Archive for September, 2007
How to Write Persuasive Links
Our response to Marketing Sherpa’s recent test of click-through rates for anchor text links caused some healthy debate among people who, for the most part, seem to agree with each other.
Here are the linked phrases Marketing Sherpa tested, followed by the results expressed as a change in click-through conversions:
- “Click to continue”: 8.53%
- “Continue to article”: 3.3%
- “Read more”: (-)1.8%
So, yes, “Click to continue” was the clear winner. But look at what it was being compared to! As calls to action go, those links stink*. I especially liked Brian “AdWords Man” Carter’s analysis:
“My take on ‘click to CONTINUE’ working better than the ‘read more’ or ‘continue to article’ was that continue is an innocuous word, whereas a lot of people don’t like reading or think it’s work, and even if they are reading, don’t remind them that they are or will have to after they click. Likewise, ‘article’ brings the person’s attention back to the larger context of what they’re doing, as opposed to ‘continue’ which allows them to keep their head down and their brain engaged on the exact same track that brought them to the link.”
In other words, you’re comparing a relatively clear and non-friction-inducing call to action to two losers: one using a rather flaccid verb, and the other creating friction in the mind of the reader.
Copyblogger Brian Clark’s — not to be confused with Carter — statement that “…if you want someone to do something, you’ll get better results if you tell them exactly what to do” has to be understood within the context of his larger body of work. For instance, consider it in light of this quote from his most recent post:
“Persuasion is generally an exercise in creating a win-win situation. You present a case that others find beneficial to agree with.”
Basically, what he’s saying (and correct me if I’ve misinterpreted this, Brian) is that once you’ve provided readers with “a scent trail worth following,” and a win-win situation or offer, it’s best to clearly tell those readers HOW to take that next action — and make sure they know how to get that win!
That’s a far cry from the straw man Clark’s detractors so readily maul when deriding his perceived advocacy of “using ‘Click here’ all over the place.”
Looking beyond the straw man (define) to a more contextual understanding of Brian’s advice, what Future Now teaches is largely similar. The difference is that we explicitly state that HOW to take the action must be appropriately influenced by, and combined with, a (re)statement of WHY they should want to do it. In presenting the win-win proposal, we tell our clients to focus on the visitor’s win, not their own. (The JigsawHealth.com case study is a great example.)
See, Brian does this intuitively all the time; the gestalt of his writing agrees with this approach. Unfortunately, though, Brian’s too good a writer, and blogger, for the rest of us to, um, copy.
Here’s our best crack at a formula for persuasive links: imperative verb + implied benefit.
Instead of this:
- Steve found an investment secret that changed his life. Read more…
Or this:
- Steve found an investment secret that changed his life. Click here for the investment strategy of a lifetime.
You get this:
- Steve found an investment secret that changed his life. See how you may be able to double your income in one year.
Notice that the call to action in #1 lacked the benefit to the reader, and that even though #2 stated the benefit for the reader, the imperative verb wasn’t congruent with the benefit like it is in #3.
We feel, and have usually seen with our client’s Websites, that the formula infused in the third example outperforms other options. And I personally believe that this formula offers a contextual understanding of Brian Clark’s advice.
But, hey, this is the web, right? Why not test it out? Next Tuesday, October 2nd, Thursday, October 4th, we’ll announce details on how you can volunteer your site for a little free A/B testing on this very subject. Stay tuned!
[*Although generic, “Click to continue” is sometimes good enough. Use it sparingly, though, since it only works in limited contexts. For instance, if it’s used repeatedly on a page that overtly links to similar content.]
Related Posts:
Written by:Jeff Sexton
Screencast Smackdown: Wii vs. Xbox 360
When you have as many kids as I do, video games are a necessary part of life.
My family’s been hobbling around on the original Xbox for a few years now, and I’ve decided a game console upgrade is long overdue. If I were more patient, I suppose I could wait until Christmas — but patience is overrated. I supposed the release of Halo 3 has me chomping at the bit. (At least I’m not the only one. Check out how Halo 3 is moving Xbox consoles.) So, I’m trying to decided whether I want to buy the Wii or the Xbox 360 now, and which one will have to wait until Christmas. The only thing up in the air is which console I’ll buy first.
To help me make this decision, I’ll go online to visit each console’s main site. This screencast documents my journey and, ultimately, the winner:
(If you’re reading this via RSS, click here for video.)
I could’ve made dozens of suggestions for each site, but it was the category pages that made the biggest difference in helping me make my decision. The Xbox 360 game listing page looks good. While it did give me the ability to sort and search games, it was limited compared to the Wii. New games or not, sometimes these subtle differences are enough to send comparison shoppers like me to the competition.
Xbox 360 does a few things right:
- Great use of game thumbnails
- “Buy Now” call to action
- Top searches
Some suggestions for the Xbox folks:
- Add a “view all” function, so we can scroll the entire listing
- Allow sort by more criteria (e.g., # of players, release date)
- Printable & sharable listings
While the functionality of the Wii’s listing page was superior and helped me make my decision, that doesn’t mean this page is great. The Wii page is far too complicated and looks out of place in comparison to the rest of the site. So, raw functionality wins, but this doesn’t exactly feel as effortless as using one of those magic wand-like Wii controllers.
Here are a few suggestions for the people over at Wii:
- Add thumbnails to the listings
- Include a call to action
- Change dreary page color to match the rest of the Wii site
- Add “view all” function to scroll entire listing
- Printable & sharable listings
Related Posts:
Written by:Anthony Garcia
The Complexity of Closing a Sale
B2C, B2B, impulse purchases, straightforward purchases, considered purchases, nonprofit, lead generation…Your ability to persuade depends more on your audience’s key qualitative factors than on your business category and, many times, audience demographics. If you understand all the elements that make up your unique persuasive process — a marriage of how you sell and how your audience buys — and if you understand your audience’s needs, you’ll be able to create persuasive copy that dramatically improves online conversion.
Selling and Buying: “I Do”
A sales process includes steps to achieve a close. Not every business has a sales process, though admittedly some are more effective than others. Only you care about your sales process. It’s internal. It’s about you and your goals. It’s not about your audience and their goals.
Everyone in your audience has a buying process, steps people go through to satisfy their needs and feel confident they made the right decision. Sometimes this buying process happens in the blink of an eye. Other times it takes months. In some cases, it takes only one person to make the decision. In others, five different departments and a C-level executive have to sign off on the decision.
On top of that, not everyone’s in the same stage of the buying-decision process when she arrives. Some come to you during the late stage, knowing exactly what they want. Others turn up during the early stage, when they’re narrowing their choices. And some are in the middle stage; they’re not intending to buy just now, but they could be persuaded. Continue reading my ROI Marketing column at ClickZ…
Related Posts:
Written by:Bryan Eisenberg
Mr. Softy Goes to Washington, Picks Fight with 9 year-old
You wouldn’t pick on a 9 year-old, would ya? How ’bout a 9 year-old with glasses??
Microsoft, reeling from Halo 3’s $170 million launch — the biggest release in entertainment history — got serious today with an assault on Google, its 9 year-old nemesis. While battle raged in anti-trust hearings before the U.S. Senate, the search giant came off looking battered, but feeling lucky, as they replaced the second ‘g’ on the Google.com homepage with a cartoon piñata in the shape of a ‘9′ to commemorate its ninth year as a company. Aww… Cute, ain’t it?
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Microsoft, 32, doesn’t think so. In case you missed the live coverage, News.com quotes a prepared statement from Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith, who claims Google’s deal with DoubleClick is bad for advertisers, bad for consumers, bad for publishers, and — ultimately — bad for America. Says Smith:
I will be the first to admit that Microsoft is not disinterested in this issue; competitors never are. But I do think we’re in a good position of identifying important questions. We know this market very well. And it is absolutely clear to us that this merger raises serious questions that deserve serious answers.
[…] Already Google is the dominant company for one of the two main types of online advertising–namely online search ads. Roughly 70 percent of global spending on search-based advertising today flows through Google’s AdWords.
If Google is allowed to proceed with this merger, it will also obtain a dominant gateway position over the other main type of online advertising: non-search ads. Today Google and DoubleClick are the two largest competitors in this area. Combined, Google will account for nearly 80 percent of all spending on non-search ads.
If Google and DoubleClick are allowed to merge, Google will become the overwhelmingly dominant pipeline for all forms of online advertising.
This merger will almost certainly result in higher profits for the operator of the dominant advertising pipeline, but it will be bad for everyone else. It will be bad for publishers, bad for advertisers, and most importantly, bad for consumers.
Bravo, sir… Brah-voh… [Gives steely-eyed, slow hand-clap.]
Mr. Schmidt Goes to Washington, Too
OK, so maybe Google CEO Eric Schmidt wasn’t testifying, but it’s more fun to say “Smith vs. Schmidt” than “Smith vs. Drummond”. David Drummond, that is — Google’s Senior VP for Corporate Development and Chief Legal Officer. The Google Public Policy Blog features Drummond’s testimony, including this excerpt:
“The online advertising business is complex, but my message to you today is simple: Online advertising benefits consumers, promotes free speech, and helps small businesses succeed. Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick will help advance these goals while protecting consumer privacy and enabling greater innovation, competition, and growth.”
“In our experience, our users value the advertisements that we deliver along with search results and other web content because the ads help connect them to the information, products, and services they seek. Simply put, advertising is information, and relevant advertising is information that is useful to consumers. The advertising we deliver to our users complements the natural search results that we provide, because our users are often searching for products and services that our advertisers offer. Making this connection is critical. In fact, we strive to deliver the ads that are the most relevant to our users, not just the ones that generate the most revenue for us.”
[…] “Google’s bottom line is this: We believe deeply in protecting online users’ privacy, and we have a strong track record of doing so. We are constantly working to innovate in our privacy practices and policies. Some have asked questions about privacy protections in connection with the DoubleClick acquisition, but for us privacy does not begin or end with our purchase of DoubleClick. Privacy is a user interest that we’ve been protecting since our inception.”
“We make privacy a priority because our business depends on it. If our users are uncomfortable with how we manage the information they provide to us, they are only one click away from switching to a competitor’s services. If you don’t believe me, recall that before Google, users clicked on an earlier generation of search engines like Excite, Altavista, Lycos, and Infoseek – each extremely popular in its time. User interests effectively regulate our behavior, and user trust is a critical component of our business model.”
Although it’s too late to call this case “Smith vs. Schmidt,” perhaps we can at least nickname it “Pot vs. Kettle”? A Frank Capra movie, it ain’t…
Whether the Senate will side with Microsoft or Google remains unclear, but Google Maps satellite images of a U.S. Navy building that, well, happens to look like a swastika won’t likely do much to ease tensions with the U.S. Government.
NaturalSearchBlog’s Chris Silver Smith first spotted this oddity:
Quite some time back, I came across this Swastika-shaped building via Google Maps, and posted the screengrab in my Flickr account. Since then, it became one of my most popular Flickr pictures, since strange stuff like this can become quickly viral. Loads of people (16,000+) have viewed the photo’s page, and then various journalists contacted me and posted the photo on news stories in Europe and elsewhere.
[…] Today, CNN reported on the swastika building, and they added one really interesting new detail: the Navy has received so much flack about having a swastika-shaped building that they’re now planning to change the shape of the building when it’s viewed from the sky to obliterate the swastika shape. They’ll be adding landscaping and structures at a cost of something like $600,000 to just make the shape less offensive to people viewing from airplanes and satellite pics!
You really can’t make this stuff up, folks.
[Tired of reading other blogs? Catch Blog Buzz weekdays on WebmasterRadio.fm — or subscribe via iTunes. Bryan Eisenberg & Robert Gorell host the podcast, featuring a rundown of the day’s top stories from The Grok’s Buzz Bin.]
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
Fight for Kisses
A geek buddy passed along a link to an interesting video clip today, commenting on how it was “such good marketing”. Now, anytime I hear a techie say this, I’m pretty much assured it’ll be *bad* marketing — or no marketing at all, just a good advertisement. (Hell, that’s a whole other post.)
Anyway, human nature being what it is, I perked right up; everyone likes to gawk at a car wreck.
I don’t want to say much specifically until you’ve had a chance to watch this yourself — am I’m helping to make it viral? — but give a look-see and let me know your reaction.
Don’t read any further until you watch this video:
(If video doesn’t load, click here.)
OK, now you’ve seen it. This brought up a few points for me:
First, it felt a little longer than expected, didn’t you think? I figured once I saw the ad for the Quattro — a name I’m fond of for obvious reasons — we were near the end. But no, it continues for some time past that. And the ending gave me a bit of a surprise, as I had only a hint of a feeling we were dealing with a game.
Second, even at the end when the game nature became clear, I kept thinking Shick Quattro was probably just a commercial sponsor.
Third, I actually went through the bother of going to the main site for this beast, ffk-wilkinson.com. Other than commenting on how extraordinarily painful it was to wait for this site to load — close to 2 minutes on a broadband connection!? — it turns out the razor itself is one of the characters in the game. So, Quattro isn’t just a commercial sponsor of a game; it seems Shick actually produced the game as theater for showing off its product. Well, that “shortened my leash” on how much I’ll allow this game to shave minutes off my valuable free time.
Finally, let me defend my geek: The clip was entertaining. But if marketing were entertainment, every day would be the Super Bowl.
The funny thing is, although I’m curious to see the game in play, I’m not terribly excited about the prospects of playing it.
What about you? Are you interested in this product, or were you simply entertained by the video clip? Do you have a passion to fight for kisses?
Related Posts:
Written by:John Quarto-vonTivadar
How to Double Your Conversion Rate
Most e-commerce sites only convert three out of every hundred people who visit their sites. What a shame! And the worst side-effect of this fact is apathy.
People often ask us, “What’s the average Conversion Rate in my industry?” Fair enough, but does it matter? If you’re converting less than 1/10th of your traffic, you should be concerned. If you’re converting more than that, you can do better. We all can. It’s even possible to double your conversion rate, if you ask bigger questions.
When JigsawHealth.com contacted us, they were converting three times better than the average. But they the didn’t just ask bigger questions, they put them to the test. Now, after testing some new verbiage and some design tweaks, they convert 1/5th of browsers into buyers.
If you’re ready to put big questions to the test, or if your business already demands big answers — and quickly — don’t assume the prognosis can’t improve just because you’ve “already tried everything” else. We can help.
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
Firebrand Wants to Be a YouTube for Advertising
Announced today, Firebrand (firebrandtv.com) has some lofty ambitions. It wants to do for advertising what YouTube did for cutout gift boxes, or what MTV did for hair metal in the 80’s. By creating a dedicated portal for funny, sexy, action-packed ads and movie trailers, it’s thought that — soon after it launches on October 22nd — Gen Y-ers will converge on Firebrand for promotional offers, pure entertainment, or, hopefully, to buy stuff.
They claim to be, “QVC for the MySpace generation.”
Now, before you gag, consider that they might be onto something. This isn’t just another startup. Firebrand is backed by Microsoft, NBC Universal, GE’s Peacock Equity fund, Adweek, Brandweek, Mediaweek, and the ION television network.
Pardon me while I quote the press release at length:
“Firebrand enters the media landscape as the era of the commercial interruption is coming to an end,” says John A. Lack, CEO/Co-Founder. “We curate the best TV commercials and promotions from around the world – connecting consumers directly with their favorite brands in an integrated environment.”
“On Firebrand, you’ll see more car chases, explosions, gags, drama, heroes, Oscar-winning actors, directors and producers in an hour than in a month of HBO,” says [Chief Creative Officer/Co-Founder Román] Viñoly. “To be true to our consumers, you can’t pay us to air a bad spot. ”
Meanwhile, Steve Hall from Adrants sounds off:
We tried really hard not to laugh when . . . Roman Vinoly said, “We program TV spots like a DJ spins music in a club. There is a rhythm and flow to it.” In an attempt to spin Firebrand as something other than a massive database of commercials, Vinoly adds, “On Firebrand, you’ll see more car chases, explosions, gags, drama, heroes, Oscar-winning actors, directors and producers in an hour than in a month of HBO.” Right, dude. They’re still [f@%!^g] commercials. Not The Sopranos.
Hyperbole aside, it sounds like the ad industry’s collective Wet 2.0 dream, does it not?
Experience Curve’s Karl Long reminds us that the first step is a doozy:
If they create original, edgy, hysterical, and brilliant commercials for it then they have a shot. I think it’s more likely they are going to recycle their 30 second spots that less people are watching every year in which case they will go the same way as BudTV. They have some great investors behind them . . . and advertisers like BMW, Coke, Ebay etc. yet the internet is famous for burning through enormous amounts of money on “big bang” efforts like this. If they don’t get it right out of the gate it will be a losing battle.
But that’s where the “so-crazy-it-just-might-work” factor comes into play. Think about it: They’ll suddenly need tons of content. Where will it all come from? With Firebrand claiming editorial integrity, it could be a chance for smaller brands to shine. Big-budget brands will dump money on it regardless, but creativity could be a currency of its own.
Consider Ice.com executive VP of marketing Pinny Gniwisch, who was recently asked about his YouTube campaign:
Gniwisch is measuring the success of his efforts in the number of views Ice.com’s videos have received on YouTube.com – about 50,000 altogether — in the 6,000 YouTubers who signed up for an Ice.com sweepstakes promoted with one video series release, and the 16,000 who have signed up for “Pinny’s World,” asking to be notified whenever Ice.com puts up new video on YouTube.
“If I can get enough people to watch my channel, I can eventually throw a product video that is both entertaining and ROI-driven into the mix,” figures Gniwisch. “As more people register to your channel, your ability to succeed as an ROI-based investment is more likely.”
If a company like Ice.com can submit content to Firebrand, it could be something bigger than the next go-to spot for Super Bowl ads.
Firebrand has offered us a sneak preview in the coming weeks, so we’ll let you know what we think soon enough.
[GrokDotCom interviewed Pinny about his adventures on YouTube. To hear how how he did it, listen to the podcast.]
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
“Click Here” Works (Better Than Other Generic Terms)
Marketing Sherpa recently tested click-through rates for anchor text links in email. They found that “Click to continue” works far better than “Continue to article” or “Read more”. But why?
Copyblogger’s Brian Clark concludes, “Not only should you use actionable anchor text if you really want someone to click, but you should also tell people to take the exact action you want them to perform in order to get the best response.”
Sure, but there’s more to this story than just telling people to “click here” all the time. Absolutely. Keep in mind, though, that just because “Click to continue” won this time, in this particular context, doesn’t necessarily mean using “Click [whatever]” works best in all cases. Clark’s point about using “the exact action you want them to perform” serves as a solid guideline — and a strong place to start when deciding which verbiage to test.
Here’s what Jared Spool, CEO and Founding Principal of User Interface Engineering (UIE), has to say about links:
UIE research showed that when a link and its associated text comprised seven to twelve words, people could successfully follow the links 50 to 60% of the time, with the optimal length being 9 to 10 words. Jared quipped, “One of the things you do in a usability test is you try to use your psychic powers to get people to do things.”
However, he said, “It’s not just the size of the link.” Links should include trigger words or “they’ll fail. …You have to be careful what words you choose. A one-word link is fine if you know it’s a trigger word.”
Whereas “click here” can work as a call to action — or anchor link, as it’s often used — these one-trigger-word links Spool’s referring to are called Points of Resolution (define), and the greater context has a lot to do with how effective they are. The context is what we call “scent,” and it’s up to you to provide your visitors with a scent trail worth following. As Spool explains, “when they are on the right track to finding their content—they follow the scent of information.”
As an aside, AdvertisingLab hints at one of our favorite factoids: Adobe ranks #1 for the term “click here“. (It is hard to resist even though you know the answer, isn’t it?)
Oh, and here’s a link to the Marketing Sherpa study, if you’re interested. (Just mind the persuasion gap with that extra free trial sign-up step they don’t warn you about if you’re not already a member.)
If the links on your website suffer from bad scent, don’t wait around as would-be customers politely excuse themselves. Test the verbiage, and see what converts best. We can help.
[P.S. — Tim, does this answer your question?]
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
Want to Be a Bestselling Author?
Here’s what you do:
1.) Build a marketing platform.
2.) Write a book people want to read.
3.) Contact Michael Drew.
We’re often asked how Waiting for Your Cat to Bark hit #1 on the Wall Street Journal list, while reaching bestseller status on the New York Times, USA Today, Amazon, and BusinessWeek lists. (AdvertisingAge even called it one of the “10 books you should have read” for 2006.) How is it, they wonder, that Call to Action became a bestseller, despite being sold exclusively online. Well, we had a secret weapon: A marketer who knows book publishing and promotion better than anyone else in the business, and has the track record to prove it. His name, one more, is Mike Drew — and he’s struck again.
On the American Small Business blog, Michele Miller points out that Drew turned three separate books into bestsellers in just this past weekend alone.
A lot of authors make the mistake of thinking that signing with the right publisher will all but guarantee a book’s success. Think again. Unless you’re uncannily blessed by the word-of-mouth gods, even a well-reviewed book can have a hard time making the bestseller lists. Authors need their books to be properly marketed and promoted. That’s where Michael Drew comes in.
If you or someone you know is an author with bestseller ambitions, take a moment to watch this video or subscribe to Drew’s blog, Beneath the Cover.
Related Posts:
Written by:The Grok
Blog Buzz: Microsoft Games Halo 3; NY Subpoenas Facebook
If you didn’t know Halo 3 — the much-anticipated shoot-’em-up sequel to, you guessed it, Halo 2 — comes out today, you’re probably not much of a gamer. But if you’re a marketer, it’s still worth your attention at some level, even if destroying hostile alien civilizations from the comfort of your sofa doesn’t get your blood pumping.
When Halo 2 was released for Microsoft (MSFT) XBox in 2004, it broke the record for the highest-grossing launch of any type of media product (yes, really), generating $125 million in revenue — 2.4 million copies — in 24 hours.
And you thought Titanic was big? Ha!
“Mr. Softy” Strikes Back
Lest another pundit call them a “sleeping giant”, Read/WriteWeb points to a Last100 piece that sheds some light on how Microsoft is leveraging Halo 3:
Another product that has benefited from the buzz surrounding Halo 3 is Silverlight, Microsoft’s platform for building rich Internet applications. Like Flash, Java, and many other platforms, Silverlight requires users to install a browser plug-in before they can use it. This presents a common problem — you need users to have the plug-in before developers jump on board, and you need developers on board building great apps for the platform before users want to install the plug-in. Microsoft decided to leverage Halo 3 to help solve this problem. Over the last few weeks, lots of Halo 3 related content has been made available such as trailers, promos, and an online manual. The catch? You’ve got to have Silverlight installed before you can view any of the content. It’s a very smart move. I’d be willing to bet that a lot of the early installs of Silverlight can be attributed to fans eager for Halo 3 content.Microsoft’s partners have gotten in on the action too. Mountain Dew launched “Mountain Dew Game Fuel” on August 13th, the first beverage co-branded with a video game. 7-Eleven has been offering three Halo 3-branded Slurpee cups, and has been part of the promotional campaign being run with Mountain Dew and Doritos. Burger King started offering Halo 3-themed packaging yesterday, and will continue to do so right through October 22nd. Other companies that are participating in the Halo 3 campaign include Pontiac and Comcast.
(micro)Soft Money for Facebook?
Meanwhile, Microsoft may be showing its “Mr. Softy” side a bit, now that it’s finally getting serious with Facebook. Let’s hope they cut a deal soon. The constant, boring speculation over exactly how rich Mark Zuckerberg will be is beyond tiresome. Thankfully, BoomTown’s Kara Swisher agrees. Get a load of this critique:
…I believe Silicon Valley can now be considered to be at Delusional Level Red. Or green, given all the cash that is being shoved in Facebook’s direction now.
Facebook is not Google: Although many in the tech sector make the comparison to the search giant, it is simply incorrect.Is Facebook like Yahoo a bit? Certainly. A newfangled version of AOL? Absolutely! A very well done media play with all sorts of interactive bells and whistles hanging off of it? Yes, ma’am.
Indeed, it is growing its media business nicely, with $30 million in profits on $150 million in revenue.
But in comparative terms to the search giant, Facebook is a lemonade stand. Google brought in $3.9 billion in revenue in just the second quarter alone and, um, is increasing its dominance over the search sector in a mighty scary way.
Facebook, on the other hand, gets half its annual revenue right now from a sweetheart guaranteed revenue deal with, drum roll, Microsoft. No matter what either Facebook or Microsoft says, it is a money-losing deal for Microsoft so far.
How do I know this? According to many sources, Google is struggling to make ends meet in its own sweetheart guaranteed ad deal with Facebook rival MySpace, which is much larger, and Google has the best monetization engine out there.
Ouch! Swisher goes on to mention other problems, insisting Facebook’s potential is not actual, that most techies weren’t popular in high school and, therefore, overestimate the importance of stuff that seems important to them, and even breaks out the calculator to show that the company’s pre-money valuation is actually $525 million — a far cry from the $15 billion for which they’re rumored to be holding out.
Reiterating her stance from an earlier post, Swisher advises Zuckerberg to “…take the dumb money and run as fast as your flip-flops will carry you.”
Facebook Subpoenaed
In other Facebook news, CenterNetworks’ Allen Stern reports that New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has subpoenaed Facebook, claiming they’re not doing enough to protect kids from sexual predators:
“My office is concerned that Facebook’s promise of a safe website is not consistent with its performance in policing its site and responding to complaints,” Cuomo said. “Parents have a right to know what their children will encounter on a website that is aggressively marketed as safe.”
The office setup several “underage” profiles on Facebook and within days began receiving chat requests of a graphic nature. In subpoenaing the company, Cuomo has asked for complaints received by Facebook regarding inappropriate solicitation of underage users and inappropriate content on the site, as well as any responses by the website. The subpoena also calls for all Facebook policies on user safety and all representations made to consumers about the safety of the site.
What makes Facebook less safe than, say, MySpace — which deleted 29,000 registered sex offenders in July — remains unclear.
[Tired of reading other blogs? Catch Blog Buzz weekdays on WebmasterRadio.fmiTunes. Bryan Eisenberg & Robert Gorell host the podcast, featuring a rundown of the day’s top stories from The Grok’s Buzz Bin.]
Related Posts:
Written by:Robert Gorell
