Awful, Awful Peeple

Urge To Say Mean Things Rising

So there was a lovely example of utter and complete Start Up Fail this week in the media. First came the news in the Washington Post that a new start up (Peeple, because the concept alone wasn't creepy enough without hinting at clandestine viewing) was coming to be "Yelp for everyone", where users would get to post reviews of, well, anyone they'd meet.

After the WaPo shot the fish in the barrel for a few hundred words for privacy violations and the rights of the general public to not worry about getting their lives ruined by a problem neighbor with time on their hands, social media joined fire. Now, the founders are backpedaling to say that the reviews have to be positive and approved by the named user, so the too creepy but potentially voyeuristic and useful site is being replaced by non-stop fluffery that's unseen outside of a talk show couch.

A few points:

1) There is, of course, next to nothing shown here that you can't already do with other applications that you've already heard of; you can write a blog that says how so and so kicks puppies, start a Facebook page over how your 4th grade teacher is in need of abuse, and so on. The fact that no one uses them for this purpose, because it's beyond the pale of human decency and can't drive sustained traffic on its own, seems to have eluded everyone involved.

2) While the truth is always a defense against libel and slander, it's also generally difficult to prove, and expensive when court is involved. It's hard to imagine how a successful Peeple rollout wouldn't result in a great deal of work for the nation's lawyers, which is yet another reason to really dislike this.

3) Honestly, did we need another way to be horrible to each other?

4) Short of paying the site to not be on it, how is this a business?

No one reads the Internet for B+ opinions, and that 1 and 10 ranking rule isn't going to make for nice moments among humanity. We also, as individuals, tend to limit our marketability moments for, well, professional marketability, and to have who we are while on break or vacation or whatever impact our professional lives is always dicey... and even more so when, unlike a lapse on social media, it wasn't entirely self-inflicted, and indicative of a lapse in judgment.

I get that this is now a gig economy. But it really does not need to be a bad gig, with always-on criticism. Work-life balance, people.

* * * * *

Please like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the agency boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Brand Kid, or the Tuba Paradox

It's all about the Benjamins

This weekend, I took my eldest daughter, a high school sophomore, on her second college trip. We're trying to spread these out over a good period of time, so that she doesn't apply to any place she has not gotten a sense of, and that we don't rush when we get closer to a decision.

The school we visited would be a reasonable choice. It's far enough away so that commuting home on weekends seems unlikely, and as we're committed to giving her a residential college experience rather than a commuter one, that matters. One of my old college friends works for the school in IT Administration, so we got to see some stuff you don't get in the usual tour. The school does a few things very well, and if every visit is as productive as this one, this is going to be a great process.

My friend has been working in academia for most of her life, and knows a lot about, well, a lot. After quizzing my kid about her likes and dislikes, and getting to a comfort level with her overall intellect and ability to withstand direct questioning, the conversation went into a discussion that went far beyond the college we happened to be sitting in.

What my friend described was a situation where the process roughly mirrored the world of venture capital and start up businesses. The best schools may have a bigger sticker price for tuition, but they also have more to offer in terms or scholarships, grants and opportunities. It struck me as the same story and trade-off that you get by taking less money in salary to work for a more stable business, with better benefits, but potentially a worse title and chance to learn faster.

Third and fourth tier colleges are struggling to overcome demographic shifts in the marketplace to stay in business, just as third and fourth tier start ups struggle against competitors with deeper pockets and better engineering. If you are willing to go to places that others are not, or have strengths that are uncommon, your prospects are brighter -- in college and in business. While going to a bigger school might seem to put you in line with a bigger alumni and social network, small schools are frequently more tight-knit and provoke a better outcome.

On some level, it should be noted, this all seems contrary to the goals of a better society. Education should be about a meritocracy, a levelling agent between calcifying income classes, and a more or less equal playing field... and nothing described above really fits with that. But on another, it just makes sense, especially since this is likely to be one of the most important decisions my daughter makes in her life... and affluent parents just aren't going to sit idly by and not try to give their child an advantage. What's a better item to spend on?

Turning back to the conundrum that colleges find themselves in, let's say you are the dean of admissions at a school that is known for an active music program, a great English department, and a science school that hasn't been able to attract top talent. You would appreciate the registrants that want to study English... but what you really need are kids who want to study science. And if one of them happens to play the tuba, and you don't have one of those right now? You're going to make that kid your best possible offer, and do everything you can to make sure that they are part of your next class. But if the tuba trick becomes known, and suddenly there are thousands of tuba players in the market, that skill loses its magic.

It was all good information, and got my kid to stop being afraid of applying to better schools, and to not let sticker price start and end all decisions. Hopefully, it will all end with what all parents want -- a college experience for their kid that's as good or better than what they had. And the right fit for her needs.

Oh, and one last thing, in re how all of this relates to marketing and advertising?

New technologies, especially with remote learning and the Internet of Things, are just going to grease the skids for also-ran schools in the US, who were already on the very wrong side of trends in regards to population. That level of serious worry permeates the presentations of even schools that are above that tier. And as more and more information about positive outcomes after school are shared, it's going to get harder and harder for the ordinary to survive.

On some level, it was all oddly reassuring. I've spent my life being convinced that academia was a place that just raised tuition prices without regard for the pain and suffering of parents and students. Turns out, they are as subject to market forces as everyone else.

* * * * *

Please like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the agency boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.

Ad Blocking vs. Mobile Blocking

Yes, So Very Sorry

For the past couple of weeks, AdLand has been awash in discussions about ad blockers. What was previously the province of a growing but tolerated number of techies is now mainstream behavior, ever since Apple supported the programs with their new platforms, and popular blockers have gone to the Droid system as well. With exceptional abuses like publishers producing 4X the memory bloat on trackers for cookies and ads as opposed to content, and data plans costing real money, it's easy to see why the apps are popular, despite the moral culpability. Besides, as the history of the music industry has shown, if you give people the technology to steal without any real threat of consequence, people will steal.

All of which has left me with one very small, and very out of touch and out of the demographic, question.

What is so wrong with the desktop and laptop experience that has made all of the traffic go to phones, anyway?

I understand, honestly, why some forms of content work better on mobile. If there is, well, Adult Utility going on, a screen that is more portable is clearly preferable. Certain dayparts are also going to be dominated by mobile. But what we're seeing from a data standpoint now is that it's not just the screen that is preferred in those hours, it's also the one that you use when you have the option to use something bigger, in the evening and weekends.

Why, especially when the mobile Web experience is so much worse than the desktop one, let alone something that puts you at risk for data issues that just don't exist on other platforms?

If you went to a print magazine and told them that they had to make a second version on much smaller stock, they just wouldn't do it. But everyone makes a mobile site.

Laptops are similar in real price (i.e., the lack of a contract) to smartphones, and dramatically less likely to be lost or dropped. They also let you type without the constant threat of error and/or auto-correct, and there's all kinds of extremely useful apps for those machines. Many of them with significantly less bugs and other issues. There's the nasty problem of people treating laptops as Work Only, and not wanting to put their personal browsing history on a machine that can be traced by an employer, but honestly. Having a second laptop isn't going to break the bank of most people.

There is, however, almost no sexiness in having the latest and greatest laptop. And that, really, is the crux of it, isn't it? Smartphones are stylish, customizable, and take away the point that people never really wanted -- the relentless literacy, since there's this big imposing keyboard that makes you type -- eww, words! -- and replaces it with an endless junk drawer of apps. Hoarding without the shame, on a screen no one will ever see but you.

If I were in charge of an upscale online publisher, I'd advertise my publication's full-size version -- aka, the actual Web site -- on my mobile site. I'd investigate having longer and better versions of my content that lived on full-sized hardware only. I'd put all of the cool Easter eggs that my content team could deliver on that site as well. Then, I'd price my ads to match the much better experience for full-sized viewing. I'd also try to put the ad-blocking software in place, again, for full-screen viewing only.

I'd also probably run the site into the ground in a month.

Which, judging from the hue and cry coming from online publishing over ad blocking, just means I'd get to the same place as everyone else. Just in less time.

But at least I'd have a dramatically better epitaph for that career.

* * * * *

Please like or share this column, connect with me on LinkedIn, or email me at davidlmountain at gmail dot com, or hit the agency boxes at top right. RFPs are always free, and we hope to hear from you soon.