Al Qaeda has Facebook

   http://tinyurl.com/3dm9db

Canadian military officials have recently told soldiers in Afghanistan not to post any personal information on social networking sites such as Facebook. The logic behind this advice is to protect soldiers back home (as well as friends and family in their network) from being targeted by terrorists. 

 

   Exactly what type of "targeting" is the Canadian military worried about? Is this just precautionary, or are soldiers being harassed in their own homes by sinister Al Qaeda operatives protected by the anonymity of Facebook? Certainly enough personal information could expose someone to identify theft. But beyond that, how can Al Qaeda target or attack an individual soldier via Facebook? If soldiers are vunerable, how vulnerable is the rest of the population? CBS reported that an internal memo from the Canadian military states "Al Qaeda operatives are monitoring Facebook and other social networking sites"? There has always been an issue with the degree of privacy that social networking sites provide. Now that terrorists are in the mix, will this change the debate?

   

   I'm sure this will become an increasingly important issue in the coming months and years. For now, I am just trying to avoid a super poke from Osama bin Laden.

Phone Calls From Around the World

   This summer, many of my friends will be traveling overseas. From my experience in the South Pacific one summer ago, I have some advice to give them. Don't buy phone cards. (At least not many)

   International phone cards are expensive. If purchased in America they can have rates as high as twenty cents a minute. Usually it is cheaper to buy phone cards in the country in which you are traveling. However, rates are still around seven cents a minute. Still pretty steep. My advice to those traveling abroad is to open a Tokbox account. Tokbox is a free video mailing and chatting website that requires no download. All you need is a camera on your computer. 

   

   Buying time at an internet cafe is much cheaper than buying minutes on a phone card. Plus, most of the computers in internet cafes (at least in my experience) are equipped with video cameras. You will most likely be checking email, facebook, etc. anyway. You might as well leave your family a video message rather than spending your precious euros, pesos, pounds, and yuan on international phone minutes. Skype works well as a video chatting site, and may actually work a little bit cleaner than Tokbox. The disadvantage of Skype is that it requires a download.  Computers in internet cafes usually have tight security and you will simply be out of luck if the particular cafe doesn't allow downloads.

Free Research Through Video Sharing

   It is no secret that Super Bowl advertising is a national event. It can be argued that almost as many people tune in for the commercials as the actual game. Much to the delight of advertisers, Super Bowl commercials can now be viewed again and again on video sharing sites like YouTube. People are sharing these videos with their friends and even ranking their favorite commercials. Every time one of these commercials is viewed represents a brand contact point. This in itself is very valuable to advertisers. However, the video sharing phenomenon has value far beyond mere brand contact. The real value of commercials on the internet (especially in regards to Super Bowl commercials) are the comments and discussions that surround these videos. Advertising agencies pay good money for research on advertising effectiveness. What the internet provides is a platform for the consumer to voice their opinion, with out any cost to the advertiser. Each Super Bowl commercial on YouTube alone has dozens if not hundreds of comments on it. While some are positive and some are scathing, each comment represents an insight into the consumer's perception of an ad and its effectiveness. What is more, all of these discussions are available to anyone who wants to see them. Message boards, blogs, and video discussions are not straight forward research, but they do offer invaluable insight into the consumer mind.

Microsoft + Yahoo = Google Dominance

   Earlier this week it was announced that Microsoft intends to acquire Yahoo for $44.6 billion. That's a lot of money.  This partnership could theoretically create an alliance that could finally challenge Google's dominance in the field of search engine marketing. However, what sounds good in theory, may not work out so well in actuality. The process of acquiring Yahoo may be long and painful for Microsoft, with little payoff. Microsoft's interest in Yahoo may spark other media companies interest. Time Warner, Comcast, AT&T, and News Corp may also be interested in placing a bid. While it is likely that Microsoft can outbid any competitor, the interest of other companies might drive up the price. Regardless, it can be assured that these other companies - especially Google - will be doing everything they can to prevent this merger. Google's lobbyists in Washington already have a strategy to fight this transaction. If Microsoft is not allowed to acquire Google, they will have spent a lot of money for nothing. Even if they are finally allowed to purchase Yahoo, the process will have taken months, during which time Google will continue to grow, and  draft a strategy for dealing with a major competitor in the marketplace. Google and Yahoo are two non integrated companies who's combined search engine use does not even come close to Google, especially overseas.

    

   When it is all said and done, this deal looks like it will cost Mircosoft much more than it is worth. I do not discount Microsoft's tenacity in making deals work. They are certainly a force to be reckoned with in the media industry. However, unless they have some serious tricks up their sleeve, I see this deal going south real fast.