Rev2.org

Owen Van Natta, CEO of MySpace, stepped down (some say fired) yesterday and two other executives were named as co-presidents to replace him.  John Miller (COO) and Jason Hirshhorn (CPO) were moved to the new positions as the struggling social network tries to find relevance.

MySpace is owned by News Corp, Rupert Murdoch’s media powerhouse.  Murdoch knows information and content.  With huge franchises like Fox and now Avatar, Murdoch has gained solid control over a large chunk of the news, content, and entertainment markets.  His failing is all digital.  Murdoch knows content, but he doesn’t know Internet.

Having sold off other online services, like Photobucket, it’s only a matter of time before Murdoch completely walks away from Internet franchises altogether.

His major foray into the Web, MySpace, is struggling for some kind of identity as competitors like Facebook continue to grow and prosper.  About the only thing MySpace has going for it is MySpace Music, which seems to be languishing as the company tries (again and again) to revitalize itself and become more than yesterday’s has-been teenie bopper hangout.

MySpace still has a large user base and great potential in some areas, but is being drug down by lack of innovation and by its two major attractions: game apps and an increasingly irrelevant Music section.  Indie and unsigned bands fill the music section of MySpace and give it a great base to work from to build a solid niche.  Without a solid Chief Tech Officer, though, that’s not likely to happen.

Neither Miller nor Hirshhorn are CTOs, they’re hands-on corporate bureaucrats.  Innovation won’t happen there.  It may have happened had Van Natta been given free rein to do his thing, but that’s debatable, given his short track record.

So whatever happens, it’s probably a long, painful, slow, ugly goodbye for MySpace as it flounders and, eventually, gives up.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that Gmail, Google’s email service, is going to rival Facebook and Twitter. Then USA Today did the same, targeting Facebook as the next one to receive a Google bomb. The two media giants got the scoop, but probably missed the core of the whole situation.

That is centered on who, if anyone, Gmail is really targeting and Business Insider’s Nicholas Carlson thinks it’s Twitter, not Facebook. He’s got a good point, though, but he misses the reason that Facebook isn’t an easy Google target and why Twitter definitely is.

First, Facebook is #4 on the most-visited websites list world wide, with Google being number one. The two services, however, aren’t really competing on any sphere. At least, not directly. Google is already battling Microsoft, Apple, and Yahoo! on several fronts and would be, frankly, stretching too thin to take on Facebook, against whom they really have no beef. Google hasn’t even attempted to get into the social media game and if they were to do so, taking on Facebook would be a lot more difficult than, say, Twitter.

Twitter, meanwhile, is a relatively soft target. Sunday’s Superbowl was a reminder of that, with the service unable to keep up with traffic. With users of Twitter seeming to get used to the Fail Wale and turning immediately to other venues when it happens, Twitter needs to either step up to the plate and fix their core service or bow out to the next rival who can.

That next rival could be Gmail. Google has the facilities, the experience, and the know-how to make a new, improved Twitter. They could also easily include some features that Twitter users are continually asking for: embedded links that don’t use up space in the 140 limit, embedded pictures and other media, etc. Given that Google owns both YouTube and Picasa, this is an obvious fix.

Most likely, though, CNNTech is right: what Google will announce tomorrow is neither a Facebook nor a Twitter killer. Instead? It’s just a lame status update box on your Gmail account that will likely be ignored by 90% of Gmail’s users.

When the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued new rules last October that govern how bloggers in the U.S. can publish endorsements or reviews of products for which they’ve received compensation, a lot of controversy ensued.  Mainly because bloggers saw this as a direct attack on their ability to report on products or consumer services.  At the time, however, most Netizens seemed to at least agree that the rules appeared to be fair across the board.

Boy were we wrong.

Apparently, how a law is written and how it’s enforced are two separate issues and this is a blatantly obvious illustration of how that works.  The FTC’s website says this about celebrity endorsements:

“The revised Guides also make it clear that celebrities have a duty to disclose their relationships with advertisers when making endorsements outside the context of traditional ads, such as on talk shows or in social media.”

That clearly says that celebrities, like the rest of us, are required to disclose any financial relationships they might have with products or services they are endorsing.

Well, to you and me it might clearly say that.  To the FTC’s Rich Cleland, though, it doesn’t really say that.  Instead, it has some caveats.  At least, that’s what was reported by DailyFinance when Jeff Bercovici approached Cleland about an obvious (to him) violation of the new FTC rule by celebrity Gwenneth Paltrow.

According to the FTC’s advertising division associate director, there is a difference between Joe Blogger and celebrities: people commonly know that celebrities receive free stuff.  We do?  I was under the impression that celebs just get paid a boatload of money, not that they also got freebies.

Of course, if a celebrity like Paris Hilton were to blog about the greatness of the Hilton hotel chain, most of us would probably say “well, duhh.”  If Brad Pitt were to appear in a commercial for Preparation H and be seen on Twitter saying that “Preparation H is awesome, I couldn’t sit down without it!” then we would probably put 2 and 2 together.

I can’t say that I can clearly draw a line when, however, Gwenneth Paltrow blogs about her awesome hotel experience without revealing any financial ties or compensation (freebies) she may have received in relation to that.  She wasn’t in a commercial, ad spot, or otherwise clearly tied to the hotel in question, so it’s much shadier.  Aren’t some bloggers considered celebrities in their arena?  Who governs who a celebrity is?  Maybe we should also have government agency to classify celebs vs. the rest of us.

To add to this, I heard a local radio show today where the host, Jeremy Loper on 103.1 repeatedly discussed the merits of a specific product, but never said anything about whether he is compensated for doing so.  I would assume he is, since it was an apparent commercial slot, or why would he devote such time to it, but his clear avoidance of any actual disclosure seems to indicate that he’s in violation of the FTC’s rules.  Other local radio show personalities down here Paul and Young Ron also talk about Anthony’s Coal Fired Pizza, and never mention they get free pizza when they go.  Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, I am sure nobody gives much thought to it.

Oh, wait.  Those rules only apply to social media like blogging.  Woops.  Radio and TV aren’t included.

Gee, that’s fair.

The war between the tech giants continues, with a new battlefield emerging in the business applications arena.  The New York Times Blog has broken a story stating that Google is planning a new application store to sell business software while promoting Google Apps.  This is interesting, but not surprising, on several levels.

The rivalry between Microsoft and Google is not new, but Google Apps promises to bring the competition directly to one of Microsoft’s key doorsteps: business applications.  With Bing hitting Google on the search front, Google is returning the favor by hitting MS on the biz app front.

Tom Krazit from CNet News says that the Google App store could come as soon as March.  He posits that the new store will be part of the Google Solutions Marketplace, which would make sense.

Of course, Google is playing coy while at the same time apparently taking a cue from Apple’s marketing tactics, hoping to go viral with a key bit of leaked information.  It seems to be working.  Matt McGee of Search Engine Land makes the comparison directly, pointing out that one of the strengths of the iPhone is its proprietary app store.

Unlike Microsoft, however, it appears that the Google Apps Store would have third party software rather than proprietary offerings.  This makes a financial model for the plan hard to figure, but it’s possible that Google could make money by taking a piece of each sale or indirectly through ads.  Or maybe the goal is merely to get a big foot into the marketplace, displacing some the Seattle giant’s stronghold.

Either way, it’s definitely fun to watch as the giants of tech battle it out.  I wonder what Apple’s reaction will be to all this?

This story broke over the weekend and got some real legs on it yesterday evening.  Amazon and Macmillan publishing have been fighting about price points and electronic books and Amazon, apparently, has caved in to Macmillan on this.  Unlike the rest of the buzz mongers, however, I’m going to tell you why this is a good thing.

On the surface, people like Henry Blodget at Business Insider are correct: this will mean higher prices for electronic books from Amazon.  It also comes from others, like Jennifer Guevin at CNet News.  The problem here isn’t with the reportage, it’s with where their information is coming from.  Both of them (and many others like them) got most of their information from Amazon’s announcement on the deal.  In this respect, Amazon pulled off a PR coupe.

Behind the scenes, however, is something a little more questionable and that makes this win for Macmillan a win for everyone else.  Why?  Because of the way that Amazon’s agreements work, which was the heart of this dispute.  The price tag of the final deliverable was just the punching bag, the fists hitting it were Amazon’s publisher agreements and Macmillan’s refusal to bow to them.

To understand this, a rough understanding of the publishing world is required.  Normally, before the Internet and Amazon.com, books were published, sold to wholesalers, then to distributors, then to book stores and then to customers.  Eventually, wholesalers and distributors became one and the same.  Then came Amazon.

Amazon acts as a wholesaler when dealing with the publisher and a book store to the rest of us.  There’s nothing basically wrong with this, except that Amazon often marks up its titles as if it were the local book store, dropping a few points to be lower-priced by a couple of bucks.  Thus a wholesale book might sell to Amazon for $5, but they’ll sell it to you for $19.99.  The book store, which got it through a supply chain, has a cover price of $24.99.

Before Amazon, of course, large booksellers like Barnes & Noble and others were already acting as wholesalers.  They were not, however, demanding exclusive rights or specific printing rights as part of the deal.  Amazon, on the other hand, has hefty purchase requirements they want publishers to go along with, most of them revolving around the e-book version of the publication.

Up to now, publishers were willing to concede to this because, quite literally, Amazon was the only real e-book game in town.  Now they aren’t and some publishers, like Macmillan, are beginning to question the exclusivity.

Which brings us to the current state of affairs.  By asserting their ownership rights over the electronic version of their books (through price setting), Macmillan is telling Amazon that the monopoly is over.  Of course, Amazon has a lot bigger audience to preach to, so they can get more of their story out to the public.  Macmillan really only has publications like Publishers Marketplace, in which they took out an ad explaining their side of the bargain.  Of course, most of us don’t read that publication, but many of us will get on the meme when Amazon’s announcement of their side of the story hits the ‘Net.

CNBC got the scoop yesterday afternoon when they interviewed McGraw-Hill’s CEO, Terry McGraw.  The publishing company, which is one of the world’s largest textbook publishers, has penned a deal with Apple to offer select textbooks to students through the iPhone and, he let slip, the forthcoming Apple tablet.

In fact, he specifically said Tablet and also said it would be based on the iPhone operating system, making it “transferable.”  The Chief Executive was so excited about the new deal, he seems to have slipped and let the cat out of the bag before Apple’s big event, which is to unveil today.

The buzz is all over with everyone from Macrumors to the LA Times and the Huffington Post getting in on the surprise revelation before Apple’s big day.

Of course, no everyone thinks the McGraw slip was accidental.  Andrew Munchbach at the Boy Genius Report seems to think it was another part of Apple’s media leaks to generation buzz.  It’s certainly done so, with the focus now being on what the new tablet will look like, when it will be available for sale, and various details rather than on the announcement of the tablet itself.

Whatever the announcement, the cat is definitely out of the bag.  Rumors have Apple in 11th hour negotiations with other publishers, which up until now included McGraw-Hill who seems to have happily signed on.  The CEO also said that the publisher already has several titles ready for the new Apple tablet.