Are Likes Poised to Replace Links as the Web's Primary Signal? via @steverubel

A thought provoking, well written post by Steve Rubel on the power of "likes".  The "like" button, along with retweets are the new signal for interest and impact.

Are Likes Poised to Replace Links as the Web's Primary Signal?

By Steve Rubel:  SVP, Director of Insights for Edelman Digital, a division of Edelman - the world's largest public relations firm.

For years the mighty hypertext link has served as the web's traffic signal network. Links guide where our clicks, attention and, therefore, money flows. It has given rise to multi-billion-dollar businesses and even entire industries. As the blockbuster AOL/HuffingtonPost deal shows, we truly do live in what Jeff Jarvis calls "The Link Economy." But maybe just maybe that economy could be peaking.

More recently it appears that an equally powerful network of signals has emerged just as certain kinds of links are being called into question in the mainstream press. Enter the like, which Facebook CTO Brett Taylor embraced in 2007 while with Friendfeed and Facebook copied in 2009. It has since flourished under Taylor's lead at Facebook as it mushroomed to 600 million users. These millions have not only emphatically embraced the like on the social network itself, but more importantly across the millions of sites that use Facebook's social plug-ins. Some 65 million Facebook users like things daily.  Read full post here>>>

Is this the start of the second dotcom bubble?

• Dominic Rushe in New York
• The Observer, Sunday 20 February 2011
• Article history

Loss-making Twitter has been valued at $10bn. Facebook is said to be worth more than Ford. Now, for some investors, the alarm bells are starting to ring.

Two years ago, anthropologist Sekai Farai was awarded a grant by Columbia University to study the technology startup community. Her timing couldn't have been better: a new goldrush is under way as twentysomethings from New York, London and San Francisco dream of making their fortunes from a new generation of internet companies.

Sitting in the lobby of Manhattan's Ace Hotel, one of new-school tech's favourite hangouts, Farai predicts the boom has just begun. "People who not long ago started startups because they couldn't get a job are turning down jobs now," she says. "There's so much money about. The idea that your idea could be the next big idea is very real. There's a real air of excitement." Could it all end in tears? "It always does."

Right now, though, who wouldn't be excited? Every week, one of the new generation of internet firms seems to attract a sky-high valuation. Zynga, the social-network games company that has tempted millions to grow virtual vegetables in its FarmVille game, has been valued at $9bn (£5.54bn). Profitless Twitter is said to be worth $10bn. Groupon, vendor of online discounts, rejected a $6bn offer from Google and is considering a flotation with a potential valuation of $15bn. Tech-watchers say this is just the start: the real boom will come when Facebook, the head boy of the new dotcom frenzy, goes public, probably next year.

This month it emerged that Facebook staff are planning to sell $1bn of private shares at a price that values the private company at $60bn – that's $10bn more than January's valuation and close to 10 times the price Russian investor Digital Sky Technologies paid employees who sold shares in 2009.

The leaps in valuation are dizzying. At its current on-paper price, Facebook's value is somewhere between that of Ford ($55bn) and Visa ($63bn). But that's still less than a third of Google's value, Facebook's arch-rival in the battle for domination on the internet.

Alan Patrick, co-founder of technology consultancy Broadsight, says we are at the beginning of another bubble and that the first breaths have been blown: "A bubble is defined by too much money chasing assets, greater production of those assets, then the need to find a greater fool to buy them."

So far, money is chasing a small group of companies – Facebook, Groupon et al – that could prove to be good investments, says Patrick, who also writes the Broadstuff blog. That was true of other bubbles too: at the start of the US property boom, for example, it was the best houses in the best locations that took off first. Only later did people start speculating on grotty flats in Florida.

According to Patrick, there are 10 tell-tale signs that a bubble is being blown:

■ 1. The arrival of a "New Thing" that cannot be valued in the old way. Dumb-money companies start paying over the odds for New Thing acquisitions.

■ 2. Smart people identify the start of a bubble; New Thing apostles make ever more glowing claims.

■ 3. Startups with founders deemed to have "pedigree" (for example, former employees of New Thing companies) get funded at eye-watering valuations for next to no reason.

■ 4. There is a flurry of new investment funds catering for startups.

■ 5. Companies start getting funded "off the slide deck" (that is, purely on the basis of their PowerPoint presentations) without actually having a product.

■ 6. MBAs leave banks to start up firms.

■ 7. The "big flotation" happens.

■ 8. Banks make a market in the New Thing, investing pension money.

■ 9. Taxi drivers start giving you advice on what stock to buy.

■ 10. A New Thing darling buys an old-world company for stupid money. The end is nigh.

This time social media is the New Thing. Its most earnest acolytes claim that the likes of Twitter and Facebook are a revolution in human communications unseen since Gutenberg started printing the Bible. They aren't making money, but they are worth a fortune. Two smart cookies – Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post, and Michael Arrington, creator of the influential technology blog TechCrunch – have sold their publications to AOL, a company not noted for the astuteness of its recent decisions. Tick off stage 1.

The second stage looks tickable, too. Fred Wilson, investor at Union Square Ventures and a veteran of the 1999/2000 dotcom bubble, has been sounding the alarm for some time. In a recent interview with TechCrunch, Wilson said he was worried that a two- or three-person startup could get a $50m-$100m valuation. "To me that's not in the realm of reasonable," Wilson said.

He even went as far as to name names – in particular Quora, a questions-and-answers site set up by Facebook alumni Adam D'Angelo and Charlie Cheever that raised $11m in funding last year at a price that valued the company at $86m. Now it is reportedly fending off offers for $330m. See stage 3 above.

Mark Cuban, the investor who made a fortune in the first dotcom boom, has compared the current funding frenzy to a pyramid scheme. In another recent interview, David Cohen, managing director of the well-known Silicon Valley start-up fund TechStars, says there is a bubble in the number of companies financing startups. Cross off stage 4.

The last dotcom boom really took off after the flotation of the internet software company Netscape in 1995. Patrick says this time it's likely to be Facebook that lights the fuse. So far, private investors have been locked out of the New Thing. But JP Morgan is setting up a fund, and Goldman Sachs recently tried to get its clients' money into Facebook. That would take us all the way to stage 8, in which case we're just waiting for stages 9 and 10 – where cabbies get in on the act and the game goes into reverse.

Not everybody agrees. Sumon Sadhu, director of intelligence at Quid, a Silicon Valley consultancy, sees a lot of money but no bubble. He calculates that in the fourth quarter of 2010 consumer internet firms attracted $2.5bn in new investments, up from $949m for the previous quarter. But the number of companies getting the cash rose from 226 in the third quarter to just 252 in the fourth.

"The money is following the money," says Sadhu. Something new is happening, he argues: social media has created a vast new source of information about the people using the web. Sites such as Facebook are building a far more rounded picture of a person's identity – and that is worth a fortune.

"The first wave of internet firms gave us an explosion of information. Now we need filters – we need to trust where that information is coming from," says Sadhu. "That's what's being monetised now. With any business cycle it's going to be evolutionary, but there is seldom excess with a total lack of fundamentals."

From an anthropologist's perspective, Farai is not so sure. "There are elements out there that are pyramid-esque, Ponzi-esque, maybe even Kafkaesque," she says. "There's a sense that this isn't real money. In the long run, that can't be good." Maybe, maybe not. The sad truth is, we'll only really know that this was a bubble if it bursts.

'Taking Chance'... a movie we all need to see

Last night I watched, "Taking Chance".  It is the story of a Lt. Col. who volunteered to escort the remains of a fallen Marine to his hometown.  The story is true and based on the experience of Lt. Col. Michael Strobl.  I was deeply moved by the story and the film does a terrrific job of portraying the events.  Lt. Col. Strobl wrote an account of his experience.  You can find it here >>>

On the way from Dover AFB to the hometown of PFC Chance Phelps, Strobl saw what the heart of Americans truely looks like.  The level of compassion from strangers was amazing.  The respect for those serving was profound.  And the appreciation of a young man, willing to give his life for his country and others, was deeply moving.

Sometimes, we forget the sacrifice made by those serving our country.  Sometimes we get caught up in the politics of war and lose sight of the fact that there are men and women dying.  Often, we fail to pay respect to those in service and their familes back home who suffer loss for a greater good.

Whatever your political or religious views, as Americans... we should not forget.  Watch the movie and for at least 2 hours, you will be reminded in a beautiful and honorable way.  For me, this film will have a sustaining affect.  I hope it does for you as well.

Tom Cuthbert

Wait for it... "Carmelo Anthony Trade Rumors: Are 4 First Rounders Too Much To Give Up for Nets?" umm, yes :)

My take:  Carmelo is a terrific player... but why mortgage your future when the balance of your team (with Melo) still can't compete immediately?  

BleacherReport

Carmelo Anthony is the subject of a major trade rumor today? It's a shocker, I know. Reports are that a trade agreement has tentatively been reached by the New Jersey Nets and the Denver Nuggets.

The trade would send Carmelo Anthony, Chauncey Billups, Sheldon Williams, Melvin Ely and Renaldo Balkman to the Nets in exchange for Devin Harris, Derrick Favors, Troy Murphy, Ben Uzoh and four first-round picks.

Four first-round picks? Really? It sounded impossible at first, since teams can't trade consecutive draft picks under the Stepien rule, but the Nets actually have enough first-round picks in 2011 and 2012 to pull this off. Should they actually be trading these first-round draft picks though?

Happy 100th Anniversary Gaido's

Taken at Galveston Seawall

JC Penney Fires Back at Google and New York Times Over SEO Controversy via @PCMag

By Sara Yin

Over the weekend the New York Times published a damning expose of how JC Penney allegedly gamed Google's page-ranking algorithm, which artificially made the retailer a top search result. On Monday, JC Penney fired back at both theNew York Times and Google for misrepresenting the company.

"The characterization of JC Penney in the New York Times article is misleading and unwarranted," wrote Darcie Brossart, vice-president of corporate communcations at JC Penney, in an e-mail.

Responding to Google's reaction of burying links to JCPenney.com in its search results, she added, "We have no record of ever having received a violation notification from Google before last week when the unauthorized links came to our attention. If we had, we would have worked quickly to remedy the situation, as we are doing now. Obviously, we are disappointed that Google has reduced our rankings."

The original story, "The Dirty Little Secrets of Search" by David Segal, details how JC Penney allegedly manipulated unpaid, organic search results to make itself the top listing for numerous generic terms like "dresses" and "area rugs." The New York Times hired a search engine optimization firm, Blue Fountain Media in New York, to show how this was done.

Using a well-known trick called "black hat" optimization, JC Penney's now-fired SEO firm SearchDex apparently created artificial websites that linked to JC Penney's site. The links helped push JC Penney pages to the top of Google search results; one known aspect behind Google's top-secret page-ranking algorithm is that the more times your website is linked, the higher up you rank in a search result.

Google told PCMag that even before Times reporter Segal contacted the search giant with the results of his investigation, it had already discovered the issue and changed its page-ranking algorithm after spotting suspicious activity from JC Penney and other companies. Google has an entire team, the Web Spam Team, devoted to detecting search-result spam and amending its page rank algorithm.

However, after looking at Segal's findings, Google concluded that JC Penney had also violated Google's Webmaster Guidelines. The company reacted by burying JC Penney's search results, and as the NYT notes, now when you search for something like "Samsonite carry on luggage" JC Penney is the 71st search result instead of the first.

"When someone is looking for information on Google, we want them to find the most relevant answers possible. Our search algorithm relies on more than 200 signals to help people find the answers they're looking for, and when websites violate our published webmaster guidelines to try and game the system, that's bad for users and we are willing to take manual corrective action," a Google spokesman said.

JC Penney denies involvement with the black hatting techniques of SearchDex.

"JC Penney was in no way involved in the posting of the links discussed in the article. We did not authorize them and we were not aware that they had been posted. To be clear, we do not tolerate violations of our policies regarding natural search, which reflect Google's guidelines," Brossart wrote.

"The Dirty Little Secrets of Search" via @ nytimes

One of the most well written and comprehensive looks inside search advertising I have read...

Photo illustration by The New York Times

By DAVID SEGAL

Published: February 12, 2011

PRETEND for a moment that you are Google’s search engine.  Someone types the word “dresses” and hits enter. What will be the very first result?

There are, of course, a lot of possibilities. Macy’s comes to mind. Maybe a specialty chain, like J. Crew or the Gap. Perhaps a Wikipedia entry on the history of hemlines.

O.K., how about the word “bedding”? Bed Bath & Beyond seems a candidate. Or Wal-Mart, or perhaps the bedding section of Amazon.com.

“Area rugs”? Crate & Barrel is a possibility. Home Depot, too, and Sears, Pier 1 or any of those Web sites with “area rug” in the name, like arearugs.com.

You could imagine a dozen contenders for each of these searches. But in the last several months, one name turned up, with uncanny regularity, in the No. 1 spot for each and every term:  J. C. Penney.

The company bested millions of sites — and not just in searches for dresses, bedding and area rugs. For months, it was consistently at or near the top in searches for “skinny jeans,” “home decor,” “comforter sets,” “furniture” and dozens of other words and phrases, from the blandly generic (“tablecloths”) to the strangely specific (“grommet top curtains”).

This striking performance lasted for months, most crucially through the holiday season, when there is a huge spike in online shopping. J. C. Penney even beat out the sites of manufacturers in searches for the products of those manufacturers. Type in “Samsonite carry on luggage,” for instance, and Penney for months was first on the list, ahead of Samsonite.com.

With more than 1,100 stores and $17.8 billion in total revenue in 2010, Penney is certainly a major player in American retailing. But Google’s stated goal is to sift through every corner of the Internet and find the most important, relevant Web sites.

Does the collective wisdom of the Web really say that Penney has the most essential site when it comes to dresses? And bedding? And area rugs? And dozens of other words and phrases?

The New York Times asked an expert in online search, Doug Pierce of Blue Fountain Media in New York, to study this question, as well as Penney’s astoundingly strong search-term performance in recent months. What he found suggests that the digital age’s most mundane act, the Google search, often represents layer upon layer of intrigue. And the intrigue starts in the sprawling, subterranean world of “black hat” optimization, the dark art of raising the profile of a Web site with methods that Google considers tantamount to cheating.

Despite the cowboy outlaw connotations, black-hat services are not illegal, but trafficking in them risks the wrath of Google. The company draws a pretty thick line between techniques it considers deceptive and “white hat” approaches, which are offered by hundreds of consulting firms and are legitimate ways to increase a site’s visibility. Penney’s results were derived from methods on the wrong side of that line, says Mr. Pierce. He described the optimization as the most ambitious attempt to game Google’s search results that he has ever seen.

“Actually, it’s the most ambitious attempt I’ve ever heard of,” he said. “This whole thing just blew me away. Especially for such a major brand. You’d think they would have people around them that would know better.”

To understand the strategy that kept J. C. Penney in the pole position for so many searches, you need to know how Web sites rise to the top of Google’s results.  Read full article here >>>

Investment into the Digital Advertising space is heating up

Venture capital and M&A activity is heating up in the digital advertising space.  Money is flowing in at a faster pace than last year... by far.  Here are some relevant stats from January 2011:

• There were 196 marketing / digital commerce deals in January totaling $8.5B 
  • (This compares to 70 deals and $3.3B a year earlier)  
• 82 of the deals were growth / investment capital with the balance being M&A
• Digital advertising (which includes ad networks, exchanges and online lead generation) was the most active subset with 18 deals totaling $316M  in investment capital 
  • $200M of this however, went to Adknowledge at a reported valuation of $900M
• The average investment (excluding Adknowledge) was $6.8M
• The weighted average multiples are amazing... 2.7X revenue and 13.3X EDITDA

I see a good deal of consolidation and money flowing in to expand the "white space" below Google, Yahoo! and Bing.  Adknowledge is a great example, now the number 4 digital advertising network.  After doubling revenue to $300M in 2010, Adknowledge is using the funding for acquisitions.  They have a narrow focus, putting advertisers together with sites considered the "remainder of the internet".

This is a bigger market than people might think.  The investment into this space shows that the growth and consolodation opportunity is significant.  If you are in this space, now is the time to move.  The tipping point has arrived.  I would be interested in your perspective, feel free to post a comment or contact me with your thoughts.

Tom Cuthbert

Crooks Can Make You Pay For Their @Starbucks With Simple Screengrab

By Ben Popken on February 10, 2011 2:00 PM

(whatatravisty)

Researchers have discovered a security flaw in the new Starbucks Rewards Card iPhone app that could let someone else rack up a bunch of free coffees on your dime. All someone has to do is take a picture of your barcode and then they can use it to buy all the delicious black swill they want, draining your account to the last drop.

"If companies accept the representation of the card without verifying the device through some of the other contactless, RFID or other proximity methods," Kelley Langford, vice president of sales and marketing at System Innovators, told Mobile Commerce Daily, "then they are naive and will be victimized."

The hack depends on someone getting access to your phone, so just don't let it out of your sight and you'll probably be fine. You can also make sure to password-protect your iPhone and/or use the password protection feature on the Starbucks app. Unless of course someone hides a camera in the Starbucks near the point of purchase and uses it to capture customers' barcodes...

In fact, I can picture the story now.... "Russian Gangs use spycams to harvest Starbucks barcodes, resell on the black (coffee) market....a full starbucks card goes for $1, they're sold in bulk over secret online IRC chatrooms...Savvy criminals know to only slowly drain the accounts, buying a macchiato here, a rice krispie treat there...Lisa Tampanelli first began to suspect that she was a victim of Starbucks card theft after she checked her statement and saw charges for items she would never buy..."Chocolate frappacino blasts? Black and white cookies? I'm a strict no-drip cafe au lait girl."

We've reached out to Starbucks for comment.

Texas Humor between Austin and San Antonio

Twitter Set New Tweets Per Second Record During Super Bowl

 Mashable! by Lauren Indvik

 Twitter users set a new tweets per second record during the Super Bowl Sunday, the microblogging service announced Wednesday.

At 10:07:16 p.m. ET — one of the final moments of the game — 4,064 tweets were sent, the highest number of tweets sent in a single second during a sporting event.

That’s a healthy jump over the 3,283 tweets per second set during the World Cup in June 2010. Twitter users actually broke that record six times over the course of the game, Twitter disclosed in a blog post. The second-highest peak occurred when Usher made a surprise appearance during the Black Eyed Peas‘s halftime show performance.

Despite the Twittersphere’s intense interest in the game, it still wasn’t enough to break the all-time record of 6,939 tweets per second, which was set shortly after midnight on New Year’s Eve in Japan.

The Real Reason No One Reads Privacy Policies via @mashable

by Jolie O'Dell

It was quite in vogue last year to be incensed over the privacy-related misdeeds of a certain monolithic social network, but let’s be honest — did anyone ever read the privacy policy to begin with? How about the Terms of Service?

Most of us eagerly (or irritatedly) scroll through the miles of legalese and click on the “I Agree — Sign Me Up!” button without reading a single word of what we’re agreeing to. Most of the time, there are no negative consequences, but every now and then, not knowing what you’re getting into can end up biting you.

The website or app you’re signing up for could simply be tracking your clicks for their own internal measurement tools, but it could also be gathering data to sell to marketers and advertisers. It could be selling your contact information to a third party, as well.

So why don’t more privacy-craving consumers read the privacy policies of the apps they use?

The overwhelming answer is they’re just too long. The longest privacy policies among the top 1,000 websites would take around 45 minutes to read. The average policy takes around 10 minutes to read.

And while most of the websites (72%, in fact) allow users to opt out of tracking mechanisms, around 40% require their users to take a few extra clicks to the Network Advertising Initiative’s website to opt out.

What do you think: Should privacy policies and terms of service be short and sweet enough for users to actually read them, or do you think that would increase tracking opt-outs enough that it would hurt the companies in question?

This infographic was created by SelectOut, an ad-tracking opt-out initiative, with data collected from the top 1,000 websites as per Quantcast.

Happy 100th Birthday President Reagan...

... and thank you.  You have been the best in my lifetime.

What's the internet? Katie Couric and Bryant Gumbel explain it, sort of... in 1994!

8 Dot-Coms That Spent Millions On Super Bowl Ads And No Longer Exist

via @businessinsider

At the height of the dot-com bubble in January 2000, 19 online startups bought very expensive Super Bowl advertisements to herald their arrival on the national scene.

Eight of those companies no longer exist. Most didn't make it more than a year or two.

They were crushed by the looming dot-com bust and one even folded before the end of that year.

Others have merged, been acquired, or continue to chug along, but with a much lower profile. 

Only one — E-Trade — has survived and is strong enough to have an ad during Super Bowl XLV this Sunday. 

The Super Bowl ad is the ultimate stamp of legitimacy for a company, which is why the king of this year's start-up class, Groupon, is going all in on their first big TV campaign. Will this be the coming out party that takes them to the next level? Or are they the next Pets.com?

Pets.com

Pets.com - If You Leave Me Now (2000) - 0:30 (USA)

Founded: 1998. Folded: 2000 The pet supply company (and it's ironic theme song, "If You Leave Me Now") was the poster child of the first dot-bust: Too-much, too-soon excess for a product that people probably didn't need. It was arguably the biggest flameout of the big bubble.

Epidemic.com

Epidemic - Bathroom (2000) - 0:30 (USA)

Some kind of viral e-mail marketing scheme that tried to pay people for putting referral links in their personal emails. They never got a second round of funding and folded by the end of 2000.

Lifeminders.com

Lifeminders - The Worst Commercial (2000) - 0:30 (USA)

They went the cheap-o "ironic" route, spending nothing on the production of their ad, while promising customers ... more emails. They self-declared it the "worst ad on the Super Bowl." And it was. This vague unnecessary service folded soon after.

Ourbeginning.com

Our Beginning - Invites (2000) - 0:30 (USA)

In 2000, it was a wedding planning site. Now, it's a daycare in Seattle.

Netpliance.com

Netpliance - Webhead (2000) - 0:30 (USA)

Founded in 1999 as "Shbang!", the company manufactured low-cost computers designed only for surfing the internet. In 2002, they pivoted to network security devices — after changing their name to Tipping Point and dumping the entire "netpliance" concept. (The URL is now owned by a shady-looking online pharmacy.)

E-Stamp.com

e-stamp - Time Saving Tips (2000) - 0:30 (USA)

This was the first company authorized to sell US Postal Service stamps online. They went under in 2001, and the name and patents were bought by Stamps.com

e1040.com

e1040 - Charity (2000) - 0:30 (USA)

Some sort of tax preparation service, built before people knew what identity theft was. The URL now directs to actual accountants.

OnMoney.com

On Money - Paper Monster (2000) - 0:30 (USA)

No idea. Some kind of monster-slaying Flash game?

EDS: Herding Cats

EDS - Cat Herders (2000) - 0:60 (USA)

Not technically a start-up or a dot-com, but the "technology services" company had the most memorable ad of 2000 with their famous "Herding Cats" spot. In 2008, they were acquired by Hewlett-Packard and became HP Enterprise Services,

THE SURVIVORS

ETrade - Money Coming Out the Wazoo (2000) - 0:30 (USA)

A decade later, these companies are still going strong, but most have a much lower-profile (i.e. they won't be advertising on the big game anytime soon.) Click the link to see their ad from the 2000 game.

• E-Trade (Multiple ads as sponsor of the halftime show.)
• Computer.com
• LastMinuteTravel.com
• Kforce.com
• Microstrategy.com
• Oxygen.com (Actually, Oprah's first TV channel, but the ad told women to "log on")
• Autotrader
• Britannica.com
• WebMD
• Monster/HotJobs (In 1999 and 2000, they were separate companies with different. Now they've merged into one giant job site.)

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/8-dot-com-super-bowl-advertisers-that-no-longer-exist-2011-2?slop=1#ixzz1CocR2Jv5

The Most Successful Facebook Ads via @alleyinsider

Facebook users are far more likely to click on ads for entertainment, media sites, and blogs than for other kinds of ads.

This chart from a recent Webtrends survey of more than 11,000 Facebook advertiseements measures clickthrough rates (red) and cost per click (blue) for different categories of ads. There's a huge jump in clickthrough rates for the last two categories -- Media & Entertainment and Tabloids & Blogs. In other words, stuff that's fun to discuss with friends.

Health care ads are the least successful, followed -- somewhat surprisingly -- by ads for Internet and software products.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-facebook-ctr-cpc-per-sector-2011-1#ixzz1CegHCQSS

Excellent resource to remove rogue applications from your Facebook account from @sophos

Rogue application spreads virally

Once again, a rogue application is spreading virally between Facebook users pretending to offer you a way of seeing who has viewed your profile.

As we've described a couple of times before, plenty of Facebook users would *love* to know who has been checking them out online.. but unfortunately scammers are aware of this, and use the lure of such functionality as a way to trick you into making bad decisions.

Messages spreading rapidly across the Facebook social network right now say:

OMG OMG OMG... I cant believe this actually works! Now you really can see who viewed your profile! on [LINK]

If you're tempted to click on the link you're taken to a webpage which encourages you to go a little deeper and permit an application to have access to your Facebook profile.

But do you really want complete strangers to be able to email you, access your personal data and even post messages to any Facebook pages you may administer?

If you've got this far then you really shouldn't go any further. Scams like this have been used to earn commission for the mischief makers behind them, who have no qualms about using your Facebook profile to spread their spammy links even further.

Because if you do continue, you'll find that your profile will be yet another victim of the viral scam - spreading the message to all of your online Facebook friends and family. And no, you don't ever find out who has been viewing your profile.

Ever wondered how many people fall for a scam like this? Well, the figures can be shocking. This current campaign is using a variety of different links - but via bit.ly we can see that at least one of them has already tricked nearly 60,000 people into clicking.

I've informed the security teams at both bit.ly and Facebook about these links, and requested that they be shut down as soon as possible.

Always think before you add an unknown application on Facebook, and ask yourself if you're really comfortable with ceding such power to complete strangers. Rogue application attacks like this, spreading virally, are becoming increasingly common - and do no good for anyone apart from the scammers behind them.

If you've been hit by a scam like this, remove references to it from your newsfeed, and revoke the right of rogue applications to access your profile via Account/ Privacy Settings/ Applications and Websites.

Here's a YouTube video where I show you how to clean-up your Facebook account:

(Enjoy this video? You can check out more on the SophosLabs YouTube channel and subscribe if you like)

And don't forget to warn your friends about scams like this and teach them not to trust every link that is placed in front of them. You can learn more about security threats by joining the thriving community on the Sophos Facebook page.

Malware And Malvertising via @adexchanger

The online advertising world continues to be challenged by ne'er-do-wells as Click Forensics released results from its latest quarterly, deep-dive into the company's fraud detection data. The Company identified challenges with display advertising where "a pop-up or pop-under (...) rotates brand advertisers' banner ads every 10-15 min in an effort to seemingly boost impression figures." Read the release.

CEO Paul Pellman discussed the latest on malware and malvertising.

AdExchanger.com: How is the malware scheme you describe reaching websites - through display ads from exchanges, specific ad networks? Any ideas on how it can be prevented?

PP: The Click Forensics Malware Lab has been finding two generic types of malware.  The first, more common version, is actually installed on the visitor's machine as a result of some other seemingly innocent download.  It can be spread via e-mail attachments or through lots of "freeware" that people install on their machines.  Once installed, these Botnets can take control of browser functions or simply open pop-unders to display ads for nefarious ad networks.  The best way to prevent these is for visitors to be diligent and use updated antivirus software from Symantec, McAfee, and others.

The second type is not really malware at all, but is the one more commonly talked about in AdExchanger circles.  Namely, visitors to ad supported sites get served all sorts of ads that they never see, whether in pop-unders, zero-by-zero iFrames, or invisible pages.  The generic term for these schemes is "ad stuffing."  Advertisers can protect themselves from both types of fraud by employing ad verification and/or audience verification platforms.

What IS the malware? Any trends there?

Much of the malware we found recently came from different types of toolbars.  These are browser plug-ins that purport to assist with search or provide some other value for the visitor (weather, sports scores, etc.), but in reality are also hijacking browser activity for the benefit of the author.  One toolbar we found turned organic search results into paid clicks by routing searches to a parked domain site and channelling clicks through several ad networks.  It's very difficult to trace which are complicit in the fraud and which are innocent participants.

From a marketer's perspective, would using frequency caps or buying on a CPC basis might lessen the impact of inflation impression?

Frequency caps might help a display advertiser minimize the impact of these schemes, but it can't defeat them completely.  As far as converting everything to CPC, it might work in the very short term but, as we well know, click fraud becomes an issue.  The best protection is the diligent monitoring of campaigns and the use of an audience/ad verification platform.

I didn't see you mention malvertising versus malware in your release. Do you distinguish between the two?

We use "malvertising" to refer to ads that send visitors to a place that is bad for them.  The ad itself may not be infected, but its intention is to trick the visitor into doing something damaging.  For example, the ad on NewYorkTimes.com a little over a year ago warned visitors to click through to a site where they could "update their virus protection."  Of course the download included all sorts of malware, but the ad itself was more accurately described as malvertising.

By John Ebbert

Click Fraud Falls In Q4 2010

The overall click fraud rate in Q4 2010 was 19.1 percent which was lower than the Q3 2010 all-time high of 22.3 percent, but higher than the 15.3 percent rate for Q4 2009, according to the latest report from Click Forensics. 

Click Forensics Malware Lab identified a new malware scheme targeting display banner ads. The program performs a pop-up or pop-under and rotates brand advertisers’ banner ads every 10-15 min in an effort to boost impression figures.

In Q4 2010, the countries outside North America producing the greatest volume of click fraud were Japan, the Netherlands, the Philippines, Sweden and France, respectively. 

“While the overall click fraud rate dropped last quarter for CPC advertising, we saw the emergence of new schemes focused on display advertisements,” said Paul Pellman, CEO of Click Forensics. 

“We are investigating the malware-driven attacks in more detail, but early evidence points to an impression inflation scheme. It’s something we will examine more closely and report on later this year.”

http://www.webpronews.com/topnews/2011/01/26/click-fraud-falls-in-q4-2010

Tom Cuthbert 

@tomcuthbert

Facebook Wants You To Buy More Credits With "Buy With Friends" -- And Take On Groupon? @alleyinsider

Facebook Wants You To Buy More Credits With "Buy With Friends" -- And Take On Groupon?

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry |

 Jan. 26, 2011, 7:01 AM | 51 | 

• A A A
•  
• inShare

Image: fudymaFaceboo is introducing a new feature called "Buy with Friends." The idea is basically to increase purchases of virtual goods (via Facebook Credits) by making it easier to advertise it to your friends. And when the virtual good is connected to some sort of deal, your friends can take part in that deal if they buy as well. (Forbes)

For now that's mostly for virtual goods linked to Facebook games, but it's not hard to imagine that kind of social buying dynamic to expand to other areas like social commerce and group buying a la Groupon. We'll see if that happens.