitor my site. As a Google stock owner, it filled my head with dollar signs.

Allow me to diagnose some of these effects of withholding the keyword data and try to explain why businesses need to pay attention to this kind of move by Google. There’s a lot of love for the search giant, but like any relationship, things can turn sour real fast.

The Real Price of Free

Google has traditionally offered free services that are subsidized by the information they collect. GMail, one of Google’s first forays outside of web searches, was a free email platform that offered superior services to competitors without any charges to the user.  The only real cost was forfeiting a portion of your privacy by allowing robots to scan the email. This data was mined and helped Google make smarter decisions about advertising and search results.

Users of Google products find a hard time criticizing these kinds of practices because they’re a) getting a free product or service, and b) getting improvements to other Google products and services that they also use.

Not too much to complain about with this, but the issue with Google Analytics was a bit of a different story.

Why Business Owners Feel Betrayed

Withholding keyword data from Google Analytics is a bit different than eliminating a free service or feature of a free service.

With Google Analytics, Google’s initial proposition was very fair for both sides of the bargaining table — you provide me a competent analytics platform and I’ll provide you mounds of minable data about my business.

Google’s unending appetite for information was now being directly fed by business owners, and those same business owners were now better equipped by Google to grow their internet presence. This bargain also indirectly helped increase the value of the internet as a whole, which Google, as the gatekeeper, loved.

Now, after years of happily co-existing, Google is making a power play. It’s withholding key data and justifying it in the name of privacy. This really hurts businesses that were relying on that data, yet leaves Google nicely situated. It’s pretty clear who’s now getting the most out of the “free” transaction.

Admittedly, there are two sides to the privacy debate, and Google is correct that withholding the keyword data does help the general population in securing their privacy.  At the same time, two parties still have access to this data: Google and its paying advertisers (those using Google Adwords). Hmm… pretty interesting…

Gotta Make That Money

Now, I don’t want it to seem like I see nothing other than evil intent behind Google’s decision. The privacy aspect does carry weight, but the one that has me sold is the revenue bumps that some anticipate Google experiencing.

There’s a strong belief that withholding that information will decrease the value of natural search to some businesses. Without that keyword data, optimization becomes more difficult and gains begin to drop off. This could then turn the businesses towards AdWords as source of additional leads.

Digital marketing agencies that manage Adwords on behalf of clients have long been using Adwords keyword data to augment & enhance their organic search campaigns. Now, I can only see those Adwords revenues increasing as agencies suggest to clients to spend more in order to get more traffic, leads, and keyword data.

AdWords has always been Google’s biggest moneymaker.  Specifically, over 90% of their $50 Billion in 2012 revenue came from Adwords. They use ad revenues to subsidize the bulk of their [free] offerings and now they’re trying to herd even more marketing directors in that direction.

Is it wrong that they’re doing that? Maybe.

But the winds have been blowing in the direction for more secure searches and privacy so it could just be that this is the best opportunity they could have asked for and they seized it.

What Happens Next?

This was a major decision by Google and we’ll have to see how it plays out. If nothing else, it reminds us that nothing is free and we should be wary of relying on the search engine so much.

I can tell you my firm has long been suggesting the use of Adwords (and other paid media channels) for clients – and we’re certainly leaning more heavily on PPC in light of the lost keyword data.

Luckily, authorities in the SEO space agree that SEO is NOT dead. SEO is still plenty alive and it’s taking on a couple new faces: Google Authorship & Content Marketing.

And there are plenty of other data sources that business owners and online marketers can use to augment their organic search efforts.

Sadly, we’ll miss the glory days of being able to see every keyword that drove traffic to our sites.

Do you believe the lack of keyword data from Google searches will impact your business?
Comment below.

The post Is There a Dark Side of Google? appeared first on Social Media Explorer.

The basics of intellectual property haven’t changed: you still own copyright in your photos. Moreover, you already gave Facebook “a non-exclusive, transferable, sub-licensable, royalty-free, worldwide license to use any IP content that you post,” even prior to the controversial changes being proposed.

You might want to give the current terms a look, because that language they use is pretty sweeping. You could also read my earlier post on who owns the social media content you post to the various networks.

The key point is this: Facebook already had the right use your images. You probably just didn’t realize it.

As was the case with Instagram’s much maligned (and ultimately reversed) terms of service update, the company hasn’t taken many new rights: it’s just clarified which rights you’ve already given up by using the service.

But this only covers intellectual property rights, and there are other laws marketers need to comply with when using images.

For instance, using images of children in advertising without parental permission could violate state and federal laws protecting minors. In fact, anyone whose image is used in ads would potentially have a claim against the advertiser if he or she did not sign a model release.

Most companies wouldn’t want to take on such expansive liability risks, so they’d likely stick to using profile photos (if anything).

Yes, Facebook could use your family photos in advertising, but they probably won’t (although they might use your profile picture). Yes, people could quit using Facebook, but they probably won’t.

So we’re all back to where we started, but with a clearer understanding of the virtual “skeleton key” we give social networks and other sites when we sign up for their “free” service.

Remember that you’re not paying for Facebook, which “is and always will be free.” (Personally, I think “free” in that phrase should be in quotes.) But if you’re not the customer, you’re the product, so don’t act surprised when the site tries to monetize the huge amount of brand related content that you upload on a daily basis.

If anything, be thankful for the reminder that you’re being willingly exploited to some degree. If you want to make absolutely certain that no one ever uses your photos without your express consent, I’d recommend unplugging from the Internet and taking up scrapbooking.

Barring that, change your privacy settings to opt out of having any of your content used in Facebook advertising. Navigating the process isn’t easy, but do it anyway. Putting the onus on users to do this may or may not ultimately be legal, but for now the responsibility to protect your information lies with you, so don’t drop the ball.

You might also want to refresh yourself on the current terms of service on Twitter, Instagram, and Pinterest, and make sure you understand what each site can do with your intellectual property. Forewarned is forearmed, as they say.

The post Facebook’s Photo Fiasco: Protecting Your Personal Images appeared first on Social Media Explorer.

Amazing? Absolutely. Dangerous? Potentially.

Consider this: you have no right to privacy in terms of where you travel on the public streets. Would you want someone wearing one of these headsets snapping a photo of you entering an adult store? What if someone captures a couple’s romantic moment on a bridge, and it turns out they’re engaged in an extramarital affair?

To be sure, such things happen already, with the advent of smartphones, but Google Glass enhances the AR experience with features including facial recognition. If the amorous couple you photograph using the service is online (and who isn’t nowadays?), they could be exposed publically (pardon the pun) when you share the picture using social media.

The Google Glass user could potentially be called as a witness in court to lay the foundation for the photo’s admissibility. No one has time to become involved in potentially limitless third-party litigation.

Some people refer to Google Glass and similar technology as “Terminator vision,” referring to the way cyborgs from the famous movie franchise see relevant data points pop up about whatever is in their line of vision. I think of it as “stalker vision.”

Smartphones already make it possible for creeps to surreptitiously snap pictures of people, but the facial recognition component affords an immediate and potentially dangerous level of access to information that, even now, can’t be accessed instantaneously.

The facial recognition component affords an immediate and potentially dangerous level of access to information

I liken it to the not so distant past in which mortgages were kept on file at the Registry of Deeds. Your home address, how much you purchased your home for, and how much you borrowed from the mortgage lender was all public information (and still is), but one had to know where to look, and physically go to the Registry of Deeds to find that information. Now, it’s easily accessible via an online search.

Imagine if someone were to see you on a train, scan you with Google Glass, find your name via your public social media presence, then index that name and your current location against public property information. In less time than it takes to get a mocha latte, that person could have enough information about you to stalk you (or worse).

Check your settings on your social networks and disable suggested photo tags, facial recognition, and anything similar. This won’t insulate you from risk, but it’s a good first step.

A somewhat less sensational aspect of potential risk arises in terms of intellectual property. The companies that own copyright in popular films, music and other commodities have been known to sue for incidental capture of copyrighted material that people use in films or post online. In most instances, the copyright owner issues a takedown notice, the offending video or post is removed by YouTube (or Facebook, or Twitter, etc.), and that’s the end of it, but it doesn’t have to be.

The company could sue you for posting allegedly infringing content. Even if you ultimately win (and you just might), the cost of defending a copyright infringement lawsuit is more than the average person can afford, and they settle to avoid the time and money it would take to defend the suit.

Google Glass technology could potentially be used to surreptitiously capture trade secrets

Similarly, Google Glass technology could potentially be used to surreptitiously capture trade secrets or other confidential information. Consider waiting in line at the doctor’s office or at the bank. How much sensitive information do you necessarily reveal in those situations? The safest assumption is that, if you see a Google Glass headset, it’s operational and recording. You may be wrong, but behave as though you’re right. You’ll be glad you did.

These days, it’s nearly impossible to “live off the grid,” even if you wanted to. Many share legitimate privacy concerns, and technology like Google Glass is developing much more quickly than legislation can evolve to address potential misuse.

Short of renting your home and deleting your social media presence, however, the best you can do is to police your settings, disable facial recognition whenever possible, and look up from your own smartphone now and then to see if anyone’s Googling you. If they are, Google them back. At least then you’ll know who you’re dealing with.

The post Google Glass is Watching You: Are You Protected? appeared first on Social Media Explorer.

This could pose many awkward situations.  Let’s say that you have recently started working for a company and you love your new job.  But maybe, in 2011 you “liked” their archnemesis rival company’s page.  That “like” was long forgotten in your mind, but springs right to the top of the list when your new boss does a Graph Search for people who work at your company that like your rival.  That example might be a little far-fetched, but it is entirely possible given the power of Graph Search.

The moral of the story is: be aware of the information you share and the privacy settings that are on your account.  If you are concerned about “Big Brother” looking over your shoulder, you might want to change some settings from “Everyone” to “Friends”.  Or maybe you are completely paranoid; in that case feel free to change the settings to “Only Me”.  If you want to see something really eye-opening, take a look at your activity log and see all of the things you have done or liked on Facebook. You may have second thoughts about some of those comments that you posted or those late night partying photos you were tagged in.

The post The Reality of Facebook Graph Search [CARTOON] appeared first on Social Media Explorer.

Clout is the ability to influence, and get things done. Klout purports to be a measure of your online influence.

Presumably, the more Clout you have in real life, the more Klout you’ll have online. And just like in real life, it turns out that we’re all influential in different things.

What Klout is trying to do is admirable, in a way. But at times the execution will be off.

Because of my online connections, Klout seems to think I have sway in the areas of communications and social media. As such, I qualify for the occasional “Perk,” a freebie that I can try out with no strings attached, with the hopes that I might write about it or review it favorably.

Klout is very careful to communicate the complete lack of a quid pro quo, so this isn’t a complaint about that. They are also very responsive. I got a defective Weather Channel umbrella in the mail, and within a week they sent a working one.

No, this is a cautionary tale about using Klout to promote.

Gadget Geek

If you know me at all, you know I love gadgets. And I have been particularly intrigued with what Microsoft has been up to with its new Windows Phone platform. It is stunning in its beauty, simplicity, and functionality. As far as I am concerned, you can keep your iPhones and Androids. I’ve even talked friends into trying Windows Phone out — one bought a unit off eBay and probably would still be using it, but his company IT department wanted everyone on iPhones.

I am a Windows Phone enthusiast.

That’s why I was excited when my friend Joe told me about what was on his Facebook wall:

Apparently, my influence in the realm of Technology and Gadgets was high enough to warrant a nice Perk. I was looking forward to checking out a new device, and either getting my wife onto a Windows Phone, or using it as a loaner to friends who want to try one out. I was excited to log into Klout, and after accepting the perk and entering in my home address, I saw this:

Then, the details for claiming it:

Notice that it says that my phone is on the way, and then to be sure to RSVP for the party.

(I blacked out the URL and the code, as I don’t want to cause problems.)

Wires Crossed

Well, a few days later I received this:

Hi Ike,

Thanks for being part of Klout Perks! We see that you had signed up for the Windows Phone Perk, but upon further review we found that you are not in the New York City area.The Windows Phone Perk is meant for influencers in the NYC area as the event is New York City. However, the Windows Phone event will be hitting other cities soon, so please stay tuned for something in your area.

-The Klout Perks Team

I can understand that.

But boy, the whole process seemed rather poorly-worded. They took all of my information, only to then determine that I was not eligible?

I can forgive that.

Dropped Connection

I do have a problem, though, with the way it was pitched to Joe. My friend Joe got a notice on his wall that said I had earned the Perk — they used my name and my reputation to make a pitch to a friend of mine. They never did their homework about residency requirements, either. (I mean, I know I live in Alabama and everything, but I have many hip and trendy friends in New York City who actually turn to me for advice about technology, communications and social media. Or at least I thought I influenced them…)

I certainly hope Klout learns its lessons — the notion of Online Influence is an important one as traditional advertising models assumptions continue their implosion. If Klout doesn’t get it right, someone else will. Klout’s first-mover advantage in the space can be spoiled if people get the idea that they aren’t people anymore, but instead are just an arbitrary computation of tweets, retweets and engagements.

Clout means being able to influence, to inspire.
Clout means having the assurance you can gather others to get the job done.
Clout means never having to say you’re sorry, but doing it anyway because it’s the right thing to do.

Disclosure: I have received the following from Klout:

• Weather Channel umbrella
• 6 bags of Pop Chips, with coupons
• A DVD of “Men of a Certain Age”
• A $10 card for Subway

(This post first appeared at Occam’s Razr)

The post The Best Laid Deals Oft Go Astray appeared first on Social Media Explorer.