I feel for the guy, but this clip shows that sometimes it takes more than practice to make perfect… and that if you’re going to blame ambient noise for a major glitch, you should first make sure that whoever is running the product demo isn’t wearing a microphone headset.

Diversions | 10 Comments »

The Washington Post has a good article on emerging businesses powered by AdSense. Most are small, with only a handful of employees. Examples:

• Podcastdirectory.com: $30-40K/year run rate.
• FreeWebLayouts.com (designs for use on MySpace): $10-20K/month.
• SeatGuru.com (info on plane configurations): $20-40K/month, including direct ad sales.

But the biggest winner of all is Google (surprise). In Q2 2006, they collected almost $1 billion (41% of their total revenue) from their network of AdSense customers.

Update from the comments… Peter Hershberg, managing partner of Reprise Media, says:

No question that AdSense has become a legitimate revenue stream for a significant number of small web publishers. That said, there is a distinction between AdSense for Publishers (examples of which you’ve pointed to above) and AdSense for Search. The overwhelming majority of Google’s AdSense revenue is generated from search partners, including AOL and Ask.com. They still don’t make very much much money on the content side.

Business Models, Advertising | 2 Comments »

Yesterday, I received a small blue postcard in the mail proclaiming me an “official prizewinner” entitled to receive one of four “guaranteed” prizes: one of the cars mentioned in this post’s title or $40K in cash, a $1,500 shopping spree, an “exotic island adventure”, or $500 cash. In addition, I would get either a 4-day Royal Carribbean Cruise or a pre-paid round trip to Las Vegas or Orlando. The card went on to inform me that the company bestowing this unexpected largess–the Awards Verification Center–had tried to “contact” me with no success to inform me about my winnings, so now it was up to me to contact them at their toll-free number–within 72 hours, of course–to “visit” them and claim my prizes.

Frankly, it was a little strange of the Awards Verification Center to notify me that I had won thousands of dollars in prizes with a cheap postcard with perforated edges that might make a cynical person suspect that they had sent out hundreds or thousands of similar postcards to other potential suckers. The Clearing House Sweepstakes people have the decency to send Ed McMahon in person, bearing a really big check. Awards Verification Center, why be so schlocky?

For kicks, I decided to call the toll-free number to get a taste of the scam in action. Unsurprisingly, the company sells timeshares in vacation properties. The award notices are their lame way of getting people to visit their properties so they can trap you in a room and relentlessly urge you to buy in. When I called, the operator badgered me for my phone number claiming that she needed it to “access the record” of my winnings (never mind that she also asked for the “record locator number” on the postcard I received. I hope that the fake number I provided doesn’t have a real life person on the end.) The operator then informed me that in order to receive my prizes, I had to visit a property in Massachusetts–about a 2 hour drive from NYC–and then participate in a 90-minute site tour. Yeah, right.

It’s hard for me to imagine that people actually fall for this crap, but clearly they do since the Awards Verification Center is actually a public company called Silverleaf Resorts which generated ~$200 million in revenue last year. Still, I suspect that the Internet has put a cramp in the Awards Verification Center’s style and may eventually force them to change their ways. After finishing my phone call with their operator, a quick Google search produced the following tidbits:

• The company goes by several names other than Awards Verification Center and Silverleaf Resorts. Look out for Hill Country Resorts, Holly Lake Ranch, Lake O’ the Woods, and Piney Shores Resorts.
• The Better Business Bureau has a detailed report on the company. In the past 36 months, the Bureau processed 145 customer complaints regarding Silverleaf’s advertising, contracts, billing, sales practices, and service, among other things. Most of these issues are still unresolved.
• The Bureau’s report also states that “if you have received an award letter from this company, it does not mean that you have won a contest. You will receive a free gift if you attend the sales presentation, but the chances that you will receive a major prize such as a car or cash are very slim. Most consumers receive the ten one-day holiday package, which allows use of resort facilities during the daytime only. Overnight accommodations and transportation are not included. The company can not say which award you will receive until you attend the sales presentation.”

My Google search also turned up a few postings by other bloggers detailing their experiences with the Awards Verification Center–a couple of which are pretty amusing. The posts detail the company’s over-the-top hardsell tactics and warn that the “guaranteed” free trip referred to in the postcard they sent out actually requires an advance cash payment.

10 years ago, it would have been difficult for a recipient of a postcard like the one I received to easily confirm a lurking suspicion that it was all too good to be true. That in mind, I wonder how many people have actually subjected themselves to a site visit and prepaid for “free” trips?

It will be interesting to see how companies like the Awards Verification Center deal with the viral alerting system that the Internet provides–my guess is that potential customers will become increasingly savvy and decline “prizes” like those described above. Still, as Nigerian email scams prove, technology hasn’t yet altered PT Barnum’s timeless observation about basic human gullibility and the allure of freebies. Perhaps Google should add a “sucker alert” feature?

Business Models, Advertising | 54 Comments »

A number of big issues have been brewing over the past few weeks, but few are as contentious as net neutrality. The term refers to the idea that network providers shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate (by offering better network performance in exchange for additional fees) between any user or company that uses the network to offer products or services. Instead, the idea goes, the pricing for transport of all traffic, regardless of type, source, or destination, should be the same.

Those lobbying against net neutrality–largely phone and cable companies–typically support additional charges for bandwidth-intensive products, like VOIP and internet video. They generally believe that extra fees are justified (even necessary) to provide high quality service. Further, they often say, additional charges are needed to build out next-generation network equipment, so that future services can be supported in an effective manner.

Those supporting net neutrality–including Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Amazon, and eBay–oppose such charges. They claim that in a world without net neutrality, phone and cable companies could steer users toward products and services that they own, and that internet use would generally become more expensive.

My take: the real issue here is a lack of competition. Individual and business customers in many, if not most, markets have extremely limited choice over broadband providers; all too often, there simply aren’t many alternatives. This is due in large part to (legal) monopoly powers cable and telecom companies have enjoyed over the years (in particular, telcom companies have had near complete control over the copper cable linking businesses and homes to the carrier’s local exchange). Thanks to deregulation and new technology, the situation is improving and new choices are emerging–but it’s happening slowly.

Because consumers frequently don’t have much choice over their broadband provider in the current environment, I support net neutrality. Once the market for broadband service becomes truly competitive, network providers should be allowed to offer differential pricing as they see fit.

All this said, I’ve been offline for a few weeks and missed much of the debate–does anyone have a different perspective?

Policy | 6 Comments »

I’ve been offline for the past couple of weeks with family, dealing with the unexpected passing of my father. For me, he was an endless source of friendship, inspiration, humor, wisdom, intellectual energy, and challenge. A good family friend wrote a letter about him that captured his spirit–here’s an excerpt:

Peter. He had a talent. In fact, he had many of them, but one in particular stands out because it is a rare one. His talent was Life itself. He knew how to make it work. He knew how to be happy. And he knew how to love. There was never a question if Peter loved you. If he did, you always knew it. You knew it through good and bad, through laughter and tears… We learned from [him] exactly this - the art of love and living. Whenever [we] need a reminder that life is worth living even at the saddest moments, you know where to look for it. We had the best teacher.

I love and miss you, Dad. And thanks for that lesson, among countless others.

Separately, I’d like to thank my friends and colleagues who’ve visited, called or emailed to share their experiences or offer support. It means a great deal to me.

Personal | 12 Comments »