More Abu Ghraib Torture Allegations Coming to Light

Ed Cone has a post up about investigative journalist Seymour Hersh's speech to an ACLU convention, in which he claims the U.S. Government has tapes of boys being sodomized at Abu Ghraib. (Via Eschaton, via The Poor Man)

If this is true, then it's really time for Rumsfeld to go. And it's also time for George Bush to take some responsibility for the actions of people under his command. This is a new low.

Either You're Against Gay Marriage Or You're Pro-Terrorist

"I would argue that the future of our country hangs in the balance because the future of marriage hangs in the balance," said Sen. Rick Santorum, a leader in the fight to approve the measure. "Isn't that the ultimate homeland security, standing up and defending marriage?"

Here's the link. UPDATE: The story seems to have disappeared off the NY Post, so I switched the link to a story in the Globe and Mail that gives the same quote.

Don't you just love how Republicans leverage that wonderful culture of fear they've created? Thankfully, the Senate killed the constitutional amendment idea.

Many 2 Many: Discussion of New Ad Metrics

Thanks to Jeff Jarvis and Buzzmachine, I've been turned on to a conversation about alternative ad metrics.

I like the idea of a "Cost Per Influence" model, but as Ross Mayfield points out...

The meme being transmitted isn't necessarily the message of the ad.

Additionally, I'd think that a Cost Per Influence model would raise a number of problems that both advertisers and bloggers would have trouble dealing with:

• First of all, if two bloggers post a similar idea at the same time, who gets credit or responsibility for influence down the line? This is similar to a problem we already have in the affiliate marketing space. I think it would be a bigger headache here.
• Secondly, how is all of this going to be tracked? What if the chain is broken by bloggers who don't get picked up by the presumably Technorati-like tracking mechanism that would measure the proliferation of an idea or opinion? It could be a technological nightmare. Let's put it this way, it's taken nearly 10 years for the online advertising industry to define an ad view (and we're still not done getting publishers, adserving companies and advertisers to agree on and implement the definitions). Can you see what an uphill battle this might be from a technology perspective?
• The notion of people getting paid for influence might set us up for the kind of intellectual dishonesty that bloggers abhor. It wouldn't be long before the capitalists invade and start setting up "idea networks" where one blog simply parrots another for the sake of getting a paycheck.

Personally, while I like the idea of somehow rewarding the most influential bloggers for their influence, I think the model might be more trouble than it's worth. May I suggest a different direction?

Since online branding came back into fashion, companies like Dynamic Logic, Millward Brown and Factor TG have conducted online brand studies to gauge the branding effects of online ads. They could conduct similar studies in the blogosphere, recruiting exposed and control groups from areas where the idea has permeated. Online surveys could then determine how influential the idea was through already-established attitudinal metrics. What I like about this is that the methodology is pretty well established (Forbes.com uses essentially the same method to measure its performance against The Wall Street Journal on brand metrics and they'll refund your money if your campaign on Forbes doesn't outperform WSJ.)

How about adding a new twist in the survey? - asking respondents to reveal where they first heard about the idea. That might give rise to an influence-based performance bonus to influential bloggers.

Whaddya think?

BTW, I'm pinging my partner Jim Meskauskas on this one. He usually eats this kind of stuff up and maybe he'll drop in to contribute some ideas.

Just Give Up, Jerks

Yesterday, some guy in a business suit walked into the office and stood right inside the door, looking around at our office environment and looking as if he had a meeting with someone. We've been very conscious of who's walking around the office these days, as with four companies occupying the floor, it would otherwise be easy for someone to slip in unnoticed and walk off with a laptop or some other expensive piece of equipment. So I challenged the guy and asked him who he was here to see.

He walked over to my desk and handed me his business card, asking me if I knew who handled office supply purchasing and wanting to know if we had a copier. I asked him if he had an appointment with anyone here. When he said no, I handed him his card back and asked him to leave.

Today, we got a call on our general number from someone who demanded to know the model number and serial number of our copy machine. Since we don't have one, I immediately challenged this guy, too, and asked him who he was trying to reach. He didn't know who he was supposed to be talking to, so he asked for "whoever is in charge of the copier." I told him we didn't have one and asked if his records reflected that his company had any sort of business relationship with us. He said no, so I hung up on him.

Over the course of the last few months, someone will drop by occasionally, claiming to be our rep at Office Supply Company XYZ and wanting to speak with the office manager. Since we don't have one, I always become suspicious and ask them to leave.

Has small business sales always been this sleazy? I'm tired of people pretending to have an existing relationship with our company when they clearly don't. And I'm tired of the solicitors in general. I know people have to make a living, but that doesn't give salespeople the right to walk uninvited into a private place of business and demand to speak to people they don't have appointments with.