Techcrunch reports that Facebook is proposing a ban on sponsored updates by users and any other monetisation activities of profiles on the site.¹ However, FB, or rather advertisers using FB, can still utilise user data and photos for their own ads. Even adjusting privacy settings on FB only prevents Facebook itself from using user photos in “social” adverts. Third party apps and other parts of the site can still, in theory, access user photos and information for advertising purposes whether the user approves of it or not.²

But are sponsored adverts that bad? In some respects, yes. As the Techcrunch article points out the ability to talk about products or brands within a social space could be geneuinely useful but its also open to abuse in the form of unwanted spam. However, since FB is happy to give up user data to its advertisers and commercialise the site in as many ways as possible it’s doubtful whether the motives behind this recent proposal are to do with protecting the sanctity of the space. Perhaps it’s better to focus on the fact that the new proposal forbids users from “using their personal profiles for their own commercial gain”. This contrasts strongly with other social media platforms: from Twitter to Youtube to Google’s Blogger users are allowed to monetise their sites and pages in a limited way. So FB seems to be locking down every possible advertising pathway on the site and making sure that users can’t deprive the company, or third-party developers, of any potential advertising revenue.

If that is the thinking behind this new proposal then it implies that FB sees its users as a potential threat to its financial well-being. An odd attitude for a company that’s built its fortune on the back of user generated content, but an understandable one considering FB’s over-valuation³ and ongoing issues with finding an effective business model.⁴

1. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/11/facebook-proposes-to-ban-sponsored-status-updates/ [↩]
2. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/07/hey-peter-the-ad-said-hot-singles-are-waiting-for-you-he-might-have-dismissed-the-advertisement-which-appeared-on-his-fa.html [↩]
3. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/06/28/want-some-facebook-stock-at-a-3-billion-valutation-we-know-who-to-call/ [↩]
4. Retrieved August 11, 2009 http://www.reuters.com/article/smallBusinessNews/idUSTRE54L5VV20090522 [↩]

Blogging about the need for innovation during the financial crisis reminded me of an inspiring Juan Enrique TED presentation¹ made earlier this year.

In the first 7 minutes Mr Enrique succinctly, and often hilariously, summarises the current financial downturn. Some of the causes and consequences of the recession are discussed and possible short-term solutions to the crisis are outlined. In the latter part of the talk Mr Enrique, a leading tech and economics expert,² presents a fascinating insight into how innovative technologies could solve our global economic problems and radically alter how we work and live.

1. Retrieved July 28, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNcLKbJs3xk [↩]
2. Retrieved July 28, 2009 http://www.biotechonomy.com/juan.htm [↩]

I just found out recently that the US Debt Clock has gone digital¹. Now we can all watch the US economy haemorrhage in real time. And in case you’re wondering, US debt stands at about $11 trillion as of today.

Late last year the real world US Debt Clock was shut down. The reason? In the decade since the Clock was first launched the US has racked up over $10 trillion in debt. Ten. Trillion. That’s a whole lot of zeros. So many in fact that the Clock didn’t have enough digits to cope and had to be switched off.

The Clock was first launched in 1989 by real estate developer Seymour Durst and apart from a short period from 2000 to 2002 had seen the US debt climb from around $3 trillion to a whopping $10 trillion in 2008².

The accuracy of the Clock is debatable, US debt actually exceeded 10 trillion in 2006³.  The real strength of the Debt Clock lay in what it symbolised. A stark reminder of the state of the US’s finances it received particular media attention during times of economic turmoil. For myself, the Debt Clock was one of the most interesting sights to see in New York. Set in the heart of Manhattan it contrasted powerfully with the commercial grandeur of Time’s Square. To this day I’m convinced Mr Durst, the Clock’s creator, would have made a fine political satirist had he not gone into real estate.

Of course where the US goes the UK is bound to follow: when  it  comes to the epic national debt premier league we come in a close second⁴, far ahead of France, our closest competition in debt.

1. Retrieved July 23, 2009 http://www.usdebtclock.org/ [↩]
2. Retrieved July 23, 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_clock [↩]
3. Retrieved July 23, 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-tepper-marlin/the-us-10trilliondollar-d_b_67196.html [↩]
4. Retrieved July 23, 2009 https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2079rank.html?countryName=United%20Kingdom&countryCode=uk&regionCode=eu#uk [↩]

Earlier this year Burger King launched the Whopper Sacrifice on Facebook. Over a 10 day run around 23,000 FB users downloaded and interacted with the application¹. The popularity and innovation of the app garnered plaudits from both the mainstream and digital marketing press as well as from social media commentators and observers.

The response from Web 2.0 pundits was typically guarded: Whilst everyone agreed the campaign was innovative, concerns ranged from doubts about ROI and execution² to musings on how web 2.0 has “changed our ideas of what friendship really means”³. ROI aside, an FB application that causes grown adults to worry about the social fabric has to be doing something right. But what’s the real significance of BK’s Sacrifice? (more…)

1. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://www.whoppersacrifice.com/ [↩]
2. Retrieved July 8, 2009 //www.ideablue.com/2009/01/09/whopper-sacrifice-social-media-marketing-roi-done-wrong-buzz-done-good/ [↩]
3. Retrieved July 8, 2009 http://news.cnet.com/8301-13577_3-10211898-36.html [↩]