The Bivings Report - powered by the Bivings Group

• 28% of Online Americans Have Used the Internet to Tag Content (PDF)
  Pew releases a new study about the use of tagging to classify content (on sites like del.icio.us and flickr).

• Spam Made Up 94% Of All E-Mail In December
  Only 94%?

• The readers strike back
  Great piece from Salon about how immediate and unfiltered feedback from readers is changing the way journalists think. (Via Glass House)
• Taking the payola out of DEMO-ing: The TechCrunch 20 Conference (or, I'm back in the conference business baby!)
  Mike Arrington and Jason Calacanis are launching a new online startup conference that will choose who gets on stage based solely on merit.  Sounds good to me.
• Colbert Nation, 2; Wikipedia, 0
  Blog PI has a blow by blow of the latest battle between Stephen Colbert and Wikipedia.
  
  
• WSJ Gets Print Edition Feeds
  Steve Rubel has the scoop on WSJ's RSS feeds of the sections in its print edition.

Read/Write Web has an interesting post looking at the use of RSS and social bookmarking (Digg, del.icio.us and Newsvine) by fifteen or so mainstream media outlets.  Their post is similar in many ways to the newspaper and magazine studies we did a few months back that looked at the features on the major player's websites.

Below is Read/Write Web's chart analyzing which outlets are using what:

Two things here:

(1) I think RSS has definitely gone mainstream.  For just about any new website, having an RSS feed has become a basic type of features (all of our new sites include it).  To me, the more interesting question is how these organizations are using RSS.  Full, partial or headline only feeds?  Advertising in feeds?  When we did our own study a few months back we saw that mainstream media was using RSS, but in uninteresting ways.  All feeds were partial and nobody was really experimenting with ads in RSS.  In essence, they were using RSS like an email alert system.  The goal is solely to drive page views and serve ads.  Be interesting to look if that has changed.

(2) The adoption of the Digg/del.icio.us bookmarklets is interesting.  When we did our newspaper study back in August, only 4 of the top 100 newspapers were using these things.  So I think this feature is definitely picking up momentum.  However, I really don't think it means much.  Inclusion of these features is a sort of cheap way of showing you are down with the whole Web 2.0 thing.  The harder and more rewarding path is to build a community around your own site instead of simply trying to tap into external communities.

Update: Reading the comments over on Read/Write Web, an anonymous poster who claims to work for Time Inc. makes pretty much my same point.  Here is the relevant part of his comment:

Web 2.0 should be about creating and enabling communities and not shuffling them off to whatever becomes the next big social site. Also, I know that it's common to lump RSS into Web 2.0, but please, this is an old technology that is only now gaining traction at the same time as Web 2.0 is ascending. If you don't have an RSS feed at this point (and only 48% of the top magazines do), then you're not even doing Web 1.0 correctly.

Time magazine, as well as most of the top 50 magazines, has done little to empower its community to add value and collective intelligence to its site. To me, this is the essence of Web 2.0. If Web 2.0 is going to truly mean something beyond us interacting with a series of sites that got there first (read MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Digg, Technorati, "fill in your favorite one here"), then media outlets of all kind – magazines, tv, movie studios, the works – need to recognize that the revolution will happen with or without them: we are no longer just consumers, we are consumer-creators.

 The entire comment thread over there is worth reading and this has also popped up on Techmeme. 

On February 6th, Erin and I will be giving a presenation at the Magazine Publishers of America offices in NYC on the use of the Internet by magazines.  We will talk about how aggressively magazines are adopting Web 2.0 features, review examples of best practices and speculate a bit about what will come next.

The MPA website has the details.

We received some more feedback from our newspaper study we conducted last August.  For the Media posted an entry today about how South African newspapers are using the Web.

The two most surprising things from this research:  Of 19 South African newspapers, just one offers a blog(s) and just over half (10 papers) are using RSS.  I guess this blogger was correct in stating that South African papers have a ways to go in terms of their Web use.

In addition to looking for the features tested in our study, For the Media expanded the research to include Mobile phone alerts and newsletters, email newsletters, and email alerts. 

Here's a breakdown of the features and the percentage of papers using each tool:

RSS Feed: 52.6%
RSS for different sections: 10.5%
RSS includes ads:
Most Popular: 5.26%
Video: 10.5%
Podcast: 10.5%
Chats: 5.26%
Blogs: 5.26%
Blog Comments: 0
Blogroll:5.26%
Comments on Articles: 5.26%
Registration Required: 31.6%
Bookmarking: 5.26%
Message Boards: 15.8%
Email Newsletter: 10.5%
Email Alerts: 5.26%
Mobile Phone Alerts: 5.26%
Mobile Phone Newsletter: 5.26%

I have two questions related to this research.  For most of the tools, just one or two papers are using various Web tools.  Are the same papers consistently using the Web tools, or is use of various features spread over the whole sample of papers?  Also, I find it quite surprising that given the quality of these websites that 31% of the papers are requiring registration.  What exactly are people registering for? 

Reminder:  Check out the various research related to the newspaper study which has lots of information regarding newspaper research in different countries:

• Italy
• Denmark: here and here
• Japan
• Canada
• New Zealand 
• UK 

 Also check out our TBR wiki, which has an entire section dedicated to ways that newspapers can improve their websites.

I missed this last week, but apparently the Huffington Post has launched a Digg/Reddit style section on their site called Huffit. 

Basically, the Huffington Post is automatically ingesting RSS feeds from pre-identified blogs (including themselves) and then giving registered users the ability to vote on their favorite stories.  The stories with the most votes will appear in the Huffit homepage.  Users can also submit stories from random blogs not of the Huffington Post's list. 

I'm sort of conflicted here.  Part of me gets annoyed when I see things that are so clearly derivative.  But at the same time, the power of Digg/Reddit is in their respective communities more than in their technology.  So if the Huffington Post is able to borrow the concept and create their own vibrant community, more power to them.

Back in November, a number of us here at The Bivings Group were captivated by the Nintendo Wii and Sony PlayStation 3 launch – so much so, that we set up our ImpactWatch demo to follow the news about the two game systems. Now that both the launch and the Holiday Season have past, we decided to put together a report based on the ImpactWatch analysis and our own research.  The following is a brief summary of our findings.

Sony PlayStation 3

Prior to launch, it sounded like Sony’s PlayStation 3 had captivated the imaginations of the gaming world. While the Nintendo Wii was quietly building buzz, the media was all over the PlayStation 3 like a pack of wolves on a fresh kill.  The hype surrounding the PlayStation 3 launch was staggering, and going into the Game Console Wars, a betting man probably would have put his money on Sony.  With the success of the original PlayStation and the even greater success of the PlayStation 2, it seemed like it would be a slam-dunk for Sony.  That turned out not to be the case. Three things that stood out about the media coverage of the PlayStation 3 were:

• PlayStation 3 Launch Sees Rampant Crime. Buying a video game system was never so dangerous.  Due to massive hype-driven demand, combined with severe supply constraints, the launch of the PlayStation 3 was tainted by theft and violent crime that spanned the globe.

• Sony PR and Management Blunders Abound. From Sony's decision to include the Blu-Ray high-definition DVD drive, thus delaying the launch by almost a year, to Sony Australia's General Manager, Nic Foster saying “Wii is a core gaming device. It's a more fun, intuitive sort of product to pick up,” to Sony’s press release falsely claiming that they had won a Technology and Entertainment Emmy for the SIXAXIS controller, they managed to fumble the PR ball on every play.
• Developers Jump Ship, Express Angst. Reports show Sony failed to cater sufficiently to non-Sony game developers. They lost the platform exclusivity of the best selling game of all time (Grand Theft Auto) and alienated their third party developers to such an extent that the launch line-up consisted of only a handful of titles. Gabe Newell of Valve Software said that, “The PS3 is a total disaster on so many levels, I think it's really clear that Sony lost track of what customers and what developers wanted.”

Nintendo Wii

The Nintendo Wii can be described as the underdog going into the Game Console Wars.  Initially, both Sony and Microsoft felt that it was not a direct competitor.  Their machines targeted hard-core gamers, who are interested in the most realistic gaming experience, the best sound, and greatest speed.  The Wii was considered more of toy targeted towards younger gamers. It turned out that the Wii was a more direct competitor than anticipated.

Three thing that helped to shape the brand perceptions consumers have about the Wii were:

• Media Stardom. The Nintendo Wii rapidly ascended to become a pop-cultural icon.  From the beginning, the Wii was a media darling, earning free coverage in editorials, radio station contests, and television shows – including being prominently featured in episodes of South Park and The Colbert Report, as well as being given away to every audience member on an episode of Dr. Phil.

• Strapgate. In a public relations coup d’etat, Nintendo managed to turn a potentially damaging quality issue into a resounding brand victory. Within a week of the Wii’s launch, reports began to surface about Wii remotes slipping out of gamers’ hands and the security straps breaking. Nintendo responded promptly and decisively, announcing an investigation and voluntary recall of the straps. What could have turned into a significant issue managed to help solidify the Nintendo brand in the eyes of consumers.
• Broad Demographic Appeal. Nintendo's NES gaming console was an 80's icon and many people that were kids playing their NES console in the 80's are now in their 30's and want to relive the fun of their youth. In a piece on 1up.com, Nintendo's Senior VP of Marketing, George Harrison, cites a 2006 survey by the Entertainment Software Association revealed that 25 percent of all gamers are 50 or older. Of the three next-generation game consoles, only the Wii has been positioned to really target such emerging market segments.

If you are interested in reading the full report, click here to download it as a PDF.

If you would like access to the ImpactWatch demo set up to track this issue, click here to request a username and password.

The Los Angeles Times has a great piece today about the explostion of online video in politics.  The articles looks both at how both campaigns and activists groups are using viral video to try to impact the 2008 Presidential election. 

The whole piece is worth reading, but I found this tidbit about the McCain campaign particularly interesting:

McCain is planning his own Web version of reality TV. He has hired a videographer to record behind-the-scenes campaign moments of the senator in relaxed settings.

"What the campaign can do in a Web video is show a more personal side of the candidate," said Spencer Whelan, who works on McCain's online communications team.

I had not heard of that before.  You can see more discussion of the article over on Memeorandum. 

There was an article in the Washington Post this weekend that caught my eye.  It talked about a people-driven loan service.  Propser.com allows people who need to borrow money post an ad describing their needs.  Investors can then visit the site and pick which loans they would like to fund.  In order to help investors diversify their risk, Prosper allows them to partially fund a wide variety of loans, thus spreading the risk over several investments.  Minimum bids are $50, all loans have a 3 year maximum duration, and loans must be $25,000 or less.

The Ebay-esque service directly connects investors and lenders, passing by more traditional lending institutions.  Borrowers post highly personal ads, with people often posing with their families or young children, apparently hoping to up the sympathy factor in the minds of potential investors.  Lenders can then bid on loans, which results in lower interest rates for borrowers.

Prosper is really an interesting service, and can benefit both investors and borrowers alike. Investors typically earn higher returns than they might at bank, while borrowers are typically charged lower interest rates than they might find elsewhere.  Apparently, the system has been successful. Since its launch last year, Prosper has grown to 140,000 members, lending some $33 million.  According to the Post, less than 1% of the loans have defaulted, and less than 3% were three months late.

Another noteworthy item about Prosper is that many non-profit groups have formed on the site, which encourages borrowers to join groups to strengthen their rating.  The leaders of these groups forego their fees paid to them by borrowers or profits earned from the loan service, putting the money toward a good cause.  For example, Medical Benefactors is a group that uses interest payments to help fight childhood diseases in third world countries.  There are groups that donate to AIDS/HIV and cancer research. There are college groups, ethnic groups, and groups organized around clubs, such as the Boy Scouts of America.  Lending to a charitable group is an attractive option for investors because they know that their funds are going to a cause, rather than to a bank or third party investment vehicle.

Despite the site's success, there have been some concerns about fraud.  In order to borrow money on the site, people must disclose highly personal information, such as their social security number and credit card information.  Potential borrowers are given a credit rating and are subjected to fraud and identity checks. Also, the site has a pretty substantial section on security and privacy policies.

Anyway, I think this site is a great idea, and while I would probably be too sqeamish about handing over my personal information, it seems like a great option for people who need small amounts of cash quickly.