March 19th, 2006
The Web 2.0 Blinders Phenomenon
The discussion about MySpace on tech.mememorandum this morning is dripping with irony. On the one hand, you have the MySpace apologists, arguing that what teenagers do on MySpace is no different from what teenagers of past generations have done to rebel and be different, and that parents should just teach their children well and not worry. On the other hand, you have a cautionary article about the perils of posting about yourself online, because that information becomes forever Googleable by employers and other interested parties.
I think the Web 2.0 (and MySpace) fan club is wearing a heavy set of blinders. We are only just beginning to understand the implications of this new technology. To say there’s nothing new or unknown about people’s use of it is DEEPLY NAIVE.
Have all the parents like Fred Wilson and Kathy Sierra, who think they are hip enough to “understand” what their kids do on MySpace, thought through the implications of the BW article? They may remember showing poor judgment as teenagers — that’s why we don’t let them drink or vote — but none of their coming-of-age mistakes has a permanent digital record.
This is the blindness of orthodoxy that the bandwagon causes, which is why no one saw the crash coming for Internet 1.0. (Some did see it coming, of course, but they were told they didn’t “get it” either.)
The supremacy of contextually relevant advertising is another example. Here’s the initial results from an eye tracking study by behavioral targeting ad agency TACODA:
In tests late last year, TACODA’s researchers recruited 30 human guinea pigs at malls in New Jersey and Southern California. They hooked them to an eye-scanning camera and recorded every darting movement as the subjects were shown 50 identical Web pages. The result: The ads placed on pages unrelated to the advertisements’ message actually attracted 17% more looks.
Or how about the related belief that search advertising will continue to grow forever (the following is from the same BW article):
But advertising executives predict that the display banners and videos that appear on Web pages will outpace search this year. “Most of the big money [advertisers] — cars, movies, packaged goods — are putting more of their budgets into display,” says Jeff Lanctot, general manager at agency Avenue A/Razorfish (AQNT ), the world’s largest buyer of Internet ads. “We think growth in search will fall back in ‘06.”
I remain committed to the position that it is better to be skeptical and question than to rationalize away — or worse — remain completely blind to the risks and the unknowns.
Topics: Advertising ROI | MySpace | Online Advertising | Search | Web 2.0
Powered by 
Design by 
You’re missing the *real* creepiness about something like MySpace.
It isn’t what it empowers kids to do and sure there will be stories of abuse and exploitation by the fringes of society. These are concerns that shouldn’t be shrugged off, however, you find these in any public space where there is a mass of people participating.
No… it’s what it empowers corporations and governments to do. To see, measure, track and record behaviours, beliefs, material wants/needs, and networks, as never before.
Danah Boyd says what makes MySpace so powerful to kids is it empowers them to create youth space:
http://www.danah.org/papers/AAAS2006.html
I think she’s right. And I think this is an opportunity for social marketers and those who want or need knowledge of the habits, beliefs, and desires of individuals (lets say before a hiring takes place). There should be no doubt these forms of more subtle exploitation are too huge not to be taken advantage of.
It’s not bike riding. Bike riding takes place with a small number of friends, in relative privacy among them. No, this is skinny dipping in the Delaware River with a million cameras on you 200% of the time - broadcasting it to millions - and never forgetting a minute of it - nor being allowed to.
Banner advertising? You gotta be kidding me. Clay Shirky’s piece on powerlaws and cyberspace is just as applicable on MySpace as it is in blogging. I predict stories of kids who have many, many friends getting invites to parties and getting products to spread buzz in the short order. Product advertizing thru word of mouth. Its most powerful form. And in MySpace, empowered as never before.
I seriously doubt what I’m bringing up will get discussed to any real degree. We will end up with too many folks going “my kid has nothing to hide” so it’s okay.
Allowing our kids to be exploited is *never* okay. Especially when such exploitation can have deep repercussions that effect their entire lives.
Good job in these posts Scott. As you can see I disagree with some of your concerns - but the discussion should happen. We need to be honest about the trade offs we are empowering here. MySpace is wonderful. It is empowering. And a real discussion based on real consequences - and not fringe/hyped threats - should happen. I doubt it will.
Regarding contextual ads, 17% more looks for non-related content does not interest me. What would be interesting would be the amount of clicks. We are seeing great clickthroughs on contextual ads for our business– granted it is just one piece of the advertising pie, and I would never argue for ’supremacy’ of any one ad medium. But just because “punch the monkey” gets 15% more looks then a contextual ad doesn’t mean contextual ads don’t perform better overall.
[…] And while I can empathize with the argument, it does seem that these services can pose a unique reputational risk for the kids longer-term. As Scott Karp of Publishing 2.0 puts it:"…none of their coming-of-age mistakes has a permanent digital record."BusinessWeek Online has a good piece highlighting these potential dangers. An excerpt:"Googling people is also becoming a way for bosses and headhunters to do continuous and stealthy background checks on employees, no disclosure required. […]
Scott, you might consider asking people before you pretend to know what they actually *think*. You have it 180 degrees wrong–I am just “hip” enough to know –beyond any doubt–that I can NEVER understand my daughter’s life in the context of myspace.
However, I might assume that anyone who could say, “reputable local media outlets (which have no obvious ax to grind with MySpace)” may be wearing blinders of his own. But that’s a slightly different topic…
I do believe we are all wearing blinders to one degree or the other, and it’s good that you’re talking about it and raising concerns. Whether we should be afraid or not is unclear to me, but we certainly can’t just ignore it. But please, if you intend to make sweeping statements about what someone thinks, it would be good practice–and helpful to your readers–if you checked your facts.
Kathy,
I have no doubt that my blinders are firmly attached, which is why I keep flailing around trying to find my way — you’re right about the local media — nobody is above reproach.
I apologize if I mistakenly stuck you in the camp that appears unconcerned about what kids are doing in MySpace — that’s the problem with virtual conversations — there’s no tone and only as much context as people publish. I’ve been misconstrued all over the web. That’s what happens when we put ourselves out there — we become symbols, not people with complex thoughts.
But I guess the positive evolution is that you can come here and set the record straight, and I’m very glad that you did.
I think the concern over MySpace is not the understanding gap between parents and teenagers — that’s been around since the beginning of time. It’s that no one really knows where this technology is taking us, which creates a whole new layer of uncertainty for parents.
Scott, apology accepted : )
My first reaction is *always* to assume the media is trying to create fear– I have a lot of first-hand experience with that. But you have made me think about this a little more deeply. My daughter is 19, so my perspective is VERY different (and less afraid) than if she were 14 and just getting into MySpace.
“It’s that no one really knows where this technology is taking us, which creates a whole new layer of uncertainty for parents.”
For *all* of us, but yes — especially parents.
be a matter of permanent record, potentially increasing their reputational mortality. So it’s an important distinction for us to keep in mind, and whenever appropriate, try and get them to “get it”. Here’s the thing. In the context that Michael andScott Karp are talking about, reputational mortality doesn’t matter. It’s a pre-1.0 attidude. The notion of privacy, as it existed pre-1994, is done. I doubt most teens get this, but it ultimately doesn’t matter, because
Saving the Mercury News: Could Yahoo Help? Word Press help Web 2.0 Meets Star WarsThe Web 2.0 Blinders Phenomenon Corporate Pensions to Become Even More Fraudulent links for 2006-03-19 WSJ.com redesigns New York Times to cut stock listings SXSW coverage online Behind The Post’s online efforts Boston.com fires blogger for plagiarism
Can you explain how exactly your post is about MySpace and not Internet in general? I really don’t see it.
If you’re afraid of having your kids talk to strangers, well, don’t let them on the interweb. As simple as that. MySpace or not, I don’t see how it is more risky than anything else.
Good point Vlad. Scott, MySpace is not “new” technology.
It’s just new to you.