First Aid App Helped Quake Survivor

Wow! Pulled from the rubble, Haiti survivor’s iPhone’s first aid app helped him stay alive. Story here.

Texting Haiti Donations: Not So Fast

While it might seem to be a fast way to send financial help to the hurting people of Haiti, according to a story in the New York Times, folks who text-to-donate might be surprised at how long it takes for their contribution to work its way through the system:

It can take up to three months for money donated via text message to make its way to a charity. The wireless carriers need to make sure that customers pay their bills and don’t back out of their commitments, and then the transactions are processed by an intermediary.

I’m not suggesting you shouldn’t donate via your phone – it surely is an easy and painless way to send a gift. Just be realistic about the time it might take for your $10 to actually help the relief efforts. And the good news here is that the phone carriers are working hard to make the process faster…kudos to them for doing so!

And if you want to contribute to directly to trusted organizations which are already providing needed assistance to the people of Haiti, here’s a list to start with:

• Mercy Ships
• World Vision
• Samaritan’s Purse
• Compassion International

iTablet’s “Wow Factor”

Like many other techies, I’m really interested in the expected announcement about the Apple iTablet, or iPad, or iWhatever.

There’s great speculation about the size and capabilities of the new device, which I’d anticipate to be a game-changer for portable computing. Just as the iPod changed our music listening habits, and the iPhone changed the way we access our media, the folks at Apple must surely have an intent for how the iTablet should change…something. But what?

Here’s an intriguing look at how the iTablet could reinvigorate (resuscitate?) printed media…and forever changing how we “read” magazines and newspapers. What do you think? If the iTab – and other similar devices – can deliver something like this, would you want one?

UPDATE: Link to some specs and sales projections (10 million in the first year?!).

Radio: A Strong Buy

Radio is strong.

I’m not just saying that because I’m biased.

According to recent research,

• Broadcast radio reaches over 79% of all U.S. adults daily, who listen on average for over two hours daily.

And it isn’t just for an “older generation:”

• Even among younger adults (18-34 years old), radio reached more than 79% of the population –  with an average listening time of more than one and a half hours each day.

When I’ve run advertising campaigns, I’ve always included radio in the mix. There’s no reason to change, either. Smart money goes into smart radio buys. Use radio well, and it delivers exceptional results!

More encouraging data about radio here (see the report titled, “How U.S. Adults Use Radio and Other Forms of Audio from the Council for Research Excellence Video Consumer Mapping Study”).

Can Newspapers Be Saved?

Over at the Tribune, former radio genius Randy Michaels has a new role, taking the helm as CEO from Sam Zell. Michaels has demonstrated he knows how to run a huge radio company, but it remains to be seen just how he can take the Tribune Company, which is trying to come out of bankruptcy – a rather embarrassing decline for the “World’s Greatest Newspaper.” How will the company make enough to fund the staff-intensive and printing/distribution infrastructure that has been newspapers?

And, related, the largest newspaper publisher in Europe suggests that there should be a payment system for news that we find on the Internet – so that link you follow from Google to a news piece could cost you. Monetizing the news departments of major daily newspapers might save them. If – and it is a BIG “IF” – folks like you and me will pay for that which has to this point been free.

And then I think about Chris Anderson, who argues that “Free is better.” In fact, he pushes for a free-for-all web, where free makes sense – even economic sense. I’m not sure that applies to newspapers, though.  Can Michaels turn around the Tribune with a free model? I rather doubt it. Will you pay for news that someone, somewhere, will offer for nothing? I don’t think so.

I’m not sure newspapers are going to make it. That’s a big deal to me. I’ve been reading papers on a daily basis since I was 10. Confession: I started reading…the Tribune. Every day I’d read it, after my Dad finished, of course. Now I get the Wall Street Journal, and consume as much as possible every day. Sometimes my kids read an article or two. But now the Journal is starting to charge for its web content. And I’m not paying for that, not while it is delivered to my door every day.

Can newspapers be saved? I hope so.

Social Media Is great, But Does It Work?

With all the buzz these days about social media, have you ever considered how you can determine if your Twitter feed is really worth maintaining? Or if that company blog is important enough to continue? Does this great new world of interconnectivity (is that a word?) really work?

Here’s an article which captures 100 different ways you can measure the effectiveness of your social media effort. For instance, here are a few of the items listed:

• Downloads

• Uploads

• User-initiated views (e.g., for videos)

• Ratio of embeds or favorites to views

• Likes / favorites

• Comments

Check out the entire piece, and I’d especially point out the comments at the bottom.

Black Friday “Cheers and Jeers”

I didn’t go shopping on Black Friday. I’ll admit, though, that I did buy some items – online. Maybe you did, too? One of my favorite websites, DealNews, offers their perspectives on stores and sites that served customers well – and some that didn’t – last week. You might be surprised by some of their conclusions!

They Tweet For Money – Would You?

Interesting article about Twitter users who post ads for money. You mean my friend’s Tweets might be ads? Yup.

So, would you mind pulling in a few extra thousand dollars a month this way? Is this selling out? Do you mind when folks use Twitter this way?

Methinks the Twitter revenue model might just explode with this kind of micro-ad sales. Isn’t anything pure anymore?

Bye Bye Cable?

Upfront, I’ll admit I use cable for my internet and telephone services. And I’m generally pretty happy with the service, although I wouldn’t mind trimming the cost a bit. Also of note: I don’t have cable television – just don’t want to watch TV that badly.

Now, I seem to be in the minority for a couple of reasons. First, I just don’t watch television. Alright, sometimes I do – if I am traveling, or at someone’s home. But the only TV shows we watch are Sunday kids programming (before we head to church). Secondly, as mentioned, my experience with the cable company has been positive. From what I can tell, that is unusual.

Here’s an article that caught my interest because it suggests that cable television could be a thing of the past, if Apple has any success at all with a subscription TV concept they’ve been shopping around.

Now, I don’t know if Apple will ever get any traction in this space, but being an Apple fan, I hope the company does have a win in the television space. There could be better service, cheaper prices and, oh, I don’t know, a new piece of Apple hardware?

Net Neutrality?

The on-going debate about the FCC’s proposed institution of formal “net neutrality” rules is becoming more heated, and both sides of the debate are stepping up the rhetoric:

“Network neutrality protects the fundamental rights of Americans in using the Internet and accessing content, applications, and services of their choice. A well-reasoned network neutrality policy also ensures a level playing field for companies large and small…” Senators Byron Dorgan (North Dakota, D) and Olympia Snowe (Maine, R)

I didn’t know Americans were at-risk in using the web, although now that you bring it up, I am concerned that any governmental regulations of the internet will surely threaten our access. And what, exactly, is a “level playing field” in the digital world?

“This is a down payment on creating a digital democracy. Today’s vote to begin the process of requiring nondiscrimination ensures, among other things, that large internet providers will be unable to block or throttle speech from competitors or those who disagree with them. The nondiscriminatory environment in which the Internet was developed fostered unprecedented opportunities for political and artistic expression.” Andrew Jay Schwartzman, president and CEO of the Media Access Project, a media reform and digital rights group.

Excuse me, but I thought we already had a “digital democracy.” Aren’t folks able to use the web as they choose? Ask the Iranian protestors if the internet was helpful in their pursuit for freedom. Wouldn’t any attempt to “block” access necessarily be made known and result in a backlash against the offending provider (unless it was illegal to do so, hmmm)?

Also, I’ve got to think that “the nondiscriminatory environment in which the Internet was developed” mentioned in the above quote remains in place today, thank you. Although the government could change that with these “hard” neutrality rules.

“I know of no empirical evidence suggesting that the openness of the Internet that we all value is under threat today, or is likely to be under threat tomorrow. In the absence of evidence of market failure or demonstrable consumer harms, the costs of government intervention are more likely to outweigh the benefits.” Barbara Eosin, a senior fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, a free-market think tank.

This seems reasonable to me. What’s the crisis? What pending “crisis” will these rules prevent?

“As the FCC’s Broadband Task Force said recently, it could take $350 billion to build next-generation broadband across America, and most of that money will have to come from the private sector and companies like Comcast. We continue to hope that any rules adopted by the commission will not harm the investment and innovation that has made the Internet what it is today and that will make it even greater tomorrow.” David Cohen, executive vice president at Comcast

Unless I am wrong, it seems that the largest investors in the internet infrastructure, those like Comcast and other major providers, are possibly going to suffer the biggest losses if net neutrality is implemented. After spending billions on pipelines, the government now wants them to take their hands off any controls and offer everyone the same access, regardless of need for capacity or speed? This just seems wrong to me. Talk about stealing incentives.

Also, remember the day you paid more for usage over a certain amount? I’d guess that Comcast and others will resort to such “tiered service levels” if the government persists in this “neutrality” business.

“It is risky business for regulators to mess with a technologically dynamic environment that is working well for American consumers and the economy.” Randolph May, president of the Free State Foundation, a free-market think tank.

Well said, Mr. May.

Alright, I’ve spoken a bit of my mind. Obviously I am a free-market guy on this one, and in favor of letting those with the pipes have some control over their own expenses and income. I am also leery of the government’s idea of “fairness” – sorry, I just don’t trust the Feds to truly do the right thing here (or almost anywhere, frankly).

How about you? Reactions? What’s your take on this debate?