Is social media killing the web (as we’ve known it)?

Google Trends graph showing traffic drop to major Australian news sites

If Google Trends’ statistics are to be trusted, it looks like there’s been a significant decline in traffic to websites over the last year — not just news, but everywhere. Except social network sites.

Following a blog post by Nicholas Moerman, a planning intern with Proximity in London, I checked out the figures for Australia sites. It does indeed look like there’s been a significant drop in daily unique visitors — which is what Google Trends measures, rather than the more common monthly uniques.

Crikey logo

I’ve written more, and provided more graphs, in a piece for Crikey today, Is social media killing the web as we know it?

Oh, and I was also in Crikey yesterday, Baffled by Murdersoft? Making sense of Murdoch and Microsoft, where I look at some of the numbers behind the rumoured deal between News Corporation and Microsoft’s Bing search engine.

Tikatok to return copyright to creators

Following up yesterday’s post about Tikatok, where I pointed out what I considered to be their overly-greedy grab for intellectual property rights over their users’ content, it turns out they’re changing that User Agreement.

Tikatok community manager Neal Grigsby writes:

I am Neal Grigsby, the community manager for Tikatok. I wanted to thank you and your readers for your comments about Tikatok’s User Agreement, and to let you know that we are in the process of updating the User Agreement to reflect that authors will own all original materials that they submit to Tikatok. Tikatok will own any underlying Tikatok templates that are used by the author while on www.tikatok.com, as well as any other content that is licensed from third parties by Tikatok.

That sounds more like an appropriate balance to me. I’ll post a link to the new policy when it appears.

Tikatok profts from your child’s unpaid labour

[Update 25 November 2009: Tikatok is in the process of revising its User Agreement to reflect that authors will own all original materials that they submit. See the comment from Tikatok’s Neal Grigsby.]

Screenshot of Tikatok website: click to visit website

“Always read the fine print,” we’re told. Too bloody right when it comes to scummy websites like Titatok. Watch out, kids, they’re stealing your creativity!

On the surface it looks pleasant enough. Smiling kiddies, pastel colours and the chance to share your child’s creativity with friends and family. But read the terms and conditions and you’ll soon see that the slogan “Capture your child’s creativity” is literally true.

Your child’s creativity will be captured. By Tikatok. They’ll profit by using your children for unpaid child labour.

Check out this section of their User Agreement with my emphasis added:

V. Ownership of Submissions

Certain areas of the Site will permit you to send materials to Tikatok such as stories and drawings. Upon submission, all creations, ideas, concepts, notes, drafts, stories, artwork, drawings, photographs or other information of any nature (collectively, the “Submissions”), submitted by an author to the Site shall be deemed to be, and shall remain, the property of Tikatok, and the author will be deemed for all purposes to have assigned all of his or her worldwide right, title and interest in and to such Submissions to Tikatok and waived any “moral” or author’s rights therein. None of the Submissions shall be subject to any obligation of confidence on the part of Tikatok, and Tikatok shall not be liable for any use or disclosure of all or part of the Submissions. Without limiting the foregoing, Tikatok shall exclusively own all now known or hereafter existing rights to the Submissions of every kind and nature throughout the world, and shall be entitled to unrestricted use of the Submissions for any purpose whatsoever, commercial or otherwise, without compensation to the provider of the Submissions.

The book or on-line display of the book on the Site will contain a notice substantially in the following form: “Copyright © 2009 by Tikatok LLC. All rights reserved.”

Yes, that’s right. Anything you give to Tikatok they claim as theirs. Upload a family photo or your child’s stories and drawings, and Tikatok will be able to do whatever they like with it, including sell it for profit, without any payment to you or even any acknowledgement.

Don’t you think that’s just a little bit disgusting?

I think this is appalling. Especially when Tikatok is focussed on the creative output of children. And specially when they’ve got the gall to say, further down in their User Agreement:

You may not use the Site for commercial purposes.

Now it’s common enough when you enter a competition, say, for your submissions to be licensed to promote that competition or the sponsor. That’s the exchange — in return for your chance of winning the prize. But this is naked theft. From children. I spit upon them.

As I say, always read the fine print!

[Hat-tip to Stephen Loosley for spotting this outrage.]

Weekly radio spot on ABC Statewide NSW

ABC logo

Yesterday I joined presenter Paul Turton on ABC Radio’s Statewide for the first of a few regular chats about social networking and social media and things Internettish.

Statewide is broadcast on ABC Local Radio throughout NSW from 1600 to 1800 weekdays, except in Sydney, Newcastle, Wollongong and wherever else they have their own local drive-time program.

Yesterday we talked about the etiquette of “friending” on sites like Facebook and whether it’s OK to refuse a friend request, where you draw the line between your personal and professional life, how people spread the news of the September dust storms for themselves and Rickrolling, amongst other things.

The program isn’t streamed on the Internet, alas, but I did a cheap-arsed recording using my MacBook Pro’s built-in speaker microphone [doh!], and I’ve posted the audio below. I’ll see if I can get a proper audio split next week.

I’ll be joining Paul every Tuesday afternoon at 1615 through until 15 December.

[The radio interview is probably ©2009 Australian Broadcasting Corporation, but since they don’t archive them I reckon it’s fair enough putting it here provided you just listen to it and I link back to Statewide and encourage you to listen.]

Virgin Blue’s mistake reveals countless selfish whingers

Velocity Rewards logo

Thank you, Virgin Blue, for sending your “erroneous” email Friday night. You’ve done us a great public service. You’ve exposed a pack of greedy, selfish, shallow tools who deserve to be ridiculed publicly. Thank you.

On Friday evening, Australian airline Virgin Blue sent an email telling some Velocity Rewards members they’d been upgraded to Gold status. But as documented at mUmBRELLA, the email went not just to those entitled to the upgrade but their entire database — including people who’d opted out of email marketing.

Including me because, yes, I’m a Velocity Rewards member.

“That can’t be right,” I thought. “I haven’t flown with Virgin Blue this year.” Then I saw others saying similar things online and I figured the mistake was more widespread. I chuckled, knowing that someone had a bit of a mess to clear up.

Sure enough, three hours later a second email arrived.

Oops! Due to an error you’ve received our previous email by mistake. Please disregard the free upgrade communication as unfortunately you do not qualify for that upgrade.

We apologise for any inconvenience caused.

Mistake. Correction. Apology. That’s the end of the story, yes? Alas no.

Suddenly a whole bunch of people are demanding their Gold status should stay even though, like, they’re not actually entitled to it. People are “upset”. They’re demanding compensation, some even saying they should be compensated with a free flight voucher.

Compensated? Compensated for fucking what, exactly?

Compensated for being too stupid to realise the email was obviously a mistake? Compensated for having a vastly over-inflated sense of entitlement? Compensated for being so much of a consumer-puppet that you validate yourself by bragging about some confected faux-status symbolised by which colour plastic card sits in your wallet and then being embarrassed because, oh sorry, you’re actually still just another cheap-arsed prole after all?

I don’t think that’s Virgin Blue’s fault.

Losers.

Now of course there’s a metric bazillion blog posts and comments banging on about how this is “epic fail” on Virgin Blue’s part and how they’d have handled it so much better and faster. I won’t link to them because it’s too depressing to realise how many instant fucking experts appear after every little glitch is made public.

However I will link to Darryl King’s excellent piece about what he calls Crowd Spanking.

Why is it that the tools of Social Media make tools out of people?

Yes, companies, people and organisations of any sort can and should be open to criticism and correction of poor behaviour. I agree totally. However I don’t agree that Crowd Spanking of everyone that does something wrong is effective nor necessary …

Add some perspective. This is not a corporation that has exposed their staff and customer to asbestos and are denying compensation. It is an upgrade people! …

Before all the Social Media Gurus come up with the 10 things that Virgin Blue could have done better blog posts think through how businesses and people at work live.

Ex-fucking-zactly.

“Epic fail” on Virgin Blue’s part? Bah! Step back a little and think about the full gamut of things which an airline can get wrong and the potential consequences. Up one end, you’ve got mistakes where hundreds of people die in a ball of flame, traumatising their loved ones. Down the other end you’ve got… gosh! A marketing email that was sent to people by mistake.

To the folks who reckon they’d have handled it better and quicker, well, are you really set up to handle such an unusual situation on a Friday night when people have gone to the pub or gone home for the weekend? Personally, I reckon identifying the problem and getting the second email out in three hours isn’t a bad effort — especially when in the meantime there’s, you know, a fucking airline to run!

Well done, Virgin Blue. Well done.

I reckon — and this is just my opinion here — but I reckon we save the Really Big Stick for mistakes which actually matter. Also, stop being such selfish, judgemental little pricks.

[Update 16 October 2009: To illustrate some points I’ll be making in the comments, here’s a screenshot of the erroneous Velocity Rewards email.]

Murdoch’s wrong about Google

Crikey logo

I reckon Rupert Murdoch’s plan to block Google from indexing News Corporation stories is daft, and I said so in Crikey yesterday with a piece they headlined Dear Rupert, this is how the internet works. Google it.

In brief, my commentary is that people don’t really get their news in a monolith any more, neither the daily newspaper or the nightly TV bulletin. Instead, they gather it from all over in little pieces. If you want people to find your stories, those stories need to be in the indexes.

Crikey editor Jonathan Green has also pointed out the stark difference between News Corporation and Google. I reckon News needs Google more than Google needs News.

Jason Calacanis has a different theory, that News will do an exclusive deal with Microsoft’s Bing.

“Want to search the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, USA Today and 3,894 other newspapers and magazines?

“Well, then don’t go to Google because they don’t have them!

“Go to Bing, home of quality content you can trust!”

Which might work if News Corporation were the only supplier of general news. Which it isn’t. And which point I make in my Crikey piece.