CAN ONLINE MUSIC PIRACY BE ACTUALLY STOPPED?

Do you feel like a thief when downloading your favorite song online? Certainly for the majority of the people the answer to this question will be “no”. According to the results of a survey performed by Pew Internet and American Life Project  exposed in the Applelinks’ article called Is Music Piracy Stealing?, “two-thirds of Internet users who download music are unconcerned that they are violating copyright laws, while only 29 percent say they do care and 6 percent have no opinion on the matter.”

The majority of the issues regarding intellectual property infringements are somewhat related to the non recognition of people who do it as a bad thing and online music piracy is not the exception. One could say downloading music is like a little white lie: you know it’s not good, but as far as you concern, you can benefit from it without causing much harm to others. Of course the record labels would think otherwise, since they are the ones who are being tricked!

Putting aside the moral considerations, the big picture can be explained by analyzing the roles of the players involved in the online music piracy game. Consumers download music because they don’t have to pay for it; artist and record labels are against it because their profits are being diminished; and legislative authorities have to protect both actors’ rights and rule their relationship.

 Given the current status of the issue, in which is a reality the widespread availability of means and favorably behavior towards downloading free music, one is tempted to think that the answer is in the hands of the regulators. As long as the benefits of downloading music outweigh the costs, people are going to continue doing it! It’s not rocket science. If the problem has to be solved, authorities should make downloading free music not only against the law, but also costly through consequences derived from the enforcement of the legislation, without stopping making a continuous extraordinary effort to keep up with technology changes.

 Another alternative? All the players can simply accept the benefits derived from online music downloading, including record labels who perceived an increase exposure for their artists, and find new ways to compensate for the downsides. As explained in the article The End of Music Piracy? O RLY?, this could be done by creating non-replicable experiences that allow music fans to connect with the art and artists in ways that that cannot be copied and can be sold for real money. Ten years ago people took specialized courses to learn how to use a computer. Today, 5 years old kids already have computer notions and are well prepared by the time they finish school. Those schools offering this type of courses had to change their course or went out of business. As bold as it might sound, maybe record labels and artist should do the same.

ONLINE PRIVACY: DO NOT TRACK ME PLEASE?

It’s not a secret for anyone that every time we make a purchase online, look for travel information or google something we are being watch. As consumers, knowing that we are being subject of some sort of “online marketing espionage” definitely make us ask questions about our individual rights. Where is the line draw when it comes to the ownership of our internet browsing history? The answer is not only unclear, but also alternative responses are currently being the center of the debate between the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the many companies that use and sell users’ internet performed activities records to market their products (behavioral marketing).

On the one hand, according to an article released in the Wall Street Journal, the Internet and advertising companies are claiming that online privacy legislation threatens to constrain the $23 billion Internet-ad market. On the other side, in an attempt to establish the boundaries and protects consumers against invasion of privacy, the FTC had release some guidelines for the industry on how to proceed in this matter.

While some of the recommendations are seen to be quite ambiguous and we all know how ambiguity works in terms of law applications, the inclusion of a specific option on browsers that allows users to decide whether they want to block or allow certain websites to collect information from them seems to be a feasible approach in addressing the privacy concerns, providing some adjustments. Why? Because privacy invasion in this context refers to being observed without our consent and knowledge about what part of our behavior is being recorded, where is the captured information being store, for what specific purposes and who is performing the observation. If the FTC can enforce the provision of users’ access to choose what they want to be tracked with the transparent availability of all this information to the consumer and a non ambiguous description of the feature, It seems that a significant part of the issue could be resolved, even though other aspects such as consumer data security obviously need to also be put into effect.

Some companies are already working on this particular FTC recommendation. Recently, Microsoft announced the inclusion of a “tracking protection” feature in the IE9, the latest version of the company’s internet browser expected to be released in 2011.

It will be interesting to see what we would choose. Right now we don’t have a choice, but if anyone ask any of us if we want more privacy, my guess is that almost everyone will respond yes. The coming year will probably let us know how many of the broad mass of internet users actually care about behavioral marketing practices. Would you click the not tracking button?

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703612804575222601908300456.html#ixzz17vaZ3UFJ

http://www.itworld.com/security/130082/microsoft-promises-tools-ie-protect-privacy-squash-javascript-malware?source=itw_rss

SOCIAL MARKETING MEDIA AND SMALL BUSINESSES: WHAT’S THE REAL COST?

Certainly, online social media appears to be the new “it” thing. We all have seen how the users scope of the social websites have been widen significantly in the past years, especially with the birth of something you might be familiar with called Facebook. A couple of months ago a professor in a course I was taking asked to the audience of 50 how many of them have a Facebook account. Only 1 person said no. Furthermore, when you realize that your 10 years old sister and your mother of 53 are both using the social website, it is apparent this might be a tool that could be use to reach different types of public.

This is exactly the perception of many businesses nowadays. Regardless of the enterprise’s size, there seems to be a trend of using online social media to advertise products and to develop customer relationships. We now see how companies include references of their Facebook and Twitter accounts in their radio and television advertising. Clearly, something has changed!

In the case of small businesses, social media marketing can represent an important opportunity for growth. As shown in the Social Media Trader article called “Social Media Marketing for Small Businesses”, increased brand awareness, low cost, impact on searching engines, compatibility with traditional marketing and the possibility of recommendation among costumers are all benefits that could be provided by this tool.

Let’s take a look at the cost factor. Is it really low? Or small business might be paying a disguise price in the form of risk? Compared with traditional advertising methods, there is no question online social media is cheaper in terms of what companies have to pay (if any payment is required) to have an active account. But what about how much will it cost to have an immediate widespread discredit campaign from discontent customers. This works both sides: customers could recommend your product, but could also post any bad experience with your brand and make that known worldwide with a simple click. Wouldn’t be “cheaper” not having that possibility at all? Going “online social”, as mentioned in the previously referred article, means having your product under constant scrutiny. Small businesses could be facing a phase in which they don’t possess a “strong” product. If this is the case, giving to the customers the power of recommendation can have very harmful side effects.

On the other hand, isn’t an opportunity cost the allocation of resources, particularly time, for budget constrain small businesses in a not yet proved effective method of marketing? The CNN article “How can Small Companies Make Money from Social Media?” shows that many companies remain unsure about what social media marketing really does for their business.  It also noticed that “one of the challenging aspects of social media is getting concrete data on how effective it really is”. "If someone recommends a product on Twitter or Facebook, seeing the impact of each recommendation is very difficult."  Furthermore, the method has not proven formula or path of effective implementation.

Small business should take these aspects in consideration when using the online social marketing strategy. Regardless of the possible side costs, the trend for the near future does not seem to be avoiding the use of this tool, but on the contrary joining it whether the company likes it or not just to avoid staying behind the competition out there.

NEUROMARKETING: IS MARKETING NEWEST TREND GOING TOO FAR?

The term itself is self explanatory: Neuromarketing looks to identify brain stimulus produced by advertising. The results then become a source to shape the marketing approach that would generate a “positive” response from the consumer. Although seen by many as a powerful tool, just listening to the name of the technique immediately raises questions about individual consumer rights. Is Neuromarketing an excessive machiavellian form of manipulation? Could it be compare to brainwashing?

After all, the use of medical technology in order to look this deep into consumer minds may be the seller’s ideal dream, but the consumers’ worst nightmare. Let’s take a moment to look at both sides. It is true that all marketing and advertising techniques involve certain measure of persuasion. In one way or another, the objective is always to convince the consumer to buy. However, if the use of this rocket science method is based on subconscious response as some of its detractors claim, buyers could be facing an unethical way of persuasion or moreover a degree of brainwashing.

In her article How Brainwashing Works, Julia Layton defines brainwashing as a “severe form of social influence that causes changes in someone's way of thinking without that person's consent and often against his will.” Isn’t this what neuromarketers do? Obviously, the answer will depend on the scientific and biological roots of Neuromarketing. As showed in the R. Kayne article called What is Neuromarketing?, the technique is relatively new and there are divergent versions on how it really works and even on if it works at all.

One aspect to examine is the relation between values and positive or negative stimulus. From an introspective view, many of us have been in situations where something makes us happy even though moral constraints prevent us to show or behave in accordance to that feeling. In these cases Neuromarketing could change that, making us act or buy things against our values, which would have relevant societal repercussions. Of course this is going to the extreme, but it is a possible outcome of a further development of this trend that is worth to keep in consideration.

Ultimately, we don’t want to become programmed robots going to the store’s shelves to buy what greedy companies want us to buy to increase their profits, against both, our conscious awareness of preference and our moral inclinations. We want to spend our money in those things we prefer, not in those things sellers trick us to believe we want!

Source: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-neuromarketing.htm