Want to Share Netflix Favorites? There’s an App for That! Well, Maybe Not!

In our thirst for social media, we are constantly sharing. We share links and shout out intimate details on Facebook and we love to exchange stuff we “Stumble Upon” and “Digg.” Adventurous folks are sharing their ideas via TED Talks and for those clever with 140 characters or less, there’s Twitter. And, let’s not forget about the emergence of Google+.

Enter the Netflix App geared towards even more sharing via Facebook pages. Want to share that old television series Sea Hunt with your friends? What about a great movie you just watched? Who wouldn’t want to share it with their BFFs? There’s a grand idea behind the Netflix App but if you live in the United States, forget about it — the app apparently is illegal — allowing others to see what you’re watching on Netflix is breaking the law!

One post on CNNMoney, “Why Netflix’s App Would Be Illegal” by Julianne Pepitone explained what’s behind the legalities of using a Netflix App in America: The 1980s Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA).

According to Pepitone, VPPA came about after a “Washington City Paper talked to a video store clerk into giving him (Robert) Bork’s rental history.” In 1987, Robert Bork, a very conservative Supreme Court nominee lost the nomination and although one could find many reasons why Bork didn’t get the top judge job, VPPA ensured it would be illegal for anyone to obtain another’s video rental history for privacy purposes.

How Private Are We?

In a blog post by Netflix Director of Government Relations, Michael Drobac, he said of the Facebook app sharing: “We’ll continue to look at these issues and find ways to bring you the easy, convenient and quality experiences you have come to expect, including ways to automatically share with your friends on Facebook.” Hmm?

I predict the sides on whether to amend or get rid of VPPA will be fierce in my opinion and I’ll explain why?

For one, if you look at the comments on the Netflix blog post you’re sure to get a chuckle or two. Many are still angry about the Netflix price increase. The whole mess angered Netflix users even after an apology and then a separation of church and state, so to speak — a Netflix user could choose either the DVD delivery or online streaming. Thankfully, Netflix also allowed users to have both rentals and streaming but at a price increase. I chose the streaming.

The comments on the blog post are indeed angry ones. Why? Netflix is urging users to contact Congress via an email link to help reform VPPA and most are saying “What? You want us to help you after you increased our prices?” Forget about it!

Secondly, I’d expect Facebook users to protest against this Netflix sharing app. I for one wouldn’t want anyone to know my video history by peeking into my queue or looking at recent rentals. Sure, I’m embarrassed I watched The Fish That Saved Pittsburgh like five or six times! I’d also pop fun at some of my family members who are adults yet are compelled to watch cartoon-type movies over and over again even though they have no actual kids at home. Heck my one sister would fall into this category—she sort of whispered to me over the phone she went and saw Puss n’ Boots with Antonio Banderas. Imagine what her Facebook friends would say!

But I digress. Facebook has invaded my life enough and I’m not fond of the timeline—I don’t wish to see a timeline going back to 1959! I also don’t want to share every tidbit of my life including the Netflix movies I download and stream through my Apple TV.

If I were single and some Facebook user thought I’d be great to take out on a date, they’d probably think I was in my 80s since I love Bette Davis and Cary Grant movies. I’d be judged by the movies and television shows I watch. If you’re reading this do you even remember the TV show Sea Hunt?

And, currently my profile pic is my favorite dog Cosmo — not named after the Seinfeld character! Usually during the NFL season I put up a pic of me wearing a Pittsburgh Steeler’s throwback helmet and only then would my possible date to be know I’m not in my 80s and actually much younger.

I hope VPPA isn’t overturned. I’d like to see Netflix sting a little — I’m sure many will agree with me — at least those leaving Netflix blog comments do!

Well, enough on the VPPA and Netflix’s attempt at app sharing on Facebook. You’ll either be for it or against it I suppose.

Time to run, I think I’ll watch Gunsmoke on Netflix and after that I may even watch an episode or two of Little House on the Prairie, maybe an episode of The Waltons too; but that my friends is just between me and you. Tootles!

Image Credits:

Netflix Logo / Netflix / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

Facebook Logo /  Facebook / Wikimedia Commons / Public Domain

If You Build It, Will They Come?

So you have a new website? Whether it is based on a great new idea, dedicated to covering an underserved niche, or aiming to promote your products or services, you have your work cut out getting it noticed. According to Royal Pingdom there are over 550 million websites in the world today and 300 million of them were added in 2011. Of course the truth is that many of them are inactive and attract little or no traffic.

You may be surprised at how many websites there are out there that receive no traffic. If you build it, they won’t necessarily come - you really need to give them a good reason. Using Alexa (which isn’t amazingly accurate but can give us a rough idea) we can get a ranking number for websites which is based on how many visits a website received over the last three months. The website with the most visits is number one and surprise, surprise – it’s Google.

What’s more revealing is taking a look at some low traffic websites. My own Scottish history website, Angry Pict, which I set up a few years ago has a modest amount of content and is very rarely updated. On average it gets around 230 unique visits per day (over the last three months) and that equates to an Alexa rank of 4,447,473. That ranking isn’t perfectly accurate but it does give you an idea of how little traffic the majority of websites out there must be getting.

How do you get traffic? It’s simple – you create content that people want, content that people are searching for, content that people want to share. The reason Angry Pict still gets traffic despite being updated only once in the last couple of years is that it has some content on subjects that people are searching for. If your website has no content then don’t expect any organic traffic. This is ultimately why content marketing is such a good idea.

If you create some content related to your business then:

• you show off your expertise,
• you are giving your potential customers something useful,
• you are building brand awareness,
• you are improving your business website’s ranking in the search engines,
• you are encouraging people to share your content and spread your brand for free,
• you are building potential leads.

Compare that with paying out a large sum to get someone to click on an ad and visit your site. They have no reason to stick around, no reason to share the website and no reason to come back. They also visit one time and they are gone. If you create content then it can pull in traffic indefinitely depending on the topic. Content marketing doesn’t just work; it is also more cost effective than traditional advertising.

So forget about fancy animations and expensive graphic design. If you really want people to visit your website give them a reason. Content is king and that’s never going to change.

Pinterest Responds to User Concerns by Updating Terms of Service and Acceptable Use Policy

Despite being one of the fastest growing social media sites on the Internet, Pinterest has been under heavy scrutiny for the past several weeks due to a clause in its Terms of Service that granted Pinterest the right to sell any content posted on the site. On top of that, many photographers, illustrators and other creative personalities have been less than pleased with the lack of concern that Pinterest seems to show when it comes to protecting intellectual property rights.

So, what does Pinterest have to say about all these concerns? Ben Silbermann, co-founder and CEO of Pinterest, seems not only to be listening to these concerns, but also taking active measures in response.

On March 23, a post was made on the official Pinterest blog to notify users that an updated Terms of Service, Acceptable Use Policy, and Privacy Policy will go into effect on April 6. This same post was sent out in an email to all Pinterest users, with a link to the updated terms. The first point noted in this communication should please all users:

Our original Terms stated that by posting content to Pinterest you grant Pinterest the right for to sell your content. Selling content was never our intention and we removed this from our updated Terms.

Very nice. I love the fact that Pinterest didn't try to just tweak its policy on this matter, but instead, removed it altogether.

But what about the concerns of copyright holders? That's a more complicated situation -- and to be quite honest, Pinterest's response could greatly affect how other sharing sites deal with the same types of issues. For the most part, Pinterest seems to be following the same path as other social media platforms by making a general statement in its Acceptable Use Policy that pinners are not allowed to post anything that "infringes any third party's Intellectual Property Rights, privacy rights, publicity rights, or other personal or proprietary rights" and then following up by checking out any content that has been flagged as being in violation of this agreement.

However, unlike many other leading social media sites, Pinterest does appear committed to taking this issue more seriously. For instance, last month Pinterest introduced a No Pin Tool that site owners could use to block people from pinning content from their sites. While many have pointed out that there are still lots of ways to get around this type of blocking, it's definitely a major step in the right direction -- and a step that shows Pinterest is genuinely interested in finding innovative solutions to a problem that is plaguing freelancers and independent content creators.

Awesome start, Pinterest. I love the Pinterest concept, but I've been very hesitant about pinning any items or getting involved in the user community because of the "selling content" and IP concerns. Now, I look forward to pinning away when April 6 rolls around and the new TOS goes into effect.

Image Credit: PhotoSpin/MonkeyBusiness Images

Forget the Future, Online News is the Here and Now

I can’t remember the last time I bought a physical newspaper. I rarely watch the news on TV. I now rely on the internet for my daily news fix and I consume more news than I ever did through traditional outlets. Whether it’s a newspaper website, an aggregator for hot news stories or a recommendation on Facebook or Twitter, the vast majority of the news I consume is online. Since I can access news wherever I happen to be with my smartphone I read more of it.

According to research from Pew Research Center I am not alone. More and more people are turning to the internet for their news. In fact the audience for online news has gone up 17.2% in the last year. Interestingly the audiences for network, local, audio and cable news have all grown as well. The big losers are magazines and newspapers. The newspaper industry has declined by a whopping 43% since the year 2000.

Around a quarter of the population now consume news on mobile devices. Smartphones and tablets are becoming more popular and the mobility factor is key. They aren’t actually replacing desktop computers or laptops, they are providing additional outlets. Many people are actually consuming more news now than they ever did before.

One widely reported finding was that, despite the increase in the popularity of social media, most people are not using it to find news. Only 10% of digital news consumers said they followed links from Facebook or Twitter “very often”. Despite the fact that 54% of U.S. citizens now have a Facebook account they are still accessing news directly through websites or apps.

As people move online for their news many outlets have to follow suit or risk extinction. Digital subscription models are expected to grow this year. Particularly with the growth of the tablet market, magazines have found a suitable alternative outlet and some publications are reporting success with digital subscriptions.

One year on, since launching a digital subscription model, the New York Times is reporting over 450,000 paying subscribers who shell out $15 to $35 per month for articles. They are so confident that they are reducing the number of free articles they offer readers from 20 per month to just 10.

It looks like online news is no longer the future, it’s the present. What do you think? Do you turn to the internet for news?

Copyright Math: Another Reason Why People Don’t Respect IP Rights

It may not always seem this way, but in general, most people respect laws – except when they feel those laws are unjust. So, why do so many choose to ignore copyright laws? The hard fact is that a sizable portion of the population seems to believe that copyright laws exist merely for the benefit of large corporations who want to stick their greedy little hands deeper into your wallet and overcharge you for music, movies and other media.

What’s often forgotten is that the Internet – the same tool that makes it so easy for us to illegally distribute and attain copyrighted material – is also the instrument that allows creative personalities to bypass the big media outlets and self-publish their material. And, copyright laws are there to protect these startups and independents just as much as the big brands.

If people really want to fight back against the multi-billion dollar corporations, then they should be thinking about how they can help support these indie producers. Respecting the intellectual property rights of these producers would go a long way toward providing that support.

Still, this message just doesn’t seem to be getting out. Why? Well, the big media brands are just so loud, their voices are the only ones being heard. With some of the things they say and do, it’s no wonder that people are frustrated and looking for ways to fight back.

For example, lawyers and lobbyists from the entertainment industry like to throw out numbers about how much money and how many jobs are being lost due to copyright violations, but they don’t really tell us how they came up with these numbers or present them in a way that’s meaningful to the average Joe. As a result, people look at these numbers and figure they’re just a bunch of fiction created by slippery accountants. That just makes people even more bitter. So, in a very real sense, these types of analyses are having the exact opposite of their intended effects.

Rob Reid gave a brilliant TED talk related to this very subject and coined a new term: Copyright Math. Here’s the video of that talk – take a look and let us know what you think! Fair warning: sarcasm ahead.

3 Reasons Why KDP Select May Be An Author's New Best Friend

When you publish your eBook using Kindle’s Direct Publishing service, you can opt to include it in Amazon’s KDP Select option, which means your eBook becomes part of the Kindle owner’s lending library.

Like most things involving publishing, there is a lively controversy raging over whether granting Amazon exclusive rights to distribute one’s digital book for 90 days is a good or bad thing. Since I love a good debate, I’m jumping right into the middle of this one to share my (limited) experience as a KDP Select author and my opinion on the subject.

Exclusivity

Let me relate this to the topic of my latest book: real estate. When you list your house with an agent, you grant them an exclusive right to market your property for a specified period. Your reason for giving them that exclusivity is your belief they will sell your property for the best price in the shortest amount of time.  Granting a mega-giant like Amazon exclusive rights to distribute your intellectual property is a good idea for the same reason: maximizing your sales potential in relation to your time and efforts. 

Win-Win

Whether someone buys or borrows your book from the Kindle owner’s lending library, you collect a royalty as long as you have abided by the terms of the program. While I’m grateful that my local libraries are supporting my work by purchasing copies of my book, I’m definitely not getting paid royalties when someone borrows it. However, according to the article "KDP Select Results After 3 Months," each time someone borrows a book from the Kindle lending library, the author earns an average of $1.75. What’s not to like about that scenario?

Marketing and Promotion

Borrowed books help you rank for position just the same as sold books. For instance, our Kindle version of Buying Your First Home? Insider Secrets You Must Know went live on March 9, 2012. At the time of this writing, we are already ranking #16 in Real Estate for the 100 Top Paid Best Sellers and #3 in the top 100 Hot Releases. As first-time authors, my co-author and I could hardly have expected to rank that well just based on our own marketing and promotional efforts! 

We expect to gain new readers because of the massive exposure our eBook has to Amazon Prime members and Kindle owners. Because we are part of the KDP Select program, we have access to other free promotional tools from Amazon. 

While the jury is still out on this program as it is relatively new and comprehensive data is not yet available, I believe that, at least for newer authors like myself who are establishing their brand and readership, the Kindle owner’s lending library could be a crucial element of your success or failure in the world of indie publishing.

References:

McLaren, Gary "KDP Select Results After 3 Months," Publish Your Own Ebooks, http://www.publishyourownebooks.com/kdp-select-results-after-3-months/

Digital Inevitability Hits Encyclopedia Britannica

Victim or beneficiary indeed? This morning I saw an interesting piece on the plight of Encyclopedia Britannica and their decision to finally accept the need to focus on digital media as opposed to traditional print publication.

This is a decision that will not have been made lightly, and will disgruntle much of its core audience. After all, a 32 volume staple that has been in print for 244 years is going to have a considerable loyalty base and brand backing. But that backing and that audience has dwindled. Their ship has had to set sail as a result of societal shifts in knowledge culture, mobility, technology platform reach, and at a very fundamental level, as a result of our time.

The digital age is not new, and almost all types of content are destined to fail if they do not embrace the digital media of today. That is a given. But reader engagement and behavior seem to be far more important "laws of attraction" for online readership than pin point accuracy and professional opinion. That is a bad thing. However, content is now so readily available, and in most cases freely attainable. That is a good thing. The happy medium is in our ability to market content based on trusted personal insight and deeply respected, vertical-specific knowledge.

As an unavoidable trend, all content is shifting to digital platforms. Here the comparison between say an Encyclopedia Britannica and a Wikipedia is an obvious one to make, but comes at a cost. That cost is nostalgia. The historical value of such well-rounded reference material remains. It has stood the test of time and been a cultural icon. As a rich collection, it adds to knowledge wealth and credibility of personal understanding. This should not be underestimated.

Be that as it may, the modern day family, researcher, hobbyist or professional does not have the time, space or desire to flick and search via physical means. Certainly when it comes to finding and filtering information, nothing can do that better than the Internet. The problem is this: It’s a fast food culture. Too many online reference sites – I use the term “reference" loosely – do not have the credibility our research needs demand. The Encyclopedia Britannica gave us that credibility.

However, as they have said themselves, their print volumes go out of date as soon as they are published. That is an eye opening admission, and in many cases very true. The pace of society, the thirst for relevant, up-to-date information means print publications that deal in on-demand content have a very short shelf life. They have little to no margin in printed material coverage. The audience they seek and the demands on real-time relevancy dictate that they cannot survive without a quality content focus that is brought to readers via digital means and through simple, clean, effective platforms that will make them engage.

It is sad to see such a font of all knowledge make this decision, but it is the right one for so many reasons. How they monetize in this brave new world is another question entirely. After all, information is now so freely accessible, very few will pay for the digital permissions. That is not the audience that took pride in such a voluminous collection. The Encyclopedia Britannica is a cherished “possession” and that sense of feeling and personal touch is lost in a digital format. Understanding this and embracing the techniques to capture today's digital aficionado through online content marketing is the key. That is where skilled digital publishers are worth their weight in gold.

It is a very interesting time for traditional print publications. When Encyclopedia Britannica makes such a profound, far reaching and ultimately rational decision to embrace the digital age, it’s obvious everyone should… But let's do so based on understanding our audience and what we aim to achieve through digital means.

As Jorge Cauz, president of Encyclopedia Britannica says, “We’ve traded print dollars for digital pennies.” That unfortunately is a sign of the times and traditional institutions have to evolve to their customers' needs in a digital world that will see them bypassed and ultimately go out of business quicker than they realize if they stand still.