This blog is a follow-up to the topics discussed in an earlier “iCredit” blog.

eBay Inc. and Yahoo Japan Corp., the online auction site that dominates the Japanese market, are now a team.  While earlier attempts by eBay to compete with the Yahoo site failed miserably, this happy union appears a fortunate compromise for both companies and their consumers.  Japanese products are increasingly popular in the West, from comic books to collector items.  Kismet, it would seem, to combine two of the most powerful online auction sites for the two countries.

And that’s not all eBay’s been up to.  Skype, the expensive 2.6 billion dollar 2005 acquisition of eBay will no longer lay semi-dormant.  CEO of eBAy Meg Whitman has promised an influx of investment into the Skype infrastructure which, despite complaints, promises to increase in membership dramatically; Skype will encompass over 355 million users when it adds 110 million new users via an agreement with MySpace. 

One reason the news is so exciting is the potential online payment plans that may soon be available through eBay’s Skype.  The idea to send online bills to consumers in the form of an addition to the  phone bill in not new.  A company called eCharge marketed the idea in the 1990s.  But it never took off quite like expectations predicted, rather like (and at the time of) eBay’s purchase of Skype.

Yet what eBay may soon be able to produce is an Internet auction/social networking platform that collapses geography and eases financial worries for both vendor and consumer.  Already there has been talk of Skype as a way to sell digital content.  It appears to have the tools, the money, and the technology.  Has eBay determined this is the time?

The PowerReviews Social Shopping Study 2007 recently reported that 70 percent of all online shoppers are social researchers—these consumers use the Internet to investigate potential purchases.  Of these, PowerReviews notes, 64 percent research not only what they plan to buy online, but also what they plan to purchase in stores. 

The kind of information this research generates is not limited to those that do the virtual research; many are no doubt more than willing to share what they know with their fellow consumers and local merchants in the real world.

Media trends and parallel studies suggest a significant portion of shoppers’ research explores the integrity of a brand or a company.  TV shows and public policies in 2007 targeted sustainable consumption, by the individual and by the corporation.  In many European markets, for example the UK, the “green consumer” is a given.  This purchasing trend is reflected in corporate practices.  BP is “Beyond Petroleum”, and John Brown, BP’s Chief Executive, is one of the leading proponents of a pragmatic global sustainable energy policy.  Last January, Marks and Spencer, in a successful effort to outshine competitors, implemented a 100-point five year plan “to become a carbon neutral, zero-waste-to-landfill, ethical-trading, sustainable-sourcing, health-promoting business”.  This move was also in line with European Union plans to reduce European carbon emissions by 20% by 2020.

Next year, Buzz online suggests that the trend promises to expand, but with some new developments.  M and S has just announced its plan to join the Fair Trade Movement increasingly practiced by competitors.  Blogs and Forums are discussing not only the environment, but also the impact of the environment on the health and wellbeing of its inhabitants.  Pharmaceutical industries are coming under fire for treating human health like a business—making money off disease and misery the way oil companies were accused of generating wealth from the poor planet.  Discussion online vibrates between the ethical imperative to provide needed medicine and health care to the public and what constitutes effective health care.  A common debate centres around pharmaceutical companies and health care professionals–are some over-medicating simply to make money?

Hannah Jones, the VP of Corporate Social Responsibility for Nike, referred in April to the “metatrends” impacting consumer behaviour.  The environment, emerging markets in developing countries, and equality and concern for the well-being of our fellow man are not just traditional sentiments of the current season.   Jones recognised these topics long ago (in online time) as some of the most significant metatrends to impact the future of consumer behaviour.  Buzz suggests she’s right; Brands, companies, and even public agencies (witness Monday’s demonstration against the EU European Fisheries Commissioner Joe Borg and EU ministers) are experiencing if not responding to the pressure of public concern.  The Internet demands that this response not be cosmetic—limited to superficial revisions of a corporate veneer.  Agencies, non-profits, and individuals online are anxious to attack any inconsistency in a company’s expression of concern and the behaviour of it (or its subsidiaries). 

Nike experienced these attacks in the late 1990s, and the company responded with an integrated re-organisation of its supply chain in coordination with its public values.  The results have been phenomenal—as Nike engaged with its former critics and really altered its practices, the bad Buzz subsided and the company re-emerged as a leader in the realm of corporate social responsibility, giving birth to a code of conduct to which clothing industries across the globe aspire.  Criticism hasn’t ended, but the company has made its intentions obvious and real, using the bad Buzz as a basis for critical (and lucrative—the company now makes a number of well-reviewed environmentally friendly products) change.

Blessed be the Buzz.

Public relations are immediate today, and the public overwhelmingly initiates such relations. John Edwards brushes his hair in preparation for an interview, and he is internationally mocked on You Tube. The Polish Power twins are treated in an equally ludicrous manner in a doctored music video. Through online documentaries and websites, Rupert Murdoch has earned a suspicious reputation rivaled by few (except, perhaps, the Vice President of the United States, Dick Cheney).

The good news is that many public officials have responded by directly appealing to their audiences in corporate and political blogs, forums and websites. These officials recognise the importance of regular correspondence with their publics. The rise of the official corporate and political blog has in turn spawned an incredible amount of blogs about corporate and political blogs. Most agree that in order to be effective and influence mainstream and social perception, messages must be clear, short, and simple. Answers must be direct and honest (or else denizens of netizens will no doubt publish, post and proliferate the facts of any attempted misdirection.) In no other time has the power of the private individual to engage with the body politique (or corporate) been quite so strong and aggressive. However, it is within the power of party or company officials to respond as directly and aggressively and even to take advantage of the online popularity that a public name generates.

Senator Obama Barrack, in his bid for the Presidential candidacy of the US Democratic Party, has taken full advantage of his online appeal to younger voters. He has made appearances on MTV and other media forums targeting younger audiences, and these appearances have migrated to You Tube and various personal and public weblogs. He has exploited his public name online.

But Buzz is more than simple popularity. Unfortunately, while Barrack may have much overall Buzz, he is not as regularly linked within that Buzz to politically important issues, such as the economy or health care, as is his more polarizing rival, Senator Hillary Clinton.

PCP (Persons, Corporations, and Policies) are Buzz entities that are continuously recast in online media. The Buzz claims them, combines them, and alternates between them, mixing initiatives both public and private in the Buzz re-creation of real person or policy in virtual space and time. Management of the public perception of a politician or a policy, private or public, is thus essential, as is understanding the current environment surrounding that PCP. This requires more than a single corporate blog’s response; it requires a diversified and nuanced understanding of the citizens and consumers to whom a corporate or public entity is responding. PCPs must exploit online media monitoring to make this possible. Online social media (such as blogs and forums) as well as mainstream media (i.e. online newspapers and magazines) illuminate the environments in which PCPs are expressed and re-created.

It is through this media that a person, corporation, or policy can understand and influence constituents and citizens. Buzz illustrates how a message or a campaign is perceived and can in many ways predict future perceptions. It is both media and medium, and savvy politicos and CEOs are listening.

In this age of information overload, most consumers know that the desired data exists, and many consumers are able to access at least related data. But consumers are not comfortable with their access. Consumers are sensitive of their own ignorance in the incredible excess of information available.

As a result, consumers choose to corroborate. They choose to network. Socially.

Users make information exchanged via a platform like Facebook credible because they believe in the integrity of their networks. The networks found on Facebook are social, not commercial. Information is shared (largely) for non-financial gain—out of genuine interest in sharing with the wider community. Because Facebook users believe in their networks, they trust in the data produced by these networks. Because they trust the data, the data is valuable. Valuable data is marketable.

Whether Facebook in reality warrants the trust that users give (rather, gave) it is debatable—no more so now than before the Beacon fiasco. The Facebook platform itself is just a medium. So why did the Facebook Beacon mess that up?

Facebook’s Beacon ruined Facebook community trust because it reminded Facebook users that the platform itself is a moneymaker as well as a community space. Worse, Facebook reminded users that it makes money off information that users share for free.

This was always true to a certain extent. Many Facebook community members recognised that to live in a community, one must pay taxes to support the community infrastructure (here the Facebook platform). The commercial ads dotting Facebook Profiles and conversations were a necessary means of financing the community’s online space. Public profile information was also fair game, providing information for advertisers as well as a means of extending a user’s network. After all, other users were required to gain the permission from the owner of the Profile before accessing further information.

However, Facebook crossed a line when it began to aggressively market the data that the platform had gathered unobtrusively before. Facebook’s Beacon was like an invasive gossip rag, turning private community members into targets of unwanted marketing paparazzi. The platform exploited its citizens when it pimped their private data to the Facebook public.

Buzz is unobtrusive. Buzz is public information that consumers want to share. Buzz does not target individuals, but it allows marketers to respond to an appreciative audience. Buzz allows marketers to collect the information that they want and profit from it through careful observation, not outright exploitation. As privacy and security issues become more prevalent on the Internet, Buzz will prove more and more the means by which organisations, agencies, businesses, and even government collect information about the individuals and communities that make up their audiences.

Hanging billboards has always been strategic. Online, strategies for the digital billboard are still evolving. Ad agencies for online sites recommend renting space on search engines and sites like Google, eBay and Yahoo! through a complicated statistical assortment combining user visits with time spent by unique users with the number of page views.

Companies, brands, and advertisers create formulas by which to value and price billboard space and then evolve equally frustrating and controversial means by which to measure the effect of the posted billboard. Bob Ivins of ComScore noted in an interview with The Economist that there is not a lot of obvious concrete analysis available in this form of online advertising. Understanding the complex data that results, Ivins suggested, is like “putting a straw into the fire hose to take a sip”.

As a result, many Brands are flocking to social networking sites like Facebook and Bebo. Successful ads in these spaces are not mere billboards to the appreciative online community, but reminiscent of the marketing artwork of the early 1900s. These ads are works of art, comedy, or drama with which viewers want to engage. The memorable ad is the memorable brand or product; the memorable ad is an expressive bit of digital culture that elicits comments from viewers, prompts emails, and posts on YouTube.

In launching a memorable ad campaign, marketers make certain that the ad is available to a community that will choose to engage with the ad. As marketers in the early twentieth century recognised, location is critical. Social networks are preferable to one-hit wonder sites because the Buzz generated in particular networks allows marketers to categorise the brands and products that dominate a given social network. Buzz allows marketers to qualify and quantify the impact of a particular campaign within specific online communities.

Categorising the online discussion of a social networking site is not the same as collecting private information about specific consumer purchases, the notorious mistake made by the Facebook Beacon platform. Marketers need social media to categorise interest, not to hunt for potential consumers. Users may not want the Ads, however interactive and engaging, posted next to their profile like junk mail. Users want to post the ads themselves. They want to choose to engage in the ads.

Categorising the subjects discussed by users of different social platforms is important in engaging the most responsive audience. For example, Buzz analysis demonstrates that Bebo is known for musical Buzz, generated by its fantastic musical interface that allows bands looking for feedback and exposure to stage samples and even concerts online for little more than the cash used to buy the costumes. Facebook, on the other hand, attracts an audience that buzzes about books more than music.

Buzz simplifies the billboard by guaranteeing a responsive audience without invading individual consumer privacy. Categorising the audience allows marketing professionals to better analyse the qualitative and quantitative response to a particular ad. Ads can be targeted without being intrusive. Consumers are not caught in the beacon, but invited into the light.

“Social shopping” (e.g. ThisNext.com, Wists.com, etc.) combines social networks with online shopping in order to build trustworthy consumer spaces in which to launch new products and evaluate current products and services. While these sites might i-inspire real purchases (via online recommendations), virtual shopping is not yet incredibly competitive with online shopping for many tangible items.

Shoppers go online to browse possible purchases but many prefer to buy in the real world. There is still not enough social capital or trust invested in general online product purchase. Time will increase online traffic to social shopping sites for the stuff that can’t be found at the (geographically) local shopping centre, but current eCommerce is more essential elsewhere—in online fields that will carry increasing importance as Internet shopping expands.

Much eCommerce is “i^3”, that is, “international, Internet, or intangible”. International purchases include vacation plans or holiday rentals and transportation. Internet services such as broadband or wifi make up the second i-product category. Intangible purchases include “products” like music, car insurance, or credit cards. These “i-products” make up the fastest-growing online markets, and the companies that cater to them have heavily-trafficked e-Entries. A member of the third category, the “intangible” credit options available to consumers, will be of huge importance in the coming consumer era online.

The concerns that these credit eVendors must address will influence the future of eCommerce. Means of e-payment and means of monitoring e-payment are major consumer concerns. PayPal, the exclusive online payment service currently owned by eBay, is experiencing legal frustrations that will no doubt create precedents, both legal and social, by which to judge future online payment services. Credit cards are competing for compatibility and recognition online by both e-consumers and e-vendors. Consumers online are evaluating their payment options for usability, reliability, and privacy and security. The payment services that are best able to guarantee (and make e-visible) their eCommerce competence in these fields will win a current and future online consumer base.

Social Buzz about different credit cards is already incriminating companies that may not necessarily deserve it. The TJX scandal is not the fault of Visa or Mastercard, yet analysis online demonstrates that a lot of Blog Buzz links the two cards to “identity theft” as a result. (Ironically, this breach was not even connected to shopping online, but to the mere existence of electronic consumer data.) Such Buzz-worthy scandals also play into the growing concern with consumer debt as the dollar dives and the global economy experiences a growing amount of apprehension over future energy costs. Whether or not credit companies are directly involved in these concerns, Buzz analysis suggests that they make useful scapegoats.

Credit companies need to be aware of and involved in this discussion online. Companies need to demonstrate that a faulty economy is bad for credit lenders as much as borrowers. Credit cards need to construct a form of e-trust between consumer and card in order to climb out of the current crisis and into the digital future of commerce. Consumers are anxious to participate in the online market, but anxiety is not an emotion that should be connected to method of payment. Credit cards are necessary in the current consumer client; cards need not be a necessary evil.

The music industry is fuelling a war. And the music industry is losing the war. The war will be lost because, thus far, the industry has concentrated on battle strategy rather than address the actual conflict. In order to survive and even flourish in the new technological terrain, the music industry need not surrender—it can call a truce and reunite with the community of online consumers.

Thus far, the music industry has used expensive technology and increasingly costly (and decreasingly effective) legislation to create (or force) “treaties” with listeners. Treaties unfortunately, are finite. Treaties become obsolete as soon as conditions change, such as the arrival of a new form of music or musical interface. Listeners resent the controls and the “tyrannical” punishments meted out by industry executives in response to online innovation. Sites wage digital warfare on industry alternatives, hacking into systems to “liberate” musical content. Fans listen for free. Covert artists online “re-innovate” (e.g. mash-up) musical content and post it like popular graffiti scattered across the net.

This doesn’t ‘feel” wrong to thousands of online listeners. Before online p2p and legally vague file sharing sites, listeners complain that they bought cds for one or two songs. This waste of money enriched industry execs, according to consumers, and now thousands view downloads as payback against once greedy and exacting industry dictators.

Believe it or not, listener pro-activity can be good for the industry, if not so great for the artist (who must now produce a CD worthy of the full purchase price). Online radio sites already offer options encouraging listeners to customize personal channels. If a listener hears a song that they like, the name of the artist and the music is available at the click of the mouse, along with recommendations from like-minded listeners online. In the tradition of sites like Muzak and Amazon, samples, second opinions, and references are expected rather than requested. Just as Todd Storz capitalised on the concept of Top 40 radio in the 1950s, the industry can now tailor CDs and downloads to an audience. As for the online auditory graffiti, the industry risks isolating and infuriating potential investments—making guerilla rebels out of possible patriots. If indeed the industry has the capacity to make the content available without legal repercussions, why not fortify the arsenals of musically minded talent and see which re-innovators produce content worth promoting?

Buzz is essential in reaching out and re-involving listeners. Instead of engaging in protracted conflict, the music industry needs to begin re-constructing its community online. The industry needs to monitor the Buzz surrounding sound in order to attract the social capital that will create and evolve online investment. Listeners want new content mixed with personal favourites. Listeners want affordable music (in compatible formats) that is worth every cent. Listeners want to participate in crafting and evolving new music. Most importantly, listeners know what they want and what they like and they are it online. Currently, the only people not listening are members of the musical industry, and this is costing them the creative (and lucrative) future of the musical community.