In its first earnings report as an independent company, AOL posted a small profit for the fourth quarter. It recorded a net income of US$1.4 million, or 1 cent per share, for the quarter. In the same period a year ago, it lost $1.93 billion, because of a $2.2 billion noncash impairment charge.

Their revenue declined 17% to $809.7 million, down from $974.2 million from the same quarter a year ago — due to a drop-off in both subscription and advertising levels. Their subscription revenue dropped 28% to $307.4 million; advertising revenue dropped 8% to $471.6 million.

Display advertising in the U.S. rose 1% to $151.7 million, while outside the U.S. it fell to 22%. Search and contextual advertising fell 19% compared to the fourth quarter in 2008. AOL attributed this to a 27% drop in Internet subscribers who tend to use its search function more frequently.

Even though revenue fell year over year to $809.7 million, the number was actually better than what analysts had expected. Display advertising may have registered just a 1% increase, but it was the first time domestic display showed year-over-year revenue growth in eight quarters.

As a standalone company, AOL has laid out a number of goals for 2010, which include increasing its user base, launching a paid service platform, and completing a new search deal. Certainly, executives at the company are looking at the long term — and urging investors and advertisers to do so as well.

For IT, cloud computing is as significant a development as the invention of the PC!

Apple made the iPod a success by changing people's perception of music from a product to a service, a single song to download as needed, as opposed to a physical CD to buy in a store — and the cloud will have the same impact on information technology. While end users may never even know that the application which they happen to be using is coming from the cloud, IT will be totally transformed, and the business as a whole will have an entirely new way of viewing, using and paying for technology.

"Companies that are smart are taking a look at the varied aspects of cloud and pushing certain applications up (into the cloud) and those that need unique distinguishing characteristics they push down (into the traditional data center environment)," said Doug Neal, co-author of the report Doing Business in the Cloud – Implications for Cost, Agility and Information, and research fellow with CSC's Leading Edge Forum Executive Programme:

"IT has to realize that it's in kind of a precarious position. It can either accelerate this change and gain great glory or they can sit back in denial and just atrophy…the most important value the cloud brings is not lower costs…it is improved agility, not just for IT, but for the business as a whole."

The agility comes from the option to offload any aspect of a company's IT infrastructure to an outside provider, paying only for the services you need, as you need them.

And therein is the mystique of the cloud: no provisioning, no waiting, just click, pay, and you're all done.

"What the promise of the cloud is, in part, to begin to segment apps so that… for those few times a year I need extra capacity, I reach out to the cloud…So I pay with occasional opex for what [I] used to pay for with capex and, in the process, I could probably double, triple, quadruple the bang I get out of my data center."

“Blogs are the most important thing to online marketing since sliced bread.”

“Blogs may have their place… but it’s not in direct marketing.”

Such disparate views leave us asking who to believe!

The blog consultants?

Or the “old school” marketing mavens?

Bombarded and barraged with hype, marketers can have a tough time deciding whether blogs should be part of their arsenal.

Listen to the blog consultants?

Who profits from the blog phenomenon anyway?

And are we talking “opportunistic agenda” or “objective perspective”?

How about marketing experts?

Is it fair to say that blogging does not belong in a direct or business-to-business marketing program?

Why do so many old-hatters bristle at the idea of blogs?

Is it simply because of imagined shortcomings?

Or do blogs actually stump an “old school” sensibility that seeks a precedent for comparison?

A decade ago, at the dawning of the commercial Web, marketers were caught in a similar pickle. One faction wrote the Web off as negligible, while another took to the barricades, waving the Web flag and proclaiming the demise of other channels. It's clearly seen who was right!

“Okay,” you say, “history is well and good. But what happens in the next senior-management meeting when the CEO asks, ‘Does blogging belong in our marketing communications program?’ What to tell him?”

Well, you can tell him blogs are not an effective direct marketing tool. I doubt they ever will be. Blogging does not allow you to precisely target audiences or permit any discernable control over who sees your message. However…there's a but…

Blogs have already proven useful in publicity campaigns, generating word-of-mouth and, in some cases, media attention. CPG marketers have made the most effectual use of commercial blogs, with highly imaginative efforts attracting throngs of consumers. There is no question that these blogs have affected consumer bonding with brands.

Blogs can also play an important role in business-to-business marketing. Management gurus, public speakers and prominent business leaders can wield some mean business-to-business blogs. Tom Peters, for one, has a very successful blog. For Peters’ fans, this is a really heaven sent: access to Peter’s daily thought process. What's more, the more people who clamor to glean Peters’ next idea, the higher the likelihood that his next seminar will sell out and his next tome will fly off the bookshelves.

Are blogs right for every company or brand?

Definitely not.

Are bloggers, and especially blog consultants, over-hyping blogs?

Yup.

The former group is merely excited about technology. The latter benefits from getting business people to turn off their logic and open up their wallets. The unfortunate backlash: wholesale discrediting of blogs by critics who have either never used them effectually or have never used them altogether.

A brave new world, or just a passing fad? The importance of blogging should not be overstated or ignored. Blogs are unique. They are not direct mail, telemarketing, direct response TV, e-commerce or e-mail marketing … and that’s just fine. Defining what they are not does not diminish what they are and what their potential in the hands of a smart marketer is.

Viral marketing campaigns are internet word-of-mouth initiatives which use social networks to increase lead generation and brand engagement. They work across any online platform and easily scale from large to small, exponentially increasing their reach with minimal effort on the part of the marketer. All too often smaller organizations shy away from viral campaigns, assuming that they are time-intensive and require big budgets. This is simply not true. In fact, once you have made the initial investment your fans do much of the work for you.

Your viral campaigns will be the most effective when you have a clear goal in mind. The three most common are increasing customer acquisition, brand awareness, or customer loyalty. No matter your goal, it is important that you clarify it from the beginning because you will use different tactics depending on your desired outcomes.

There are many types of campaigns, but what they all have in common is their tendency to evoke a reaction: laughter, shock, surprise, or what you will – that triggers people to take action and share the content. The most common viral campaign tools are video, interactive flash games and images. And among the plethora of distribution channels, you'll find something for every budget.

When you are creating your campaign you will definitely want it to be easy and actionable; remember: the simpler, the better. It shouldn't take more than a couple of minutes for someone to digest and react to your offer. To support that quick and instant reaction, you'll want to build your campaign on established platforms. Video, images, e-mail, Twitter, and so on and so forth, are readily accessible and understood.

For customer acquisition campaigns, consider methods to introduce yourself and attract prospective clients who would otherwise not consider your brand. Twitter and Facebook are great viral tools for sharing content, video, images and more. Contests and giveaways are classic popular viral strategies.

Brand engagement, on the other hand, is all about increasing the power of your current client relationships. This strategy is permission-based, as these individuals have given you permission to reach out to them through various channels. They have already seen value in what you provide and are interested in engaging with you further. Twitter, Facebook, e-mail marketing, and promotions are all ways to enhance engagement with your current customer base. Hey, you can even use text messages!

You've all heard the cliche that more eyes lead to more secure code when it comes to open source. But the question is: is it true?

The latest attempt to answer this query comes from the code scanning vendor Veracode.

The Veracode study found that in aggregate 58% of all applications which they scanned did not have an acceptable security score – that means there was some risk.

39% of Open Source applications and 38% of commercial applications did have an acceptable score according to Veracode when mapped against the CWE/SANS Top 25 Most Dangerous Programming Errors.

That's not so impressive to me…

…What was impressive however, from my perspective, was the remediation time:

"Open Source project teams remediated security vulnerabilities faster than all other users of Veracode's application risk management services platform…Open Source applications took only 36 days from first submission to reach an acceptable security score, compared to 48 days for Internally Developed applications and 82 days for Commercial applications."

Veracode also noted that open source software had fewer backdoors with less than 1% across scanned applications in the study. The 'many eyes' of open source transparency is most likely the number one reason why there are not more backdoors in open source code.

I have seen and reported on other studies over the years showing differing levels of open source code quality but the time to remediation is often a statistic, where open source really stands alone. The fact of the matter is that all software has bugs, with many eyes or not. It is what developers do once something is found and how fast those issues are fixed, which, in my estimation is the truest test of software code resilience and quality.

The European Union reported on Tuesday that some 100 million Europeans using Microsoft Corp. software will be asked to choose among rival Web browsers by mid-May. This comes under a deal which the EU struck with the firm in order to settle the latest antitrust action.

Microsoft, this month, is starting to send updates to Windows computers in Europe so that when computer users log on, they will see a pop-up screen asking them to pick one or more of 12 free Web browsers to download and install, including of course, Microsoft.

The European Union's executive commission said that giving consumers the chance to try an alternative to Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser, which comes with the widely used Windows operating system would

"bring more competition and innovation in this important area."

EU antitrust regulators in December dropped their last pending antitrust case against the software giant, after the company offered to let users choose between its browser and others. This ended more than a decade of legal trouble which cost Microsoft, euro1.7 billion in fines.

Rivals had complained that attaching Internet Explorer to Windows was an excessive way for Microsoft to put its Web software on most of the world's computers.

The top five browsers: Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Mozilla's Firefox, Google Inc.'s Chrome, Apple Inc.'s Safari and Opera, will be given prominent placement on the pop-up choice screen.

The selections will rotate from computer to computer, so none of these five browsers will always be first.

Smaller competitors such as Avant Browser, Flock, Green Browser, K-Meleon, Maxthon, Sleipnir and Slim Browser will also be displayed when the user scrolls sideways.

The EU said greater browser choice also would boost the use of open Web standards: a set of guidelines on how Web sites are designed.
Rivals claim that Microsoft has not always followed these standards closely, thereby forcing Web designers to make sites compatible with Internet Explorer — the leading browser — instead of working smoothly with other Web software.

Microsoft's browser choice screen will be used for five years in the 27-nation European Union plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

Microsoft could be fined 10% of its annual revenue if it does not stick to its commitment to distribute the browser screen and avoid any retaliation against computer manufacturers who install other browsers as a default on the computers they sell.

Users in the U.S. and elsewhere will not see any change.

Twitter is announcing that they have got a new plan to make money from their ultra-popular micropublishing system. The New Plan: copy Google’s money-spinning search ads.
Twitter will let advertisers sign up to have their ads show up as tiny 140-word posts when users search through Twitter or through other search engines that use its API.

Peter Kafka describes it this way:

"A search for, say, “laptop,” may generate an ad for Dell. The ads will only show up in search results, which means users who don’t search for something won’t see them in their regular Twitterstreams…. The services will have the option of displaying the ads, and Twitter will share revenue with those that do."

That’s a good enough way to start. It won’t really interfere with the current reading and publishing of the system, and allows the company some time to tune its algorithms. Google’s tech juggernaut runs on text ads, and still makes some 60% of its more than $20 billion annual revenue from these kinds of contextual ads placed next to search results.

Google makes about a third of its revenue from the AdSense program, which allows publishers to sign up and have little text ads run on their Websites.

That kind of program is the logical next step for Twitter, allowing users to sign up to have every 10th post, or so, be an ad placed through Twitter. That ad is related to something the user is talking about, or simply a branded ad placed because the advertiser likes a particular Twitterer’s audience.

While this new plan might be lucrative for Twitter, it risks alienating users.

Pundits and tech journalists have been wondering for years when and how Twitter would make money. Now here's the answer…

TopRank ran a survey of journalists, reporters and editors on their use of search and social media in 2008; they found that 91% use search engines like Google to do their job and 64% use social networks. Published in Jan 2010, a George Washington University and Cision survey of journalists reported that 89% use blogs and 65% use social networks to research their stories.

Newsrooms seem to be cutting staff and reporters and editors are hard pressed to do more with less. Tools like search engines and social media make available a tremendous amount of information in real-time. The news world is a world of deadlines and it seems that the use of search and social networks to source experts or people/companies which fit a story angle would be perfect. Even respected news organizations like the BBC encourage their journalists to embrace social media.

This kind of insight is helpful in understanding how companies can make their news content more easily discovered via social web participation, content and optimization.
According to TV News Reporter Jason DeRusha:

“Private business does a horrible job cataloging their expertise in a manner that’s search engine friendly. This is a real opportunity, as journalists become much more crunched for time, and use search as quick way to identify local experts.”

I know that I start every day with my favored search engine. It doesn’t make a difference what story I’m working on, it always starts with Search.
Often times, you will find that the use of search engines and social media sites intersect.

LinkedIn is a very good place to mine client-side folks.

This quote from news anchor Chris O ‘Connell sums it up nicely:

“social networking has changed the way we do business and how we are able to get news and sources faster when deadlines matter.”

Does your company incorporate news optimization as part of their online marketing and content strategy? Do they optimize and promote news content differently than marketing content? Do they track whether the media finds your content via search or social media?

Some things to keep in mind…

It seems like everyone has a blog these days. It's become a household word for sure. It's fun, easy and free. The difficulty is due to the plethora of information available on the net which can make it tricky to attract a solid group of readers.

But according to Tamar Weinberg at Techipedia, there are 11 characteristics of all highly influential blogs that will build your blog and its followers…

Consistency – Readers want posts…lots of posts.

"Neglected content may inadvertently translate to neglecting your readers too."

Eloquence – Read your face off, write well and proofread proofread proofread. Weinberg's top bloggers

"always have something insightful to say,"

and

"their content exudes intelligence and occasional wit."

Uniqueness – Channeling Darren Rowse, Weinberg argues that being unique

"requires not doing what everyone else does."

I.e. don't repeat the news with nothing new to offer.

Specificity – Focus on a niche. Be topical.

Personality – Give readers a glimpse of the person behind the screen. Tell

"personal stories as it relates to your mission in blogging."

Be Analytical – I think that's the key point.

"People love data, and they love knowing how data can be aggregated to make conclusions. They love charts and graphics, and they love the findings that can be made from this data in aggregate,"

Weinberg says.

Details – Details can take a regurgitated news story and make them your own.

Provocation of Though – Make sure your readers have a lasting impression of your post after they click away.

Passion – If you are passionate about your blog, it will show.

Instructional – Teach your readers how to do something interesting and useful.

Networking – Go on a pro-active quest to attract readers.

"In order for people to find you…you need to be able to market your blog to them. How does one do this? Comment on other bloggers’ posts consistently. Send tweets out to the bloggers with your own commentary."

Thanks Tamar Weinberg

You could put it that way or you could inquire, "Does Google make us stupid?"

This interesting question splashed across the cover of the Atlantic Monthly last summer, headlining a story written by controversial technology analyst and pundit Nicholas Carr, whose argument was that the climate of instant information and supreme distraction which so permeates the Web has taken its toll on the more focused, intellectual pursuits such as bookworming.

Industry leaders though would love to differ – I would beg to protest such falsities myself. A recent poll by the Pew Internet and American Life Project canvassing predictions for the Internet in 2020 found that 76% of respondents said that increasing usage of the Internet (and Google) will help people make smarter choices, and ultimately enhancing human intelligence.

Pew surveyed nearly 900 Internet experts, scholars and business leaders for its Future of the Internet poll, which it conducted in partnership with Elon University.

The survey organized its questions in "tension pairs," asking participants to cast their vote for one side of a binary query. On the intelligence issue, for instance, respondents explained why they agreed with the assertion:

"By 2020, people's use of the Internet has enhanced human intelligence; as people are allowed unprecedented access to more information, they become smarter and make better choices. Nicholas Carr was wrong: Google does not make us stupid."