McAfee to Security Industry: "Are We Really Protecting Users and Companies?"
Security company McAfee released its second quarter threat report today and the language in it is quite frank: "The security industry may need to reconsider some of its fundamental assumptions, including 'Are we really protecting users and companies?'" With malware at its highest levels ever, the escapades of LulzSec and Anonymous continuing unhindered and new varieties of spam being created almost every minute, it is a pertinent question.
Android is now far and away the leader is mobile malware. For-profit mobile malware has also grown significantly, with SMS-sending Trojans and other complex Trojans compromising smartphones. Rootkit malware that takes over the operating kernel of a computer or a smartphone is also becoming popular among malicious programmers. As McAfee notes, "The second quarter of the year was clearly a period of chaos, changes and new challenges."
Sponsor
Android mobile malware has become a persistent threat. Earlier in the year the press covered every new iteration of Android malware, starting with DroidDream and jumping every time a smartphone sneezed. Now, just as with PC malware, Android malware is a usual occurrence. Some of the top Android malware Trojans and viruses out there are derivates of DroidDream. That makes a lot of sense as malware is known to morph significantly when it is out in the wild as new programmers get their hands on it and change it to their specific needs (or, just enough to slip through security applications). Security programmers should look out for Android malware in the DroidKungFu family, the DrdDreamLite family and Tcent, which sends text messages to premium services.
For the first half of 2011, malware is at its highest rate ever. Though, if you just take the second quarter into account, it is a touch behind the pace of 2010. Overall this year malware is up 22%. McAfee's library of malware will reach 75 million entries by the end of the year.
One of the most common targets has been Adobe, which now outpaces Microsoft in attracting exploits. That is another knock to Adobe, which has been struggling in the market to create new products that actually run effectively on computers and mobile devices.
McAfee's report covers a sprawl of different types of malware, spam, phishing and social engineering, mobile viruses and malware, and botnets. Reading through the report, it is no wonder that the security companies should be beginning to question themselves and whether or not they can keep up with the flood of malicious activity on the Internet. On one hand, the popular refrain is always "exercise common sense and you will be secure", but motivated hackers have almost no trouble isolating people and companies if they really want to get their information.
The question has to be asked: Is the security industry failing us?
Discuss3M Headlight Polishing Kit
I originally bought the 3M Headlight Polishing Kit in order to remove the haze on my truck's plastic headlights, but I have since found that it has a plethora of uses. Basically, you use the progressively finer grit sanding surfaces to smooth the plastic and grind away the scratches and finally polish using the 3M rubbing compound. My headlights looked like new and were way more effective after the treatment.
The other day I discovered that the compass for my sailboat was scuffed pretty badly, and I tried using the polishing kit to buff it out (after testing on some safety glasses first). The results blew me away. The compass lens was crystal clear! I've since been polishing anything plastic that I have that's been scratched. Calculators, display screens, etc. You could put this kit together yourself with p500, p800, p3000 grit pads and a foam compounding pad with some 3m rubbing compound but the kit is very convenient and should last a long time as long as you use water with the sanding pads.
-- Jason Tan3M Headlight Lens Restoration Kit
$15
Available from Amazon
Manufactured by 3M
Will AOL and Demand Media’s Content Farm Strategy Prevail?
Editor’s note: Guest author Ashkan Karbasfrooshan is the founder and CEO of video site WatchMojo. In this post he examines the two biggest content farms springing up on the Web: Demand Media and Aol. You can find his previous guest posts about online video here.
Are content farms the future of online media? Demand Media is now providing travel tips to USA Today, and Aol is supplementing its thousands of paid journalists with an even larger army of citizen freelancers. If nothing else, Demand Media and AOL deserve credit for generating excitement over content. While an octogenarian like Sumner Redstone might claim that “content is king” and a septuagenarian like Rupert Murdoch will echo that “content is not just king, it’s the emperor of all”, the so-called cool kids advertisers want to reach could care less about content.
But, the fact remains, everywhere you look, it’s about content consumption and monetization. In The Collapse of Complex Business Models, Clay Shirky argues that the inertia facing TV executives stems from their desire to see “online video generate enough money to cover their current costs”.
When Wired recently profiled Demand Media, owner of the eNom domain registrar, who, armed with over $300 million in venture capital is positioning itself as a low cost content creation and monetization machine, it summarized its worldview:
“Online content is not worth very much. This may be a truism, but [CEO Richard] Rosenblatt has the hard, mathematical proof. It’s right there in black and white, in the Demand Media database — the lifetime value of every story, algorithmically derived, and very, very small. Most media companies are trying hard to increase those numbers, to boost the value of their online content until it matches the amount of money it costs to produce. But Rosenblatt thinks they have it exactly backward. Instead of trying to raise the market value of online content to match the cost of producing it — perhaps an impossible proposition — the secret is to cut costs until they match the market value.”
Not to be outdone, Aol is using its Seed.com freelance platform to produce more content at lower cost. It also recently acquired Studio Now to freelance its video content needs. Unlike Demand Media however, Aol has also hired expensive writers, leaving some to wonder what its strategy is exactly.
Granted, second guessing the companies’ Web-savvy CEOs might prove foolish. Former Google ad executive Tim Armstrong is CEO and Chairman at Aol, having since hired a battalion of experienced executives. Richard Rosenblatt —the man who sold MySpace to FOX —is running Demand Media, at his side is Shawn Colo, who was as instrumental as Rosenblatt in raising the war chest currently at their disposal, and their Chief Revenue Officer is Joanne Bradford.
Sizing up the Premium Content Space
Mind you, an impressive background and money in the bank doesn’t guarantee success (Joost anyone?). To evaluate their strategy, it’s important to understand the market they’re coveting.
In How To Make Money In Online Video, I introduced a pyramid representing super premium, premium, prosumer and user-generated content. We have now updated to reflect where each one operates.
Established and/or well funded companies should focus on the upper half of the premium space and the lower half of the super premium space. The sweet spot for smaller startups is to operate between the 50th and 75th percentile of the premium space. I think for start-ups to tackle the 76th to 100th percentile of the premium space is costly and risky (anything in the super premium space is suicide), and operating below the 50th makes it hard to create a valuable catalogue that can be licensed or secure ad dollars from premium marketers. The upper half of the super premium space should be left to Hollywood.
Aol is at once attacking the lower half of the super premium space (by hiring experienced writers and producing live video segments with artists such as Beyonce), the premium space (more or less what its niche sites are doing) as well as the higher end of the user-generated space (through Seed.com and Studio Now).
Will it work? I don’t know. It cannot possibly be everything to everyone at once, but it can play in the various areas to see what will do best and phase out what doesn’t stick to the wall.
Demand Media, meanwhile, is clearly operating in a lower sphere, which is the area between the upper half of the UGC space up to the lower half of the premium space. This is a tough space to be in if you want branded marketers and ad agencies to sign on and give you dollars.
Advertising: The Last Bastion of Unaccountable Spending in Corporate America
For centuries, publishers have filtered audiences for marketers. These days, advertisers like to be next to brands: Pepsi wants to be on MTV, Budweiser on the Super Bowl. There is a science to the decision-making process, but it’s fuzzy math at best.
Sometimes, marketers will point to one article or video as a reason not to run ads on a site. This could prove to be the undoing of these content farms. So while Demand Media might be printing money matching articles with search traffic and text ads, its current model will always be one questionable piece of content away from losing branded advertising deals, which to quote Google’s own CEO Eric Schmidt is “the last bastion of unaccountable spending in corporate America”. That might be why Demand hired Joanne Bradford, who ran ads for MSN before short stints at Spot Runner and Yahoo!
Should Demand Media Move Upstream?
When Demand Media acquired Expert Village (a user-generated instructional video site), it bet big on UGC, which while highly scalable and low cost is generally shunned by marketers. Before the acquisition, Expert Village allowed filmmakers to submit a) ideas for experts and b) segments they wanted to shoot. The fee was nominal, but with volume, it would be worthwhile to filmmakers and to Expert Village to boost catalog and traffic volume. After the acquisition, everything was transferred to ehow.com and that system completely changed. The new management no longer allowed filmmakers to submit just any idea; in fact, filmmakers were suddenly limited to choosing titles out of a library database on eHow.
Telling a creative person that they need to choose subjects from a list in a database is not really going to work in the long term. But exacerbating matters was that this made the revenue potential less interesting for a filmmaker.
Since filmmakers would oftentimes match up with an expert, this new system meant far less videos produced per shoot, which after considering the time to travel to a location and back rendered the exercise futile. Adding to the challenges was the sudden new need for graphics.
Without a doubt, these little changes improved the quality of Expert Village’s library and made the videos more SEO-friendly, but by requiring more from filmmakers, Demand Media inadvertently made the quality of contributors suffer by becoming a more suitable home for novice filmmakers. So what it gained on one front through improved processes it lost through inexperienced talent.
This is why folks like Slate’s Farhad Manjoo have ripped Demand Media to shreds, echoing the fact that its content is good enough to get indexed on Google’s search results but bad enough to induce users to click on a Google ad and go elsewhere (thereby generating revenue for Demand). That might actually have been one of the nicer things said about the company.
Of course, it’s not what journalists have to say about the company that will matter in the end. Publishers fight for the hearts and minds of viewers/readers and marketers.
So, what do marketers think?
Online Content is Art and Science
Successful content creation is both art and science. Costing and scalability are important considerations but the winning strategy cannot boil down to that alone.
Making sure it’s SEO friendly is also important, but in a world where content is shared through social networks, it needs to strike a chord with audiences, be it readers, listeners or viewers. Video, in particular, is not even really properly indexed on search engines, so an SEO-centric strategy might be useless to begin with. I’ve covered what makes video get discovered before.
But as much as venture capitalists don’t like to hear this, no amount of science will remove the art that is publishing, or the emotions that fuel marketing decisions.
Rating Aol and Demand Media Against Content’s Three Pillars
Video content involves production, publishing and distribution.
- Production is a commodity and expensive; hence why both companies are trying to inject more science into the art to drive down the price of production. A low cost approach can maintain a high enough quality with text content, but with videos it’s more challenging. Moreover, a totally freelanced production team can also have some iota of consistency across text content, but with videos, nothing looks alike and marketers don’t feel any confidence in running ads. Quality content requires consistency. If a media planner agrees to spend $1M on a website running ads next to certain content, it assumes that the content the publisher produces tomorrow will be as good (and similar) to what it sees on the site today. A freelance model does not guarantee consistency and a UGC platform guarantees that it won’t be, especially with video.
- Publishing (i.e., building a destination) is a challenge. Demand Media doesn’t have a destination but has a lot of eyeballs through its many sites; AOL meanwhile still has oodles of traffic and in addition to the AOL.com portal has many smaller niche sites with the potential to drive traffic too. Here, we see a divergence between Demand Media and AOL. On the one hand, AOL really does not need to focus purely on search traffic because it has traffic from its sites. Demand Media, however, has a more byzantine traffic pattern on its many sites, so I can understand the focus (and need) to focus on search traffic. However, search traffic is “in and out” and not the kind of engagement that branded marketers look for.
- Distribution is increasingly fragmented, to the extent that even AOL is migrating from the one size fits all portal to the multiple web properties, and Tim Armstrong citing “fragmentation is our friend”.
All in all, considering that Demand Media doesn’t have a big top-10 stand alone property, I can understand why it takes the search arbitrage approach, but AOL’s efforts undermine the reality that despite its sliding traffic from ISP users, it has a large audience base and if it produced compelling content, then it would be able to retain and grow that base. It could be argued, of course, that Armstrong is doing both: hiring the best writers to have that front and center but then turning to the world’s freelancers and users to contribute the stuff that will trip up Google’s search index and offset the fleeting ISP users.
I respect that with Tim Armstrong’s background at Google, he needs to balance his vision of Aol being the Time Inc. of the 21st century with a scalable model that will get “quants” excited, but he might risk having a bad apple ruin the entire bushel by embracing the UGC freelancer base, as he did during SXSW.
Meanwhile, Demand Media has enough money to experiment until it finds a solution, like Aol. At least it’s betting in the right broader space, albeit it needs to fine-tune its methodology to make the lofty investment it secured a profitable one. So long as it remains private and all it has to worry about are the journalists, then it might find its sweet spot over time.
With the Web entering a phase of greater content consumption and content not being a zero-sum game, the reality is both companies can succeed with their strategies, but how big a crop their content farms will yield is still a big unknown.
Photo Credit/Flickr/Andrew Stawarz
Revisiting conspicuous consumption
The reason you have a front lawn? It's a tradition. Lawns were invented as a way for the landed gentry to demonstrate that they could afford to waste land. By taking the land away from the grazing sheep, they were sending a message to their neighbors. We're rich, we can happily waste the opportunity to make a few bucks from our front lawn.
Conspicuous consumption has a long history. Wasting millions of dollars on a shark in a tank, or on $50,000 platinum stereo cables that sound an awful lot like $2000 stereo cables (which sound a lot like $200 stereo cables). And on and on.
In fact, the origins of the luxury goods industry lie in this desire to waste, in public. 350 years ago in France, Jean-Baptiste Colbert dreamed up the idea of bespoke, rare goods as a way of improving France's balance of trade. LVMH and other huge corporations collect brands that telegraph scarcity above all else. Not that they're better at performing the task at hand, merely that they are expensive and rare.
(Interesting note: it's estimated that 20% of all the women in Japan in their 20s own a Louis Vuitton bag... scarce?)
In every city there are expensive hotels that are noisy, with $56 breakfasts, no parking, blinds that don't make the room dark and rooms that don't have enough closets. But the very waste of paying extra to stay there ensures that you'll be surrounded by others just as wealthy and just as interested in proving it.
Rich people will always indulge the desire to stand out, but I wonder if there's a new version:
Spending on and investing in time, not stuff.
And it's not so wasteful, this focus on craftsmen.
The new trend in spending money is to buy things that are painstakingly hand built instead of efficiently mass produced. It might not be a better price than what you could buy at Target, but the very fact that you can pay for an artisan to create it, an artist to design it, a talented worker to bring it to life--that act makes a powerful statement about what you can afford and what's important to you. Instead of a bigger house, it's a house that's built from scratch by craftsmen. Instead of a bigger steak, it's a handmade dish of local poached vegetables...
All marketers tell a story. The "this is the best price and value" story is just one of those available, and in fact, it's rarely the most effective for the audience you may be trying to reach.
Pageview Pumping
MG Siegler:
But what interests me about all this is the underlying war going on between those playing the pageview game, and those that hate the pageview game. To put it another (simplified) way: the war between quality versus quantity.
Siegler comes close to getting it, but falls short. Pageviews, as a metric used for directly billing advertisers, are a scam. Publishers game it with sensational link-bait articles and bullshit tricks like breaking articles into multiple “pages”. Advertisers get stuck paying for valueless impressions. Readers get stuck with the sensational bullshit articles, the tricks (like breaking single articles into multiple “pages”), and suffer through too many annoying ads surrounding actual content.
It is, as Jim Coudal and I argued at SXSW, a race to the bottom. Be careful of the “everyones” who say pageviews are imperfect but the best we can do. They’re the ones who are happy with the web as a market for bullshit.
Finding your brand essence
I got an email from someone who had hired a consulting firm to help his company find their true brand selves. They failed. He failed. He asked me if I could recommend a better one.
My answer:
The problem isn't the consultant, it's the fact that if you have to search for a brand essence, you're unlikely to find one.
Standing for something means giving up a lot of other things, and opening yourself to criticism. Most people in the financial services industry (or any industry, actually) aren't willing to do that, which is why there are so few Charles Schwabs in the world.
First, decide it's okay to fail and to make a ruckus while failing. THEN go searching for the way to capture that energy and share it with the world.
Clothes don't make the man, the man makes the man. Clothes (and the brand) just amplify that.
What Did The Location War Look Like At SXSW? Like This.
Right before the SXSW festival in Austin, Texas a couple weeks ago, some of you may have read about SimpleGeo’s awesome location data visualization tool called Vicarious.ly. The site showed location information coming in to SimpleGeo from Austin in realtime, and included elements such as Foursquare check-ins, Gowalla check-ins, geotagged pictures from Flickr, and geotagged tweets from Twitter. It was really interesting to watch in realtime, but it may be even more interesting in hindsight. Luckily, SimpleGeo has released a video to show the data over the span of just about a week (March 11 to March 17).
As you can see, Foursquare and Gowalla clearly dominate the data. This is in line with what we heard in the midst of the so-called “location war” between the two. It’s also kind of fun to watch the early hours of the morning when everyone is clearly asleep, and then watch as the data comes roaring back to life around 8 AM as festival-goers undoubtedly nursed hangovers to head to the convention center.
GigaPan Epic Pro Gives Your DSLR Full Panoramic Power [Dslr]
How To Download Hulu TV and Movies For Good [Software]
But it's better than TV
I never get it. Not because I don’t like it, but because there are always so many other things on the buffet that I prefer.
That's why I don't watch TV. At all. There are so many other things I'd rather do in that moment.
Broadcast TV was a great choice when a> there weren't a lot of other options and b> when everyone else was watching the same thing, so you needed to see it to be educated.
Now, though, you could:
- Run a little store on eBay
- Write a daily blog
- Write a novel
- Start an online community about your favorite passion
- Go to meetups in your town
- Volunteer to tutor a kid, in person or online
- Learn a new language, verbal or programming
- Write hand written thank you notes each evening to people who helped you out or did a good job
- Produce small films and publish them online
- Listen to the one thousand most important operas
- Read a book or two every evening
- Play a game of Scrabble with your family
None of them are perfect. Each of them are better than TV.
Clay Shirky has noticed the trend of talented people putting five or six hours an evening to work instead of to waste. Add that up across a million or ten million people and the output is astonishing. He calls it cognitive surplus and it's one of the underappreciated world-changing stories of our time.