I am a Google Zealot. This is nothing, new, especially to those that know me. There are many, many aspects of my identity and the data that goes along with it, which are tied to one or more Google-related products. This is not to say that my life is an open-book, prone to scrutiny by random web-users from Buenos Aires or anything. I’m quite careful about the information that I opt to post online, as should everyone of course.

However, I was organizing/clearing out some items in Gmail the other day, when my eyes casually fell upon the indicator at the bottom of the screen that lets you know how much space you have left in the ever-expanding Google datastore. “You…blablabla…3% of 7400MB. Wow, 7400MB is a lot of-…wait. 3% I’ve got about 250MB of stuff on here.” I sat back and thought about that number, drawing relatively silly, almost cartoonish analogs just to get a sense of how much data that really is.

~230 floppy disks (remember those?).
~17,000 average (15K) Word documents, or about as many email messages of similar size.
~125,000 Twitter posts (to get even sillier, this is roughly equivalent to 14 tweets per hour, for a year)

That’s quite a bit of data!

…Sorry.

Then I wondered what I would say if a company were to come to me and say “Hey. So would you let me follow you around for a year and record what you say 14 times an hour? Oh and we’re not going to pay you for this information either. Oh and we’re also going to use this info to show you some advertising here and there.” Were I walking around just going about my daily life, I *might* have a problem with this. I mean, I don’t know if my shower-stall rendition of “Poker Face” is anything I want people listening to, never mind recording (Note: I do not actually sing in the shower.)

But the fact of the matter is, as I mentioned before, I’m making a conscious decision to post information online. As such, I’m aware that when using a Google service/product (for free), that information might actually be looked at. This is not to say that I’m allowing them to do whatever they want with it, mind you. Depending on the context (more on that in a second), I usually take a conservative approach and just presume that whatever post online will be considered public domain. Period.

What’s this about context you say? Well, truth be told, there are in fact some small corners of the internet that are marginally more “obscure” than others. I’m not talking about seedy underground file-sharing sites or any other “non http” source. I’m referring to the fairly niche clusters of community-oriented sites, blogs, forums and portals that serve members with similar interests. ArsTechnica, xkcd, Orchid Forums, and even certain social networking groups are just a few examples. Popular in their own right, and yet focused enough to attract users who search for information within a particular subset of info.

This is not to say that you shouldn’t be cognizant of material that you post in these instances, but it does tend to be the case that the level of familiarity amongst users in these sub-cultures is high enough to allow certain things (Vacation photos, discussions regarding family members etc…) to pass. But I digress.

As time goes on, more and more of your information is going to end up in the cloud. It is inevitable. The netbook segment of the hardware market is exploding. Businesses are adopting cloud infrastructure, enabling their employees more flexibility and freedom to work wherever they want to, physically separated from their information/data. Data storage limits are at a point where petabyte thumb drives (~1,000,000 Gigabytes, people) aren’t that far off. As far as cost/benefit goes, it just makes more sense (for now). We look at the concept of “unlimited storage space” today, in very much the same way we looked at the concept of smart-phones 5 years ago. Nifty sounding tech, but there are too many limitations to make it feasible for the consumer market… look how that turned out. So as this data migration occurs, it just makes sense to realize that parts of our identity are going to do the same.

I’m allowed 2 TNG references in once post.

I came across the following article just now, in which Twitter founder Biz Stone hinted at the company’s plans to generate some Benjamins in 2010 and beyond. Apparently they’re not in much of rush to do so.

Wired Article: Twitter To Make Money In 2010 With ‘Non-Traditional’ Ads: Biz Stone

Stone stressed the company mantra was that it was in no hurry to come up with a business plan, and needn’t be.

“There are no dates when we need to break even. We have plenty of money in the bank,”

Ok, I get this. You need a plan before you can go out and start generating revenue. But the general tone seems to indicate that while they’re doing all of this planning, the rest of the world is going to sit around and wait for them. I know that there aren’t that many direct competitors with the big T, especially those that have as deep pockets. I just don’t know if this seemingly laissez-faire attitude is the right way to go though. It doesn’t take long for the lions to realize there’s slow moving prey on the savannah.

Granted, Twitter’s recently acquired another 100 million dollars in funding without breaking a sweat. That beats my recent efforts by… about 100 million (you know, give or take). I’m definitely going to be keeping an eye open to see what their “non-traditional” advertising model is all about. Personally, I’d like to see something along the lines of flyers being dropped from giant neon zeppelins shaped like blue, fire-breathing Twitterbirds.

I’m going to put the content from this post (God help me, I was *this* close to calling it a ‘tweet’) into two separate buckets: One to describe the differences between my initial and present perceptions of this 800-pound social media pachyderm, and one to describe what’s remained largely the same.

Where I went wrong:

Prior to it’s explosion in 2008-2009, Twitter had been around quietly adopting a modest userbase since about 2006, playing off of the same basic model as other microblogging platforms like Pownce, Identi.ca and others. Outside of the blogosphere though (yes, that was me you heard sighing at another term I despise using), virtually nothing was known about it. When I first started looking into the service, my guess was that the VAST majority of users would be essentially be of the “fast-food” variety. Get in fast, get a quick bite, get that heavy, bloated feeling as you wonder why you’re there in the first place, and then get out.

I also assumed that commercial entities/businesses would fail to see value in it, based on the fact that the business world is just NOW starting to understand the benefits of social tools. Further, I assumed the celebrosphere (… give me that one at least? They’ve done a LOT worse.) would embrace Twitter for as long as takes FOX to cancel a series, and be done with it.

Well,… not so much. Though current numbers suggest that there are crests and troughs with regards to who uses Twitter and for how long, there are FAR many more persistent users than I thought there would be (to be conservative) figure 1 million people broadcasting their lives in little micro-bursts over the course of the last year).

Amongst the masses is an unexpected group of users; the same businesses that I thought would have turned a blind eye to this thing. Sony Pictures, Time Magazine, the Discovery Channel, the Beeb… the list goes on. Mind you, there are a few that I totally expected to be there from the start (Explore Music and iTunes Trailers being among them).

As far as celebrity involvement that pushes beyond the boundaries of toy-dog updates and upcoming project promos? They’re there as well, and the list extends beyond the usual suspects. People like ICE-T (yes that ICE-T) broadcast daily images, quotes, and fields questions in between filming on set. “DJ” John Larroquette is among the many people posting their latest musical selections using Last.fm’s popular service. Drew Carey recently offered to donate $1 for every follower he obtained (up to 1,000,000) to the Live Strong Foundation. I can’t be the only one who finds that even slightly innovative.

Where I was right:

Even given a level of interaction and involvement amongst the Twitter community that is MUCH deeper than I anticipated, the overall environment is still dominated by spectators and transient users. Amongst my own very meager following, I’ve had people post once or twice and then go dead silent ever since. This is expected though, regardless of the technology or service that you look at (How many people out there have a blog with less than 3 posts?). However, I think this will change once a much tighter integration between mobile services and handsets is introduced. Twitter has to be part of every mobile device out there, by default, full stop. Further, proper data plans and pricing need to be there to support it (especially in Canada.)

A significant percentage of accounts out there are spambots (especially porn related spam bots). That’s just reality. Where technology evolves, porn will follow. Like it or not, the adult industry is a leader in technology development and innovation, and their balance sheets will indicate nothing less. There are a few tools and services out there that attempt to minimize the intrusion (no pun intended), but by and large it’s best to just click and unfollow these sexy, language challenged sirens when they come knocking.

Lastly, the following remains true about Twitter: For every person out there that “gets” it, I can guarantee you that there are probably 5 more that don’t. I’m gradually making my way over to the “get it” camp, but I’d still need to see exactly where this company is going in the next 12 months before the lightbulb goes to go off in my head. Is there a business model, or is it all about building a userbase? Does it maintain its residence as a “site”, or does it truly make its home on mobiles? How will commercial interests be accommodated?

As far as I’m concerned, this is still very much a “wait and see” game.

It’s Christmas morning, and you’re 5 years old. You rush downstairs before everyone else and start tearing into that one gift that’s been teasing you with its shiny wrapping and big red bow for what seems like forever. Shreds of paper begin to rain down as your eyes widen at the sight of… a brand new chemistry set.

That’s pretty much how I felt about Google Wave when I first looked received my invite. It could be awesome… later, once I actually figure out what to do with it. But because it’s in limited beta right now, there aren’t really enough people that I can interact with in order to take advantage of all of its features. … Ok, a chemistry set isn’t really a social device, but you get my drift.

Don’t get me wrong. I “get” why it’s awesome. I just haven’t been able to experience it for myself. Depending on how long it’s in beta (which is likely to be quite some time, given their track record with their other products) I suppose the userbase will grow, and soon we’ll all be engaged in really rich conversations about the most recent episode of House, or how much I loathe green peppers or something.

That’s one of the things that amuses me about the mass audience (myself included). We seem to crave really cool, ever advancing technology to perform the simplest of tasks. The vast assortment of new applications dedicated to interesting ways to churn out 140 character posts on Twitter is proof of this. What do any of these apps do that’s really THAT much different from sending a text message to one or more people? Further, given that there IS a difference, how many of us take full advantage of even the most basic features? Given the iconic nature of the image below, I’m willing to bet it isn’t many.

If you’ve seen any of the trailer videos for Google Wave, they make a pretty good case for how it could be used in the course of daily events. A near seamless blending of email/IM/texting etc., making the sharing of information that much easier. But given the ever present challenge of convincing people to change their online habits (IE is still the leading web browser, despite Firefox/Chrome/Safari being better products in my opinion), I’m a little apprehensive about how fast this will take place. This isn’t merely a new tool, it’s a new toolset that’s going to require people to change the way they think about how they communicate.

I guess, as with most things, we shall wait and see. If anyone else out there has access to Wave and wants to give it a spin, drop me a line at my Gmail account (Chris DOT Baboolal).

The most annoying thing about me, well the “online representation that is me”, is something that happens when you do a standard Google search for my name.

Over the years, I’ve become somewhat possessive over the first page of search results for “Chris Baboolal”. I figure my last name is uncommon enough that I should be able to dominate the first page without very much effort. And by most accounts, I do.

By most accounts. Settling in the top 3 (or sometimes, much to my chagrin, at #1) is a Facebook result for an individual who IS NOT ME, Chris Baboolal. I repeat, I – Chris Baboolal – am not one of the 3 younger-looking people in this person’s profile picture who are happily flipping the bird to the entire world. In fact, aside from the dummy account that’s linked to this blog, I’m not even on Facebook! I am however, the Chris Baboolal that appears in the LinkedIn entry, the Chris Baboolal that appears as the owner of this blog, the Chris Baboolal that appears in the AgencyScoop profile, and so on.

My issue isn’t so much with my namesake from Facebook. In fact, he’s probably completely unaware of his search result placement. At least I hope so. Unless you posess the same nerdish leanings as I do, personal-SE rankings aren’t the kind of thing the average human loses that much sleep over. My issue is moreso to do with the fact that people remain largely clueless about how their online information is accessed and presented to the rest of the world (as I indicated in my previous blog post).

This world – that of SEO, Web 2.0, social media, and all other things “Digital” – happens to be the world that I play in, and make my living from. Further, as Gina Trapani has mentioned recently, Google has largely replaced the business card when it comes to exchanging professional information. Given that, the content of the first page [of search results] may be slightly more relevant to “this” Chris Baboolal (me) than others.

The problem of course is that Facebook is such a behemoth, that trying to knock “that” Chris Baboolal off of the first-page would be about as successful as trying to ressurrect the career of Pauly Shore. Nonetheless, the only failed effort is the one that ceases I suppose. Alright, how many is that…*counts* 8. Not bad.

Well, we’ll see if see how much of an effect this has on the top 3 results at least. Until then, this is Chris Baboolal.

Chris Baboolal Chris Baboolal Chris Baboolal … *runs*

Before I ramble, let me qualify by pointing out that this may very well be common knowledge amongst the few enlightened individuals out there that “get it.” I fully and completely admit that I quite simply didn’t get it (and I probably still don’t). I’ve been on Twitter for a while now, taking mental note of what’s going on and how it works. I think I can communicate the essence of what Twitter is, in one simple word.

Everything I’ve experienced with Twitter thus far has enforced the idea that it’s all about the present, give or take the last 12 hours or so. People could care less about what happened on Twitter before then. I haven’t seen anyone retweet something that’s older. Trending topics only seem to cover that time span as well.

It’s NOT an archive. It’s NOT a storage space, or a “traditional” online community that’s geared towards sifting through past content. It’s a constant stream of peoples’ personal bi-lines and reference links that … for reasons that still elude me, seem to generate interest. I’m not exclusive from that group either. I’ve often found myself responding and contributing to that stream just as everyone else is.

Maybe there’s nothing to explicitly understand. Perhaps Twitter is no different than conversation amongst large groups of people in an offline context as well. Now there’s a thought. What would conversation look like if I were to say, plonk myself down in the middle of a busy courtyard or some other meeting place where people engage each other. Would it be the similar?

… more to come.

As I fell asleep last night, a thought began to coalesce which accurately summed up what I’ve learned so far from being on Twitter. About a half hour later I woke up in a daze and wrote down that thought, hoping to expand on it at some point today. Of course, when I looked at that note this morning it was apparent that my moment of clarity was anything but (hence the title of today’s post – 2 points to anyone who gets the reference):

Fortunately, with a little caffeine and some online radio tunes, I’m able to recover some of the highlights. The early-adopt / early-abandon method was definitely taken by a LOT of people, as evidenced by several accounts that only 1 or 2 posts in the first couple of days since joining. There’s a strong, active community of people (celebs and non-celebs alike) that post no less than a half a dozen random thoughts per day. And then there are some that post one or two well-crafted thoughts with attached links whenever the mood strikes. Of course, there’s a healthy number of hybrid Twitterers (Tweeters? – forgive me, I still haven’t really absorbed the clique-lingo) that fill out the scatterplot as well, of which I consider myself to be one of.

From what I gather, people haven’t come to a consensus about exactly WHAT Twitter is. To some it’s a blog, to others it’s a megaphone, and still yet to others it’s like some sort of lasso, used to corral the random thoughts of others for later processing. As I posted some time ago, it’s not unique, but I suppose all that matters is that it’s still standing.

Some other random highlights:

Brent Spiner – Still amusing, still weird, still strangely compelling to read.
Alan Cross – Yet another channel to follow one of radio’s most knowledgeable and entertaining personalities.
@EverySpam/PornBot that has ever added me to their list – Perpetual proof that there will always be a mechanism out there to add noise to balance out the signal.

I’ll keep this (kinda) short, because I expect that among the people reading this, there will be some who know me, and some who don’t. Of course, that expectation presupposes that a lot of you actually read this blog. Hah. We’ll see I guess. Oh, and for those of you that don’t know me, don’t get scared off by the title of this blog. I’m not trying to sell you anything.

I signed up for Twitter a few years ago when a friend (@joanna) introduced me to it. I hadn’t used it since. I’ve posted quite a bit about it in the past, but I’ve never actually used it.

As time went by, I heard about more and more people hopping on, but I never took to it. I just didn’t get it. In fact, I still don’t. As far as the communication angle is concerned, I’m already waist deep in instant messengers, websites, message boards, text messages and a cellphone. So why am I here/there then?

Well, I’ve noticed that like with many mechanisms of communication, people use Twitter in very different ways. Some people are letting the world know about their breakfasts, some are self-promoting, some are staying in relatively close circles of communication, and some people are actually engaging in conversations with, well, just about everyone. This is something I didn’t expect, and in retrospect it should have been obvious.

One look at the list of people that I’m following, and your next question is probably…”WTF?” Well, there’s no semblance of order there, really. In addition to the few people that I know, I just started going through the lists of people that were following others, and adding names that I recognized. I will admit that I was rather surprised when I was notified via email that “Richard Moll is following you on Twitter!” Now, this is likely due to the fact that some people return the favour of a follow-action in order to expand their own networks. But hey, I thought it was kinda neat regardless. Thanks Richard!

So I guess I’m here to [attempt to] join the conversation. I’ll be blogging (here) about some of the things that I really can’t cram into 140-characters, but I’ll also be in and amongst some of you, trying to be somewhat entertaining, but mainly trying to figure this whole Twitter thing out.

Cheers!

Here are some quick points to ponder that have me wondering about… well, just about everything.

1) According to Nielsen, The Weather Network was the 4th most accessed site (in Canada) on mobile phones in Q1/2009. They beat out Yahoo Mail, Gmail, iTunes, Google Maps, MSN Games, and YouTube. Windows LiveMail, Google Search and Facebook took the top 3 spots.

Think about this. 674,000 people were in a position where they needed to access information that is questionably accurate at the best of times. Further, it’s winter in Canada (Q1 2009). You do not need a network of trained meteorologists to tell you that it’s going to be COLD.

2) I’ve decided to use the Twitter account that I had abandoned 3 seconds after signing up for it upon its birth, to actually, genuinely see what the fuss is all about. I don’t know if I plan on updating it. I want to see if I can establish a really ecclectic list of people to follow for starters. My first reaction? Following Brent Spiner is equal parts amazing, creepy, and disturbingly addictive. I’d definitely suggest checking out his feed.

“ALARM! ALARM! Someone has breached the security system! “Ernst, Ernst, to me! (learned that from Picard) STAT! (learned that from ER)”

3) The same could be said about any specialized industry, but I’ve always found the task of describing what I do to be a difficult task, especially when the person asking isn’t in the industry (specifically if said person is older and happens to be in my family). I usually start off explaining a particular project, stepping back to mention that it’s in the Digital Marketing space, stepping back once more to mention that it’s just marketing with a particular technology spin to it, and finally I resort to grunting “I do computers.” This is usually met with a lightbulb reaction and a remark similar to “Ah yes. My friend/your cousin Jane is a programmer too!” It’s usually at that point that my soul dies a little and I start fantasizing about violently dramatic ways to escape the conversation and/or the room.

…is that (unfortunately) they don’t resonate with the majority of the North American audience.

Now, a few points I need to clarify here:

1) I’m in North America.
2) I’m not calling the general public a bunch of morons. … …
3) I’m not under the impression that this is a ‘new’ idea.

I’ve been going through the archives at http://www.ibelieveinadv.com/ and I just started to notice that whenever I’d smile and nod, savouring that “a-ha” moment that really good ads are known for inducing, it would be due to one of the non-North American teams at BBDO, Publicis, Oglivy etc etc etc… Seldom were those moments the result of an ad that was grown and cultivated here on this side of the pond.

This post however, is not about the differences between the North American market and… pretty much the rest of the world. I just wanted to make a few observations about ads that make me wonder about them for a little while after I’ve seen them, and the effect that has on the brand the ad is trying to represent. It tends to be the rule rather than the exception, that advertisers want their customers to “get it” immediately after they consume one of their ads. Sometimes, that actually works:

There’s an instant connection/spark/kick to the groin upon delivering their message. However if this fails, well then you can always resort to plan B; play the ad 10-15 times an hour, plaster it within view of any moving organism with a pair of eyes and shove it in every paper publication available on the news stand in order to beat your message over the heads of the public.

Or… you can do something like this (click the image to go directly to the IBIA site):

Now I’m completely open to the fact that I may just be obtuse and I didn’t “get it” instantly. But those of you that (like me) looked at it for a bit and went “…what?” will know what I mean. The internal monologue in my head switched on, and I started to wonder about what exactly was going on here.

There’s a shirt, a tie… a rather extreme closeup of said things. Hmm… It’s for Clearasil. They’re an acne cream. There’s not much of the guys face in the ad. “Say hello to the mirror…” What does that mean? … That guy’s collar’s kinda weird. You’d think he would ha-…

Now here’s an ad that just got me to stare at it for about the same length of time as an average television spot, and all it had in it was a picture of a shirt and a tie (and some stubbly dude). Is this going to have the same effect on me as an ad that repeats… *ahem* ad nauseum (sorry), or one that appeals to my sense of kitsch like a cute ol’ grandma wondering about the location of misplaced beef? Perhaps, perhaps not. I suppose the real question is, what kind of brainpower does one need to apply towards perceiving an ad (active or passive) before that ad becomes ‘effective’? Further, if both types of perception result in increased sales, does it really matter?

As usual, leaving you with more questions than answers,… cheers.