Each category around the “wheel” represents a different type of conversation. By implication, each type of conversation serves a distinctive business purpose. Solis and JESS3 did the hard work. For each type of conversation they mapped the appropriate collections of social media tools. According to the “Prism”, Facebook and Linked-in serve different types of conversations. Facebook, MySpace and Friendster are Social Networks. Linked-In, Plaxo, Ning and others are Interest and Curated Networks. Most of us lump all of them into the same category.

As one moves around the wheel, other helpful distinctions become apparent. Forums, Reviews and Ratings (e.g. yelp, Epinions, Amazon), SMS/Voice, Lifestreams, Twitter Ecosystems, Micromedia (e.g. Twitter, Yammer), Blog Communities, Blog Platforms, Blogs/Conversations, Crowdsourced Content, etc serve different objectives and different types of conversations. Each conversation has a different collection of social media tools. One readily gets the idea. It immediately makes sense. Each of the twenty-four different types of conversation requires a different type of social media.

The taxonomy also marks a key milestone in the evolution of social media. A key indicator of the maturity of a discipline is the ability to create a meaningful typology. While the creators developed the Conversation Prism from a marketing perspective, the taxonomy applies to many other disciplines and contexts.

Here are some thoughts on how to use The Conversation Prism:

Marketing. Everyone is interested in getting more customer mindshare, establishing meaningful conversations and developing hot communities around products. But how? Distinguishing among the different types of conversations and tools helps to focus effort. Sean Moffitt, one of the key thought leaders in nGenera’s Marketing 2.0 program notes that Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and Flikr are key conversation forums, but one has to also match the conversation to the marketing objectives and the product or service. The Conversation Prism provides a way to rethink which types of conversation reach the best audience and achieve the right message and customer experience.

Enterprise Strategy. I’ve lost count of the many conversation with executives who simply dismiss social media as an irrelevant pastime or an “Extra-curricular” activity. Many think Facebook and MySpace are the sum total of social media when they are not. And often, social media is dismissed out of hand, to the detriment of an organization’s strategy, because everything is lumped together. The Conversation Prism cuts through the clutter and buzz and assigns the role and place of various types of social media. Use this taxonomy liberally for internal business strategy discussions, social media strategy, and most importantly, our soapbox – collaborative enterprise management.

Finance. Yes, finance. What does social media have to do with finance? Take a look at the wheel again. Armed with the taxonomy, the CFO or the controller for that matter can begin to think about where various tools might add value in conveying and explaining financial concepts, policies and performance. For example, quick relay of confidential financial information to small group would use a different set of social media than information disseminated to institutional investors, or retail investors. What type of conversation provides the best result for each constituency?

Information Technology. Increasingly, various groups expect the IT organization to recommend the right social media tool for the right problem. On what basis should these decisions be made? The Conversation Prism enables IT professional to understand the landscape and make recommendations based on desired business outcomes, not simply technical features. Bandwidth, storage, API’s, architectures, apps, widgets, gadgets and price vary by social media type. Some tools require internal infrastructure, other operate as SaaS in the Cloud.

Human Resources. Conversations and social media involve people. Duh. However, employees should understand appropriate use. Often, social media gets a bad name, or experiments fail, because the wrong tool is applied to the wrong circumstance. Ever consider using a text message for a performance review. Some have. Use “the wheel” to teach appropriate use.

The Conversation Prism provides a welcome tool as social media moves into its second stage of development. It surveys and maps the social media landscape. Perhaps other destinations will be added. However, in the mean time, The Conversation Prism, a simple framework, provides self-evident guidance to those who wish to profit from the social media revolution.

Laird has a MySpace page, a Facebook fan page, and has posted several videos on You Tube, including male-version mash-ups of some of Swift’s songs. But, his real stroke of genius came this month when Laird dropped his life savings on a giant billboard in front of Swift’s publishing house which reads: “Hey Taylor – I LOVE your music. Will you produce my album?” The sign also includes a link to his MySpace. Says Laird; “I needed a unique way to reach out to her because she’s really busy.” I think it’s a great example of how an expensive traditional media placement can be used to ignite a spark and drive traffic to free online venues (not unlike the Paris Hilton/Carl’s Junior phenomenon).

The strategy appears to have worked. In an interview with E! Canada, Swift said that she would “definitely want to meet him,” and “definitely want to hear more of his stuff.” Notably, the MySpace link was critical to the billboard’s success. Says Swift; “I went on his MySpace and listened to one of his songs and absolutely fell in love with it. […] It would be really cool to maybe work with him.” Even if Swift doesn’t elect to produce his album, the viral buzz around Ryan Laird is growing. In an interview with CMT, Laird talks about how about 16,000 of Swift’s MySpace fans have become his fans as well.

You can watch the entire story behind the billboard proposition in a video posted to Facebook.

Auditude explains how their technology will work as follows:

The new platform will automatically identify any uploaded video clips from a number of shows produced by MTV Networks (including my personal favorite “The Daily Show”), and will display an overlay when the clip is played that shows which episode the clip originally came from, its original air-date, and links to online stores where users can buy the entire episode. In the past it has been nearly impossible to effectively monetize user-uploaded videos because they are typically tagged with such informative titles as “REally cool!” and “hilarious”. The Auditude platform ignores this information, relying solely on fingerprints taken from the clip’s audio and video data. These fingerprints are matched to prints in Auditude’s massive database, which spans over 250 million videos and 4 years of television content, all sorted by show and airdate.

As the LA Times article notes, this is a distinct improvement from the old mindset of Let’s sue YouTube (or other video distribution platform) and block this. In the words of Auditude CEO Vance Ikezoye:

“The first stage was clearly more focused on ‘How do I protect my content as a copyright holder and how do I keep from being sued as a site publisher? The stage we are entering now is much more about openness to try new business models to try to monetize the content.”

To quote Jeff Berman, the President of sales and marketing at MySpace:

“This is a game-changer. We’re going from a world of no to a world of yes while protecting the rights of the copyright holder.”

While I agree this is good progress towards a wikinomics enabled business model, it’s notable that the plans make no mention of sharing ad revenue with the individuals that upload the content – i.e. the prosumers. That would be the real game changer to me – while not suing people anymore is a nice start, giving prosumers an economic incentive to help distribute the content, particularly if they are adding value to it in some way (a mash up, for example), could unleas a wave of innovation. It also wouldn’t be that hard to do – it just involves a slightly different split of the revenue, mimicing what the likes of YouTube are already doing with “pure” user-generated content.

When speaking with a few other GenX/Boomer parents this week it was interesting to hear that they were all aware of the dangers of letting their 12-15 year old children…especially their daughters on social networks, however not one of them could talk about the different security options on the sites. I was amazed that people that claimed to be very involved parents had not even visited the sites to see what they’re all about. Even if you “ban” a site from your home computer, do you think your kids aren’t logging on from their friends’ computers, or other places?

Look, I know there are crazies out there that take advantage of children online, but kids will get online one way or another so parents need to get involved sooner rather than later. As many internet safety sites state, in the end it all comes down to the time tested policy of open and honest communication with our children. Speaking to them about how the internet works, what is and is not appropriate behavior online and what concerns you have. Simply cutting off access or “spying” on your kids is not the answer. So, put away the PDAs and cell phones and have a straight forward talk to your kids. Am I preaching to the choir here? How do we reach those parents that are not electronically connected?

To those readers with pre-teen or teenage children please share your thoughts. What has worked/not worked for you?

For those interested, below is a small sample of the many internet safety sites available for both kids and parents:

The US Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA,  posts a list of safety rules for kids. Other sites include:

Safe Kids.com

Kids Health

For other info. an interesting UK Study was discussed by Andrew Keen

It’s a novel idea… A place for dogs and their owners to connect and interact. I checked out the site, and to be honest it seemed very sparse. I’m a dog lover and I’m not opposed to getting JD (best dog ever) his own page, but the site didn’t seem to offer much. There are very few features or networking tools to speak of. There are a few pics and videos: They were all about as exciting as Tylenol PM.

The idea isn’t bad but it is likely that they are just trying to capitalize off the success Myspace and Facebook have achieved.

Take a look at the site and let me know what you think. Does your best pal spike need his own page?

In one case, a defendant was sentenced to two years in prison rather than probation because between her DUI arrest and conviction, pictures were posted to her Myspace page showing her to be holding a glass of wine and joking about drinking. Distasteful, but not illegal. According to the prosecutor this photo evidence showed a sufficient lack of remorse on the part of the defendant and therefore warranted a harsher sentence.

This article very neatly describes what could become a very slippery legal slope. I bet that most of us have at some time or another heard about a case in which we were sure that the accused was guilty and had the thought that prosecutors should do whatever it takes to achieve a conviction. But there is something about prosecutors using photos accessed from social networking sites to secure a conviction that seems a little too ‘Big Brother-esque’ to make me comfortable with it.

I do not condone the behavior of the individuals mentioned in this article or others like them. But, I find it to be pretty scary to think that one’s innocent actions — irrespective of any bad taste — could be manipulated or misinterpreted so that they become sinister, even damning. It is important to remember that although a picture may be worth a thousand words those words often only make sense within a certain context.

The idea that a prosecutor may be able to paint the context of these pictures so clearly when they technically have nothing to do with the crime committed is frightening. In a world of transparency, where someone’s indescretions can be easily broadcast for all to see, is context lost? If it is, what right do we have to pass judgment on them?

This service is a great example of the collaboration which is taking place between rival internet companies. MySpace also collaborates with Ebay and Yahoo by allowing users to have one set of profile information that is shared by all 3 sites. These companies consider each other to be competitors, yet they are working together to create an easier, more efficient customer experience.

This is refreshing to see, and I for one would be happy to never fill out another pesky website registration ever again!

This was in response to a Missouri woman pleading “not guilty to charges in an Internet hoax blamed for a 13-year-old girl’s suicide.” Lori Drew, a 49-year old mother, allegedly created a fake Myspace account “to send cruel messages to a 13-year-old neighbor Megan Meier, a friend of Drew’s daughter, including one stating the world would be better off without her.” Meier committed suicide after these messages were received. You can read about the incident here.

With huge talks about Internet piracy it seems that Internet harassment is an issue we haven’t discussed. According to the survey, 73% of Americas believe that it is a crime to harass someone over the Internet. So what will the impact of this trial lead. I believe their will be substantial consequences to this trial because:

1) This is the first federal charge involving the well-known social networking website, Myspace.com, and

2) The decision of this trial will push law makers to address the issue of Internet harassment on not just a local level, but a national one

Now, I know that this is my second post about security (my first one covered internet infrastructure in Estonia but I believe it should be spread across the blogosphere. How can a parent sink so low to use a social networking site teens use to express themselves to emotionally hurt one of her daughter’s friends? If Ms. Drew is convicted it will be interesting to see what implications this decision will have. I will keep a close eye on this trial to see the final verdict. This just shows the Web 2.0 has evolved parenting. It appears that cyber-bullying is starting to get more attention and will soon raise concerns among parents.

So do you think the government should step up and pass policies to stop Internet harassment and cyber-bullying? How should social networking websites such as Myspace and Facebook address this issue?

If you don’t know who I’m referring to, you are clearly not one of the millions and millions of people that watched some iteration of this Chris Crocker video – now that would be a bad rumor to spread. You can check out the original, and all the other mash ups, at www.dilbert.com.

It turns out that these prankster masterminds might not be particularly bright, and tracking them down proved fairly easy – Ceponis viewed the video, tracked down one of the boys on MySpace, befriended him, found out where he lived, and called his mother (that sound you hear is a few hundred personal detectives going out of business). With the case then turned over to the criminal justice system, Ceponis was hoping for a very traditional remedy – a face to face apology. Instead, she found out they got 100 hours of community service, and were ordered to post a video apology on YouTube – which, because of juvenile prosecution laws, could not show their faces.

Many of the articles cover what is becoming well-tread ground: the question of whether YouTube has a responsibility to filter out such content. However, I think the bigger point here is the case that Ceponis made – these kids hid in the confines of a car to pull off a mean (and temporarily scary) prank, and then hid themselves on the video while ensuring Ceponis’ face was there for all to see. While I understand why the law forbids their faces to be shared on the video, allowing them to hide within it yet again was a mistake – it was time to put the technology away and make one person apologize to another, face to face.

It might also be worth noting that, as this article nicely covered, the prank had apparently died out, but the new video includes a reenactment of most of the prank (though they stop before throwing said fire in the hole, and describe why it was wrong), it’s now all over the TV, with interviewers like Matt Lauer running dozens of such clips to demonstrate what the full prank actually looks like. The Judge thought the apology will be a deterrent, but I’m with the side that thinks it will be anything but (I wonder what percentage of people that view the apology go on to view videos of the prank?). In turn, if you so happen to work at a drive-thru counter, you might want to be ready to duck for the next few days…

In the past week I’ve been invited to join three more networks: BlueChipExpert, Reunion.com, and Naymz (note, I am not adding hyperlinks, look them up yourself if you want). The last one bills itself as “powering reputable professionals.” Reunion.com wants to tease me with a salvo of “finding out who else is looking for me.” Sorry folks, you are too late. I’m sure you have a Powerpoint deck that you use to pitch VCs about how you only need 10% of Facebook, etc to provide an excellent ROI, but I’m not interested. If people want to find me…they can on one of the leading sites.

For those not savvy geeky enough to recognize the reference from the blog title, it is explained here.

A recent study undertaken by comScore provides the clearest evidence that the internet is changing the way companies engage with their consumers. ComScore counted the number of times that data is collected on an average website visitor every month. The notion is that more data allows advertisers to better anticipate the user’s needs and wants. The numbers are telling, especially when considered against more traditional advertising mediums. Yahoo leads with 2520 data points followed by MySpace’s 1416. This compares to Disney Online’s 64 or NBC Universal’s 38. The ability to gather customer data diminishes outside of the digital space, where currently most of the ads are viewed and heard. TV advertisers, for instance, are not able to do much beyond targeting ads based on geographical area or type of audience for a given program. Radio is in a similar boat.

But it is not smooth sailing for companies amassing large quantities of data. The issue of privacy is limiting what companies can do – Facebook’s Beacon and AOL’s release of search data are prime examples of missteps. In fact, a study of California adults indicates that 85 percent disagree with the practice of tracking their online behavior to target ads. It seems that the customer custodians will have to figure out a balance between protecting their user’s rights and monetizing their ability to anticipate their needs. ComScore’s study suggests that a few may have already stepped over the line.

However, With the advent of YouTube, Dailymotion and other video sharing sites over that past few years it has allowed Canadians to enjoy all of the greatness of Super Bowl ads. As I was watching the game this year I was amazed that numerous times during the game Fox was actually promoting the fact that all of the Super Bowl ads would be available after the game at MySpace.com/superbowlads. This is great, you can go and watch all of the ads CTV kindly blocked and they are nicely listed by the quarter in which they aired.

My real problem with the Super Bowl, specifically this year as I am a Pats fan, is that the same social media tools that enabled me to watch all of the ads I missed also will continue to add to my misery for days to come. Let’s just say I am not very happy with the outcome of the game, I didn’t watch the last 10sec, or any Sports Centre this morning in an effort to keep all Super Bowl related news at bay. The problem for a downtrodden fan like myself is that web 2.0 technologies are so pervasive its impossible to escape news these days. Facebook updates, RSS feeds, YouTube, Digg, SMS messages from friends who may have won copious amounts of money on the outcome, everywhere I turn I am reminded of the terrible tragedy that took place yesterday.

Thankfully cars.com created some great ads for the Super Bowl that helped take a little bit of the sting away (my favorite ad is below).

Perhaps in time social media also will provide me with some therapy, like this YouTube video that was created to help Cowboys fans overcome their disappointing season.

John Battelle took Facebook to task in a recent blog posting for presumably fighting the efforts of the Data Portability Workgroup. Facebook responded saying it’s committed to giving users control of their data on Facebook, but stopped short of committing to a completely open approach to portability. In fact, Facebook announced on Jan. 8 that it’s joining the workgroup. Some seem not to believe in Facebook’s commitment.

But the data portability situation brings up another issue: customer loyalty and “stickiness,” that overused term referring to the ability of a site or platform — or for that matter, a brick-and-mortar retail outlet — to maintain customers once they acquire them. With the ability to transport your profiles and experiences from one site to another with relative ease, a whole new concern arises for social networks and Web sites. If MySpace was concerned about losing audience to Facebook because of image, imagine the landscape when people can pack their bags and move on to the flavor of the month (or day, or hour) with relative ease. Salespeople say that the cost of acquisition (or reacquistion) of a customer is higher than the cost of retention; the same logic likely holds for retaining audiences on social networking sites. It’ll be interesting to see what these companies do to attract and retain fickle audiences once data portability becomes a standard. It was sad to see reputable news organizations pander to the common denominator with stories about celebutantes and video of stupid pet tricks when they began to battle for audience (because of the asinine business model based on pageviews, but that’s a blog for another day). Will social networking sites stoop to a lowbrow approach in an effort to build and maintain audiences? If so, I’ll be looking for other venues.

Hmm, maybe that’s a need someone isn’t working on right now…

Companies like Google, Yahoo, and AOL have been tracking everything we do for years. Although these companies claim that they only record demographic information and surfing behavior (i.e. you’re a 26 year old female, and frequently visit parenting Web sites), it really doesn’t take much to connect the dots and find out your name, address, and phone number. We saw how easy this was last year when AOL released users’ search data to the public, claiming to have no personally identifiable information. The reason why it is so easy to gather information is a result of human nature; everyone does a search now and then on Google to see where you show up on the search results, or look up on Google Maps to see your house from the satellite view. Now your online privacy isn’t so private, and heaven forbid you enter your credit card information, or phone number to see where that shows up.

Although I do support the efforts of a Do-Not-Track list, and preventing people from mining my information, I think it will have a small and unnoticeable impact on information gathering as a whole. AOL may stop tracking me, but I already know MySpace, Facebook, Google, and the list goes on, is already tracking everything I do and using it at their own discretion.

While you may not be able to stop yourself from searching on Google, you can change your searching behavior, and limit your use of non-essential Web sites. See an earlier post on four reasons you should remove yourself from Facebook.

The premise is that your online reputation (and identity) shouldn’t be fragmented across multiple sites, but rather holistic and portable so that people you interact with get a consistent view of you. Similarly, when you view others’ profiles, you should be able to see how they are rated at different online communities. Building on the post below, this could also help improve the “trustworthiness” of peer-to-peer transactions. From the company’s Web site:

Know who to trust. TrustPlus provides a customized Reputation Score in any situation, weighted by an unlimited number of factors, including who the person knows and the context of the interaction.

Use your good reputation anywhere on the Web. By building a reputation with TrustPlus, members can use it anywhere on the Web. Now online sellers can aggregate their reputations in one place and leverage them everywhere they sell online.

View anyone’s reputation. The “TrustPlus Reputation Viewer,” a browser add-on, allows users to view anyone’s reputation information on-the-fly and across multiple sites.

For more insights, also read the Globe & Mail article, “New reputation score follows you online.”

Interesting blog posting today from wired.com about whether Facebook and it’s ilk are moving the Internet in the right way? Or is it setting up more walled gardens.

 From the article:

Damn the Facebooks and the MySpaces. The last time we checked, there was this thing called the internet that had 6 billion users. It’s time to take our personal data out of Mr. McGregor’s little gardens and put it back where it belongs — free and open on the open web.

Social networks like Facebook and MySpace are taking the web by storm because they make it easy to manage your personal data and keep in touch with people you know. But to get value out, you have to put something in — photos, contacts, appointments, lists of your interests and your blog musings.

Therein lies the rub. When entering data into Facebook, you’re sending it on a one-way trip. Want to show somebody a video or a picture you posted to your profile? Unless they also have an account, they can’t see it. Your pictures, videos and everything else is stranded in a walled garden, cut off from the rest of the web.

Like locked cell phones and copy-protected music, Facebook is on the wrong side of the open-network debate. Facebook is a sealed bubble. Facebook users are locked into Facebook, just as iTunes locks music fans to Apple’s iPod.

This serves companies’ business interests, but not the wider interests of consumers. AOL, Yahoo and Microsoft have their own, proprietary instant-messaging systems. They’re all good, but they’d be better if they worked together. The iPhone would be better if it could also be used on Verizon’s and Sprint’s networks, and Facebook would be better if you could link to friends’ pages on MySpace and Bebo. Social networking should be based on open standards, just like e-mail.

Is it still six degrees of separation out there?

Is there still a need for “super connectors” to pull us all together?

As Anthony expanded on in his blog, the reason he asks these questions is a curiosity about how much more accessible everyone is in the age of the Web 2.0. After all, the six degrees of separation theory was based primarily on an experiment that involved how snail mail moved from Nebraska and Kansas to a stock broker in Massachusetts (participants were asked to send the letter to someone they knew on a first name basis that they thought would be more likely to know the broker than themselves) in the 1960s – things have changed a little since then.

For example, if you’re over 30 (which I am, even if you can’t tell from my Second Life avatar), think about how many people you were connected to in your mid to late teens. In all likelihood it was a relatively small group, most of the people probably lived pretty close to you, and over time you lost touch with many of them (particularly if you or they moved). After all, it takes a lot of work to maintain relationships with multitudes of people when phone and mail are your only options, and only a special few can (or bother) to do so – a.k.a. the “super connectors” made famous by Malcolm Gladwell.

Now contrast that with today, and how connections can be made, maintained, and in many cases rediscovered through Facebook, MySpace, various other community sites, and the like. There is no denying that we are becoming more connected, and it’s far easier to maintain these connections (even the ones you might want to be rid of…) – which takes us back to Anthony’s questions.

Exactly how small is the world getting, and in the world of social networking are super connectors waning in influence?

In turn, Anthony posted a few thoughts on how this issue could start being investigated, in addition to some of the challenges tied to it (particularly in defining what exactly a connection is). Does anyone have any other thoughts on how we might figure this out?

Decide whether or not to look. If you do look at social networking sites and blogs, create specific corporate criteria for what constitutes a red flag. Recruiters or HR professionals should not be rejecting people according to their own personal biases.
Context is key. Everyone has different personas for different situations. You’re not the same person with your boss as you are with your friends. If you’re searching for information about a potential candidate, consider the context in which it is posted.
Let them explain. Instead of ruling out a potential candidate right away because of a questionable post or photo, use the opportunity to ask them about it. Check the date of the post. If it’s from high school, their thinking has probably evolved. Use the interview as an opportunity for them to explain themselves to you—even talking about their mistakes can reveal a lot about character.
Partying can be a job skill. If you’re hiring for a position in sales or marketing, finding a N-Gener’s profile full of party pics could indicate that they have a skill set that might be help them do their job.
 

The goodie two shoes, jocks, athletes, or other “good” kids are now going to Facebook. These kids tend to come from families who emphasize education and going to college. They are part of what we’d call hegemonic society. They are primarily white, but not exclusively. They are in honors classes, looking forward to the prom, and live in a world dictated by after school activities.

MySpace is still home for Latino/Hispanic teens, immigrant teens, “burnouts,” “alternative kids,” “art fags,” punks, emos, goths, gangstas, queer kids, and other kids who didn’t play into the dominant high school popularity paradigm. These are kids whose parents didn’t go to college, who are expected to get a job when they finish high school. These are the teens who plan to go into the military immediately after schools. Teens who are really into music or in a band are also on MySpace. MySpace has most of the kids who are socially ostracized at school because they are geeks, freaks, or queers.

Of course, one could quite easily argue (and Boyd notes) that this division can at least partially be explained by the history of the two sites – since Facebook started out limited to college students, it was kind of hard for kids that don’t go to college to get on there and start poking each other. Now that Facebook has opened up to everyone, preferences could change, which Boyd is and will be watching with great interest.

Another interesting point she made was that a month ago the military in the U.S. banned MySpace, but not Facebook – and Boyd notes that typically (tied to the discussion above and the class divide) soldiers are/were on MySpace, and officers are/were on Facebook.

Such subjects are difficult to talk about and often make people uneasy, and Boyd notes she was “reticent about writing about this dynamic” due to a lack of appropriate language to describe what she is seeing, and worries that it could be misinterpreted… but it’s certainly an interesting issue to keep tabs on. For other papers and thoughts from Boyd, see here, or visit her blog at http://www.zephoria.org/thoughts/.

While this may not seem like ground breaking news, it’s an important step for Apple (and a scary progression for music companies). Below I have listed a couple of interesting points and questions that have come up.

• Apple is finally acknowledging the power social networking sites have in the music industry, and the importance of the reach of sites like Bebo, MySpace and even Facebook. Social networks provide iTunes with a direct pipeline into the lives of their target market. I am trying to think how to quantify this, and what comes to mind is Coke deciding to put pop machines in schools and completely infiltrating the habitats of their target market.
• The music scene isn’t just growing in these social networks, it now lives there. Bebo has 500,000 musicians registered, while MySpace has over 425,000 rock bands, 400,000 hip hop groups and 180,000 indie bands. As it stands right now iTunes will only be selling music from musicians who already are signed and are selling their music on iTunes. What happens if iTunes starts selling music for the most popular unsigned bands on Bebo or MySpace? What incentives do bands have to sign with the big labels?
• The Net Generation makes up the bulk of social networking site traffic. As I stated above, this is where the live, these sites are their social calendars and contact databases. It also happens that this Generation is enemy number one as far as the music industry is concerned when it comes to illegal downloads and piracy. Will offering youth easy access to digital music in the places they frequent have any effect on piracy? What if it the music they are selling is DRM free?

Where does this leave other social networking giants like MySpace or Facebook? Should they try and offer a competitive offering themselves? Will they partner with iTunes or develop an offering of their own? How the other large social networking sites proceed over the next few months should be interesting to see.

You know, like if you were the owner of the Los Angeles Lakers (Jerry Buss), and your star player had publically demanded a trade a few weeks ago, and issued a formal trade request to the team’s GM, while calling you a liar… and then backed off just a little bit, while leaving the trade demand on the table.

Somewhere in there you get busted for a DUI, are trying to figure out what to do about this Kobe thing, have a few meetings, and head off to China for a bit while a few of your family members offer thoughts on the subject here and there to calm things down a bit.

In such a case, you’d probably be doing one of two things – planning to keep Kobe in LA and hoping the story goes away (particularly to help with ticket sales and such), or planning to trade him. But even in the latter case, you kind of want other teams in the league to think you are leaning towards keeping him, in order to help with trade negotiations – rarely does the opening line “we really need to get rid of this superstar immediately – what will you give me?” maximize returns.

In turn, what you probably don’t want to see is your son posting this (as reported in the LA Times) on his MySpace page:

“If you’ve been following the Kobe drama, I want to let you know it’s not really drama … sometimes we all need to make a change in our lives and that’s all it is. Popular or unpopular, when it’s time, it’s time. Good luck Kobe wherever you go!”

Now Johnny doesn’t officially work for the Lakers like the rest of the Buss kids (son Jimmy is the assistant GM, daughter Jeanie is the VP of business operations), but he was the president of the Sparks (the WBNA franchise) until the team was sold recently, and it can be reasonably assumed he is in the loop.

He’s also not exactly a kid, and probably should have known better – because it sure doesn’t make it look like the team is as optimistic about keeping him in L.A. as some of the other family members are saying.

In terms of the end-game success of these companies’ efforts to purchase acquaintances, in a market where throwbacks are the new purveyors of cool and anything vintage is coveted, these folks could probably do well to learn a line or two from the old Beatles tune come Patrick Dempsey movie – Can’t Buy Me Love.

From the article:

The Defense Department will begin blocking access “worldwide” to YouTube, MySpace and 11 other popular websites on its computers and networks, according to a memo sent Friday by Gen. B.B. Bell, the U.S. Forces Korea commander.

The policy is being implemented to protect information and reduce drag on the department’s networks, according to Bell.

“This recreational traffic impacts our official DoD network and bandwidth ability, while posing a significant operational security challenge,” the memo said.

There is some reasonableness to this — after all, protection of information during wartime is serious business. But, some of the most compelling coverage of the war has come from the cel phone cameras of the soldiers on the ground. Also, these platforms have been an effective way for soldiers to stay in touch with their families.