Mediaboss Marketing

Jamie Becklandis a digital and social media strategist at Janrain,where he helps Fortune 1000 companies integrate social media technologies into their websites to improve user acquisition and engagement. He has built online communities since 2004. He tweets as@Beckland.

Never completely off the radar, privacy concerns recently stepped back into the spotlight.

[More from Mashable: What Was Super Tuesdays Top Social Media Moment?]

In the past months alone, privacy issues have emerged from all corners. The California Attorney General is twisting arms for better app disclosures, and startup Path apologized for scraping address books. And during February's OpenDialogue, CEO of Thornley Fallis Joseph Thornley claimed that Facebook violates our privacy day by day, because its impossible to give informed consent. But the privacy conversation has shifted in an important way. In the past, identity providers like Facebook and Google were blasted for their obtuse and complicated privacy policies. Questions still remain on that front, but by and large, identity providers have given users more control, and the uprisings have quelled for the moment. Consider the difference in the response to Facebooks 2007 Beacon program vs. the new Facebook Open Graph protocol. The former was lambasted as a gross violation of user trust, was built without disclosure in mind, and was killed. Eventually Mark Zuckerberg admitted that it was a mistake. By contrast, the frictionless sharing capabilities of the new Open Graph protocols have not seen any serious backlash (despite protests from Marshall Kirkpatrick, who maintains that it doesn't make sense to roadblock a link). The good news is that authorizing third parties to use an existing social identity is a one-way flow of information: from the identity provider to the application that the user has authorized. User profile data from a brand website or app is not shared with Facebook, Yahoo, LinkedIn or any other identity provider. Your browsing paths are not suddenly available to social networks, and your behavior after authentication is only available to the website you are actually on. But increasingly, the privacy conversation has widened to ask what apps are doing with the permissions they request, and how the information is actually being used. In order to understand what is actually happening with user data, we need to answer three separate questions.

Different identity providers offer differing amounts of information about a user, and require different access credentials. For example, Google delivers a verified and authenticated email address with a basic permission, while Twitter does not deliver any email address at all. My company has indexed the critical data elements and permissions available on more than 20 platforms. On top of what is available, app developers must determine which permissions and data elements they will request from the identity provider. This is implemented on an app-by-app basis; therefore, users can expect no shortcuts when reviewing the now commonplace permission screens that appear when we authenticate through social channels.

[More from Mashable: How to Allow Subscribers on Facebook]

Users can grant apps permission to access field-level information, but if those fields are blank, the identity provider will return a blank value. For example, if the birthday field is not filled out on LinkedIn, users can still use LinkedIn to authenticate, but the application will not be able to automatically send those users free coffee on their birthdays, for example. This is a crude line of defense, but its important to remember. Even when a list of permissions looks long and possibly intimidating, since people use specific identities for different purposes, some of the data may not be available. And with more identity providers offering distinct views into a users identity, its less likely that a complete picture of a user is available from any app in particular.

Its impossible to know exactly what information gets dropped into an applications database, but the reality is that social profile data is incredibly complicated to store and manage. Even when applications receive a data payload from the identity provider, there's no guarantee that the data is being collected somewhere.

However, any profile data that is presented back to the user within the app experience is clearly being stored. If a user sees a list of her friends who also use the app, its clear that the social graph has been shared to the application. For app developers, then, the decision about what permissions to ask for becomes easy: Only ask for what you will use in the experience you are designing. If there is not an immediate use case, dont ask for permission at that time. Its possible to go back to users and ask for additional permissions and data when they want to interact with a specific experience. Align what the user is giving up (his data) with what you are giving him (a valuable way to use his data). Each user will weigh privacy concerns differently, both for himself and for the brand that is requesting the information. The brand relationship, though, ends up being the most important consideration.

In a complicated environment, with so many privacy factors to consider, users often fast-forward their decisions about whether to share social profile data based on soft factors like brand trust. If a user trusts Coke (or the Washington Post, or Zynga), he will likely assume that the brand will use personal data responsibly and for the users benefit. What brands do you trust with your data?

View original post here:
Social Media Privacy: 3 Questions to Ask Before Authorizing Third-Party Apps

SANTA CLARA, CA--(Marketwire -03/08/12)- Instantis, the leading provider of cloud-optimized Enterprise Project Portfolio Management (EPPM) software used by IT and business process leaders to improve strategy execution through more effective work and resource management, introduced today Instantis EnterpriseStream for "seamless" communication, collaboration and social networking among users of the EnterpriseTrack project and portfolio management solution.

Instantis EnterpriseStream is purpose-built for project and portfolio environments and fully integrated with the EnterpriseTrack system. This contrasts sharply with competitive alternatives that depend on a third-party general-purpose enterprise social networking platform such as Chatter, Jive or Yammer. As a result, EnterpriseStream social communications are context sensitive and collaboration is optimized for project-intensive environments. Further, there is virtually zero effort to set it up, start networking and collaborating, and see immediate productivity results.

"Instantis EnterpriseStream brings together the inherently social and collaborative nature of project-centric work with relevant social networking concepts and technology," said Dr. Prasad Raje, Instantis founder and CEO. "Enterprises will see immediate and compelling business benefits in terms of improved project team and stakeholder planning, communication, collaboration and cohesiveness that will translate directly in to accelerated strategy, program and project execution."

Key features of seamless social networking that differentiate Instantis EnterpriseStream from competitive offerings for PPM environments include:

"Instantis EnterpriseStream continues our long track record of usability innovations," said Dr. Raje. "EnterpriseStream is purpose-built and seamlessly integrated with EnterpriseTrack and is not a bolt-on of an off-the-shelf social networking tool, no other competitive PPM solution can claim to offer these advantages."

About InstantisInstantis is the leading provider of cloud-optimized Enterprise Project Portfolio Management (EPPM) software used by IT and business process leaders to improve strategy execution through more effective work and resource management. Leading global corporations like Abbott, Baxter, Credit Suisse, DuPont, France Telecom, Lilly, National Grid and Xerox rely on a single system called EnterpriseTrack to fulfill the distinctive requirements of their strategic project portfolios such as PMO, IT, New Product Development, and Lean Six Sigma.

Visit link:
Instantis Introduces Social Networking Breakthrough for Enterprise PPM

NEW YORK Increasingly, the media zoo that is SXSW looks more like todays overlapping media world.

The annual South by Southwest Conference and Festival, which begins Friday, gathers thousands of creators, performers, media and industry members for 10 days onto the boozy downtown streets of Austin, Texas. Its really three festivals Interactive, Film and Music in one, but each bleeds into the other.

The annual buzz word at SXSW is always convergence. Just as the tech and entertainment worlds physically descend onto Austin, media forms, too, are diverging. Many of those technologies and companies that might be found at SXSW Interactive have greatly altered those at SXSW Film (video-on-demand, Netflix, Hulu) and at SXSW Music (Apple, Spotify, Pandora).

Its a place where the question is always whats next and one has the impression of meandering hordes traipsing the streets of Austin searching for answers to a confusing and ever-evolving media landscape. There will be hundreds of panel discussions, countless predictions and even man vs. machine competitions that pit algorithms against curators.

Its like stepping into a temporary world for one week where youre maybe two or three or five years in the future, says Amber Case, wholl be making her fourth trip to SXSW as a keynote speaker for Interactive. Shes a cyborg anthropologist who studies the relationship between humans and machines, and founded the location-sharing platform Geoloqi.com.

Each realm of SXSW will have its own superstars. None will be bigger than Bruce Springsteen, this years music keynote speaker. (NPR Music and SXSW.com will live stream the event.) Interactive, though, will have its own rock stars, including Napster co-founder Sean Parker (famously portrayed by Justin Timberlake in The Social Network).

Many others will be there, too, often promoting new projects, including Jay-Z, Willem Dafoe (The Hunter), Richard Linklater and Jack Black (Bernie), Jack White, Joss Whedon (The Cabin in the Woods), Lena Dunham and Judd Apatow (HBOs Girls), comedy podcast star Marc Maron, the Magnetic Fields and a few thousand more.

SXSW, effectively a trade show for industry and media members, has been around since 1987 and has historically been primarily a music event where labels showcase their acts and young bands seek their big break. Film and what was then called multimedia were added in 1994.

After some lean years supported financially by the music side of SXSW, the Interactive part of SXSW has in recent years swelled to become the largest aspect of the event.

Its not all that apparent what were doing different now, but knock on wood, says Hugh Forrest, director of SXSW Interactive. Theres lots of reasons for the growth, but the general reason that encapsulates it all is the growth of social media and social networks.

See the article here:
As digital, film and music worlds gather for SXSW media zoo, ‘convergence’ is annual buzz word

GENEVA (AP) Alliances are the buzz word of European automakers' struggle for survival.

PSA Peugeot-Citroen chairman Philippe Varin said Wednesday at the Geneva Motor Show that a new alliance with General Motors will allow the French automaker to return to long-term profitability in Europe.

There is hardly a potential ally that Fiat and Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne will rule out.

"We are open to everything," Marchionne said, even as the fresh GM-Peugeot alliance complicates Fiat's search for potential new partners.

While alliances have been around for a while some more successful than others the brutal European car market characterized by plummeting sales, idled factories and fierce competition is pushing many automakers to look for partners for new technology and access to fresh markets without reinventing the wheel.

Industrial tie-ups are becoming even more urgent as the European market continues to contract. Sales were down 200,000 units, or 9 percent, in the first two months of the year, and the car market has lost some 2.5 million vehicle sales from its peak in 2006-07, according to figures from IHS Automotive.

"This requires more and more investment that nobody can do except through acquisitions and alliances," said Carlos Ghosn, head of the 13-year-old Nissan and Renault alliance. "If Nissan were alone and Renault were alone there were many things we could not do."

Targeted alliances are driven by the logic that a good four-cylinder engine is a good four-cylinder no matter who builds it, and no driver cares about what platform the car is on. Only when it comes to more powerful engines, does brand identity come into play. Maserati and Ferrari, for example, strictly restrict their powertrain technologies to those brands.

The Peugeot-GM alliance is somewhat broader. GM becomes the French automaker's second-largest shareholder with a 7-percent stake, behind the Peugeot family, whose stake drops from 31 percent to around 25 percent.

"It represents an opportunity to build a strong and more profitable business not just in Europe, but in other parts of the world," Varins said, allowing Peugeot to address tightening emissions targets in Europe and strengthen its position in emerging markets in a way not economically feasible on its own.

View post:
Auto alliances the buzz word for survival

From Groupon

The trick, the Mad Money host explained, is to forget about anything that seems the slightest bit sexy. He would avoid the red hot dotcoms, especially the Internet initial public offerings that generate a lot of hype.

When you've got an Internet IPO that's got tons of hype, yet not much in the way of earnings, the only way to profit is by getting in on the actual deal, and then selling into the initial spike, Cramer said. I know I've said this before, but I'll keep repeating it either until I'm blue in the face or people stop making the rookie mistake of paying up for these names after they've begun trading.

Investors should, however, look for overlooked and undervalued dot-coms that have been around a while, he continued. Take IAC/InterActiveCorp

The recent Internet IPOs are still trying to figure out their business models, but IACs formative years passed long ago. Since founded in 1986 by billionaire Barry Diller, the company has been through numerous incarnations. It was one of the hottest growth stocks of the 1990s. The company made a number of acquisitions and became so large and complex that few people could wrap their heads around it, Cramer said. In 2008, the company broke itself up into five separate public companies: a home shopping network, a travel and leisure business, Ticketmaster and Lending Tree. IAC kept its core and high-growth Internet business, though.

Perhaps became of tis contused legacy, Cramer said IAC has largely been dismissed or ignored by most investors. Even so, the stock is up 248 percent since the generational low in March 2009. It rallied 49 percent in 2011 and has posted a 10 percent gain year-to-date.

Cramer thinks IACs stock has more room to run because the company has a proven ability to turn a profit. Match.com, for example, is a subscription-based business model that attracted 1.7 million core subscribers last quarter. In turn, Match.coms revenues were up 46 percent year-over-year last quarter.

(RELATED: 12 Unique Dating Sites)

Meanwhile, the company also has a strong search market, where search revenues increased by 35 percent year-over-year last quarter.

So IAC might not be as exciting as some of the red hot dotcom names out there, but Cramer thinks it will likely produce solid profits for your portfolio something every investor can get excited about.

Continued here:
Cramer: IAC/InterActiveCorp Is a Buy