There's been much jubilation from certain quarters of the news that The Times paywall is deterring users. The newspaper has been charging customers for its online content since June and is now £1 per day or £2 per week. According to Hitwise, there's been a 66% decline in traffic and some analysts reckon the site now has just 15,000 users.

It should come as no surprise there's been a steep decline in traffic, most news sites are free and The Times' stories no longer appear in Google News. However, the 'told you so' crowd are claiming victory too early. Murdoch et al are far from finished and even if the site has just 15,000 paying users, that's more paying users than any other UK newspaper website.

Placing a premium on content

The truth is, advertising just doesn't pay the rent for many publishers and the extra tough climate of 2009 saw titles close and journalists laid off in droves. I question the sanity of any journalist who doesn't want the paywall to succeed (even secretly). If it does then it places a premium back onto content and reconnects the user to the business model in a way advertising doesn't. Click through rates on skyscrapers and banners are a mere fraction of overall traffic on any site.

Personally, I don't even see any adverts when I peruse the web thanks to a very useful app called Adblock Plus, one of Firefox's most useful innovations. Everyone involved in online media can appreciate how vulnerable advertising-focused business models are for publishers and everyone is looking for alternatives.

Incentives

There should be no underestimating News International's commitment to this project. It's a bold step but its pockets are deep and I predict it will plough on for many months, if not years, before conceding defeat. There will be some trial and error along the way, but the company can afford to play the long game. Its marketing team will be constantly dreaming up new ways to entice users to spend just £2 per week for its services.

In truth, this will be an easier sell than many first thought. After all, how much incentive do you need to spend £2, or even £1 per day? News International is a vast media empire and has options to create any number of bundles and extras in return for your pounds. Also, once you've subscribed, how much effort are you going to put in to unsubscribe? Curiosity will also play a role. Is it better than other sites? Is the content more interesting? Want to find out? That'll be £2 please - can you really not afford that? 

Exclusivity

Perversely, The Times' disappearance from Google might just help its paywall. You don't feel very special reading a story already seen by three million people, it's not even worth tweeting about. Indeed, The Times is already talking about creating a 'club feel' for its readers and everybody likes joining clubs. Rupert Murdoch might not be your favourite club chairman. But he's already made us pay more for TV and football matches. My bet is he'll do the same for news.

The much-hyped Apple iPad finally made its long-awaited entrance to the UK last week, and what an entrance it was! Apple fans and obsessives queued all night outside the company’s flagship Regent Street store in London to get their hands on the ‘it’ gadget of the year so far. I’m still not really sure what it does, but I really want one. What dark magic has Mr Jobs cast on us...?

Billed as something that will plug the gap between a smart phone and a laptop, the iPad aims to succeed where the Windows-based tablet PCs have failed. They also seem to have Amazon’s Kindle firmly in their sights. Selling over 2 million units in 60 days is quite an impressive feat – anyone planning on launching a product would do well to analyse Apple’s marketing strategy in the lead up to the iPad’s release.

Why I want an iPad

So what does it do? Well, you can read your newspaper on it during your morning commute, watch a movie whilst on the move, do your emails, surf the web, all the usual stuff. Stephen Fry is a big fan of its usability: 'The speed, the responsiveness, the smooth glide of it, the richness and detail of the display, the heft in your hand, the rightness of the actions and gestures that you employ, untutored and instinctively, it's not just a scaled up iPhone or a scaled-down multitouch enhanced laptop – it is a whole new kind of device', he gushed.

But the main selling point is that it looks SEXY. I just want one. I don’t need it – it won’t do anything that my iPhone and laptop can’t do together, but I can imagine it making my life better in ways that shouldn’t be possible... I really can.

So, am I going to fork out £429 for one? No. My iPhone may have cost as much, but that was disguised by a monthly contract. I can’t replace my phone with an iPad and I can’t replace my laptop with one either, so this will be something I must own AS WELL AS those, not instead of both. I guess if I could use the iPad do all my laptop-based tasks and use it as a comedy-sized smart phone, I’d be joining the Regent Street queues. For now, this one is going on the backburner.

Top Five iPad accessories

If you are investing in an iPad, however, you will of course need to start thinking about which slick and sexy accessories will best compliment and personalize your beloved new appliance. Here are the top five:

Apple Keyboard Dock

The iPad has no separate keyboard, which surely creates a bit of an ergonomic nightmare. But thankfully the specially designed Apple Keyboard Deck takes care of that.

The Griffin Flexgrip

This flexible silicon protective case comes in a range of colours and will protect your iPad from scratches and scuffs.

The Cloak by Quirky

A non-slip, rubber carrier case which allows iPad users to view their prized gadget in landscape or portrait

iPad Camera Connection Kit

The iPad lacks a card-reading feature which would allow you to move images from a digital camera's SDCard to the iPad. The two dongles which make up the iPad Camera Connection Kit are therefore designed for importing files via USB and letting you plug an SDCard into it.

Scosche Kickback

This is a leaning device which solves the problem of having to look at your ipad while it's flat on the table or rested awkwardly on your knees.

I think it’s about time for a Bing update. It’s now a year since Microsoft’s ‘decision engine’ was launched, and the last few months have seen a huge marketing push.

The chances are you’ve seen one of the TV ads, which focus on reducing the information overload users can experience at the hands of other search engines. Which is all very well, but can Bing deliver on its promises, and what are the consequences of this latest push for an online marketing agency like us?

The obvious outcome is that the cost of search engine marketing could potentially come down. As Bing fights to eat into Google’s market share, the increased competition between Google AdWords and Microsoft adCenter is good news for search engine marketers.

One would also expect this battle for search dominance to drive improvements and innovation across the board, which can only benefit online marketing agencies and users alike. Recent Google innovations include placing more importance on the load speed when ranking pages, and the ongoing Google Squared project - intended to organise information related to the search term logically and quickly.

I’ve also noticed several changes to the Google interface over the last couple of weeks including going (even more) minimalistic for a while by removing the links across the top of the page including Gmail, shopping and news. These changes, both large and small, are a clear indication that the market leader is not going to let Bing’s advance go unnoticed. 

Bing’s market share continues to creep up

The polls show Bing’s market share is growing; ComScore’s most recent survey gives Bing a market share of 11.5% compared to Google’s 65.5%. But can this growth be sustained? I used Bing frequently back when it was launched, and have had another look recently after seeing the TV ads, but this was out of curiosity rather than because I’ve decided it’s the best search engine. If I used it out of curiosity then surely others did too and, like me, may revert to the comfort of Google.           

It’s been said, but for me it comes down to familiarity and speed and, as I’m familiar with Google’s offering, I get what I’m looking for more quickly. To break this cycle, Bing must strive to exceed Google’s engine rather than just match it.

Search on the move - the latest battleground

The forthcoming launch of the Windows Phone 7, with its dedicated Bing search button, can only bolster Bing's growth. However, the popularity of the Windows phone is unlikely to rival that of the iPhone (which uses Google as its default search engine), particularly with the hype already surrounding the launch of the iPhone 4G. Add to this the fact that Google is the standard engine on the iPad, and it’s evident that gaining the upper hand in mobile search is going to be tricky.

Online marketing agencies require search engines to deliver lots of relevant traffic as cheaply as possible. Whether Bing will ever dethrone Google in this respect is yet to be seen, but the ongoing competition is good news for the world of search engine marketing, and we should take advantage of the benefits wherever possible.

As the old saying goes, there are some things that money can’t buy: love, happiness, and until now – friends. uSocial.net aims to change that last one however, selling ‘friends’ to those looking to boost their online marketing profile.

According to Leon Hill, CEO of uSocial, $87 can buy you a whole load of friends: 1,000, to be exact – and his site offers online friends on Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, while also offering a service which can get you onto the front page of Reddit and Digg.

And it’s a business model that works, too. Hill’s business is so profitable that he is simply bored. “I really need a hobby”, the Australian entrepreneur said.

Why we mustn't ignore social media

If the value of social media is doubted by any online marketing agency, they only need to look to the survey which recently found that consumers said they are more likely to buy from brands which they engage with on social networking sites. Users also see companies as ‘irrelevant’ if they have little or no social media presence.

From this it’s clear that a thriving social media profile is a vital part of any online marketing campaign. This is where uSocial supposedly enters the frame: you pay them for friends, and the friends supposedly then become customers.

Can buying friends really work?

There are some who are sceptical of the promises made by uSocial. One customer reported his experience with uSocial’s Facebook package, saying that the company’s online marketing campaign was, "superficially successful, with a large influx of fans joining.”

However he went on to say, “Despite telling usocial.net that we are UK based and wished to have UK based fans, the fans we gained were all American. So while we gained pure numbers, we diminished our relevance and simply wish we hadn’t bothered.”

Any decent online marketing agency knows from experience that a key component of any online campaign is real, organic word of mouth. It’s this authentic element of social media which makes it such a valuable tool for companies; and by simply paying for numbers of fans or followers, you’re most likely setting yourself up for disappointment.

How to tell if your campaign is on track

While the number of followers you have is one indicator of social media success, it shouldn’t be the sole factor by which you measure how well your social media campaign is performing. Some important things to keep in mind are:

•             How much activity are your online followers generating?

•             Are your followers in a country in which you conduct business?

•             Do your followers fit your target demographic?

•             How many visits are your posted links receiving?

The task of any online marketing agency is to enable companies to grow as a result of social media – not simply to feel popular by accruing online followers who are at best, uninterested, and at worst, not even human.

Poor old Facebook. If people aren’t having a go at them for their privacy policies (which happens an awful lot), then it’s for giving people in Teesside syphilis.

In fact, it seems that if you have a problem, no matter how unrelated to Facebook it is – then blame Facebook anyway. An article over at the Telegraph has put together a list of problems that people have blamed Facebook for.

The ludicrous list of problems supposedly caused by the social networking site includes divorce, child suicide, introversion, jealous partners, crime, self-loathing, compromises to national security, the death of traditional sayings and rickets. If you need cheering up, have a browse through and laugh at the ridiculousness of it all.

But is Facebook really that bad?

Of course, the question is if there’s any truth in the claims. I think not; you can’t really blame Facebook for causing syphilis simply because the number of cases has increased in the last few years. As Facebook puts it: ‘reports exaggerate the comments made by the professor, and ignore the difference between correlation and causation.’

The fact that people put all the blame on Facebook is interesting in the first place. What about MySpace, Bebo, Hi5, LinkedIn, Last.fm and all the other hundreds of other social media sites? Assuming that social media is the cause of such problems in the first place.

When should you not blame Facebook?

People are so quick to blame Facebook, in fact, that they often get it wrong. Enter the usual suspect, the Daily Mail. They got it so wrong, that the apology they offered for accusing Facebook of aiding paedophilia was rejected, and Facebook are now looking to sue.

So, next time you have a problem, think twice about blaming Facebook – it’s quite possible that it isn’t their fault. Instead, I recommend going on Jeremy Kyle.

Lady Gaga is now the most-watched artist on the web ever, her singles having topped a total of 1bn online video views, according to social media news blog Mashable.

Gaga's most recent release, the sexually charged 'Telephone', may have garnered (Gaga'd?) a certain amount of controversy, including an official statement from singer Donny Osmond ('I wouldn't want my child to watch this video', he said), but nobody could claim that Gaga isn't making an effort.

Lady Gaga's singles Poker Face, Bad Romance and Just Dance have amassed 374m, 360m and 272m views respectively, and there's no doubt that she is currently topping the charts for viral videos partly because of the controversial, 'must-watch' nature of her creations. An interesting lesson in viral video creation for us SEOs - though we at atom are pretty keen on the songs, as well.

Not that we haven't already mentioned this, but, ahem, we predicted the rise of Gaga way back.

Click below to watch the nine and a half minute, Tarantino-esque video to 'Telephone' if you dare, but be warned: it is a little gruesome.

Google Buzz is a new social networking service launched by Google at the beginning of February. Google Buzz links directly with Gmail, allowing users to share updates, photos, videos and more. This allows users to start conversations about the things they find interesting.

The main issue users initially had with Google Buzz was the lack of opportunity to opt in or out of this new service. In fact, Google Buzz was automatically rolled out to 170 million Gmail users, without anyone being given the option to ‘opt in’. Many users saw this as an invasion of privacy, as there wasn’t a notification to inform users of the introduction of Buzz, giving them the option to refrain from sharing personal information.

With the original release of Buzz, some users found the people they emailed the most through Gmail had been published online. It has since been reported by TechCrunch that private email addresses can be exposed via the service as well.

Google have been faced with the difficult conundrum of having to apologise to users and back-track, reorganising the site so that users have the option to disable Buzz and block the users who they don’t want to be followed by. With all these changes now in place, the question is: will they be enough to restore users' faith in Gmail?

Google isn't the only one with privacy problems...

Facebook has been dealing with privacy issues since it began. The site has been continuously updating its privacy options to try and reduce the concern users have, while still trying to have strong relationships with Google and Bing. But, through changes in their privacy settings, Facebook has encouraged users to display all information with everyone.

Details published while settings are set to ‘everyone’ are removed from the user’s profile when the settings have been set back to 'reduced disclosure'. However, that data will have been sent out for the entire world to see, and what has been done with that data is unknown to the user.

Is Facebook really giving more control to the user?

Although users are led to believe that the new privacy settings are to improve personal privacy, the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation) took a closer look at the changes, to figure out if this really was the case, with the conclusion that the new privacy settings were clearly intended to push Facebook users to publicly share even more information than before. Even worse - the changes actually reduced the amount of control that users had over their personal data.

With the new Facebook privacy settings comes the ability to control who sees which post. The settings can be controlled so that only business colleagues see a status update, or only friends can see a personal photo. But do these changes actually rebuild users’ confidence that their personal information is safe on Facebook?

Controversies over Facebook’s privacy settings have caused many users to pay attention to their settings and ensure that only the information they want to share is publicly available. The main reason Facebook wants to publicise personal information and status updates is so that they can compete with Twitter with live streaming of updates. However, the nature of Facebook is more private, so this could lead to the types of membership losses previously experienced by Myspace and Friendster.

Gmail and 'email processing'

Google's Gmail is the only email provider that processes emails. This is done to allow targeted adverts. Google ensure that the email is never read by another human being other than the receiver. However, some users believe that the practice of ‘processing’ emails goes beyond what is acceptable.

Further to Gmail issues and Buzz problems, Google has come under criticism for its Street View, with its ability for people to be seen in places they were not expected. This led to many issues of privacy, with the original photos being displayed with people’s faces being shown while being arrested or publicly urinating. Most of these issues have been dealt with now by faces being blurred.

This begs the question - do online providers release new initiatives before really thinking the privacy issues that they will face, or do they consider the potential of a new medium over an individual’s privacy?

How will content providers ever align their goals with those of Google? First Click Free is an attempt to do so through a compromise between the two sides.

For all those not yet acquainted with the process, here is a quick run-down of Google’s ‘First Click Free’ strategy, designed to protect subscription-only content while simultaneously making it accessible via Google’s search results.

The problem

Online news sites have often complained that users can circumvent their subscription pages and gain free access to their premium content by finding the page in Google’s search results. Every time Google indexes a page it becomes available to searchers, so users can often click directly from the Search Engine Results Pages (SERPS) to the article and get to read it for free.

The solution

Google’s idea is to limit how much of that premium content a user can view. A user would search for a news story, click on the link to the site and then would be restricted to viewing up to 5 pages within that site before being redirected to a subscription page. That way, Google can maintain its index, show relevant results to its users and still allow online publishers a degree of control over their content... In theory.

News sites can already protect their content

Online publishers can already prevent Google from indexing pages that they do not want to appear in the Google index, or the index of any search engine for that matter. Entering two lines of code into a page makes it impossible for users to gain access to these pages without subscribing.

So why do news sites not want to do this? The answer lies in Google’s webmaster guidelines, which states that a site cannot ‘cloak’ its pages.

The Best of Both Worlds

Ideally, online publishers would like all their pages to appear in Google’s SERPS, but have users redirected straight away to a subscription page. However, in order to do this they would have to submit one version of the page to the Google index and then serve up another page (the subscription page) when a user clicks through. This is known as ‘cloaking’ and Google doesn’t like it.

Google does not want pages to be cloaked, as users would find their search results to be of less use unless they were prepared to subscribe to every site that they were interested in. Google wants users to be able to click through from the search results and find the page they expected to see.

Google’s ‘First Click Free’ appears to be an attempt to find a middle ground between these two opposing goals. The sites can allow users to click through unimpeded, satisfying Google, and then click around that site’s premium content 5 times before eventually being redirected to a payment page, satisfying the publisher.

Will This Save Online Publishers?

Whether this will work in practice remains to be seen. It may be that the average user will not need to view more than a couple of pages before having their thirst for information quenched.  Furthermore, as long as similar content can be found on free sites, such as the BBC, it may not be enough to generate the income that publishers desperately need.

This isn’t the end of the ‘Should Users Pay for Online News’ debate, so watch this space!

With Twitter seemingly taking over the world (I believe it started by taking control of Stephen Fry’s mind), Facebook now accounting for a quarter of all worldwide page views; and a fifth of all Internet users now sharing status updates, it was only a matter of time before the search engines realised they needed to take notice of social media.

Indeed, it would be crazy to ignore the vast amount of regularly updated user information available through social interactions. Looking for a takeaway? Your mate’s review of the Chinese around the corner is always going to hold more weight than a stranger’s review from 2002.

Bing's deals with Facebook and Twitter

It’s this up-to-date nature of Facebook and Twitter that has got Bing’s attention. They’ve just independently struck deals with Facebook and Twitter to incorporate real-time status updates into their SERPs. Unlike Twitter (where status updates are public for anyone to see), not all Facebook updates will be available in the results, due to users’ privacy settings. However, this strategic manoeuvre will still deliver an unfamiliar feeling to rival Google, who have been outplayed for once.

How Google are integrating social media results

Google, having struck a deal with Twitter hours after Microsoft, are trying to integrate social in a slightly different way. Rather than taking Microsoft’s worldwide approach, Google Labs are to offer an opt-in service, where one you have supplied your social network information, your friends’ views are incorporated into search results. Because you’re supplying log-ins, in comparison to Bing, you’re likely to get more information.

What’s that you say? Doesn’t this pose an issue of privacy? Of course – Google will now know even more about you! But before you get all agitated, remember it’s an opt-in service.

What does this mean for businesses?

Integrating social into search engines will mean companies will now have to adopt new and different strategies to market themselves. It will also mean that Twitter will be ignored by less and less people.

With Google and Bing now bringing in real-time information on searches, it will be very interesting to see how everyone is affected. An interesting view on the travel industry has been talked about by tnooz.com.

Yahoo, on the other hand, are taking no steps towards social integration, perhaps due to the impending deal with Bing…

Online spend has been hit recently by the UK postal strikes, contributing to a record low in its growth in September. Year-on-year growth stood at 8% for the year and month-on-month growth at 1.9%, an ‘unusually low rate’, according to the report by Capgemini.

Christmas fear

In the run up to Christmas, a crucial period for online retailers, UK consumers are still concerned that postal delays could prevent their purchases from arriving in the expected time period. The postal strikes ‘may have acted as a deterrent for online shoppers’, the report said, adding that it ‘will continue to be a key concern for e-retailers in the lead up to Christmas.’

The slow-down in growth was also attributed to warm weather, enticing people away from their computers, as well as heavy discounting on the high street. Internet-based clothes and electrical retailers are thought to be suffering the most.

Only a 'blip'

Capgemini described the recent results as a blip, commenting that the trend for online spend is expected to continue upwards, reaching around 15%, year-on-year.

‘The results for September show a slowdown in the growth of online spending but we view this as a temporary blip and expect growth rates to return to the 15% year-on-year trend we have seen over the last year’, said Capgemini UK head of consulting for retail Mike Petevinos.

‘The underlying trend is still that consumers are turning to the internet to make more informed purchase decisions,’ he added.

The managing director of John Lewis Direct, Robin Terrell, echoed this view. He said: ‘It’s clear that our customers are increasingly shopping online and enjoying the benefits of our online shopping experience more than ever. We are seeing growth online across all product lines, particularly fashion since the relaunch of our fashion site, but also encouragingly in home.’

Alternatives to Royal Mail?

John Lewis Direct is now working with other carriers to avoid disruption to its online deliveries. Amazon have announced similar action. Smaller businesses, though, particularly those sending lower value items, are finding the costs of alternative delivery services prohibitive.

If you have a website that promotes your product or service, wouldn't you want to gain as much benefit as possible?

Let's say you're planning to launch a new product in a few years’ time. You've done your research and know that everyone will be drooling over it. However, nobody knows you exist and the product is very expensive; you need to make sure you hit the ground running when it comes off the production line.

You decide to build a website to promote your product in advance of its launch so that you can spread awareness. What would your strategy be over the months and weeks leading up to your big launch? How would you drive traffic to the site? What would be the purpose of the site?

I've been tracking the online progress of two separate companies who are definitely interested in driving traffic - they are both developing high performance electric sports cars.

Tesla Roadster Vs Lightening Car

These are the contenders. Both can accelerate from 0-60 mph in under 5 seconds. Both are zero emission sports cars with sexy lines and styling. Both can travel around 200 miles on a full charge.

However, whilst the Tesla Roadster has generated a huge amount of publicity with a community of well-informed fans, over 700 cars already delivered, a celebrity owners’ club and cars sold a year before they roll off the production line, hardly anyone knows the Lightening Car exists, even though it is, arguably, the better product.

Let's compare the two websites:

www.teslamotors.com 

Page Rank: 7   
Blog: Extensive, multi-faceted blog with many contributors   
Newsletter: Email Newsletter   
Reservations: Online Reservation System   
Merchandise: Online Merchandise Store   
RSS Feed: Yes   
News Section: Regularly Updated News Section   
Press: Links to External Press Articles   
Information: Huge volume of information   
Members’ area: Members’ area for owners   
Videos: YouTube videos embedded onsite

www.lightningcarcompany.co.uk

Page Rank: 6
Blog: No blog
Newsletter: No newsletter
Reservations: General Contact Form
Merchandise: No Merchandise
RSS Feed: No
News Section: No News Section
Press: No capitalisation on good press
Information: Key information and FAQ only
Members’ area: No members’ area
Videos: Email them if you want a video

Tesla's approach

Tesla have communicated with anyone who was willing to listen over the past few years and shared the trials and tribulations of bringing a new product to the market. Their regular blog updates would include anything from the recruitment of key people to the company, to testifying before government committees on the merits of electric vehicles, to updates regarding the development of the car itself including any setbacks, right through to personal views and opinions on their future products and direction.

As a result, Tesla have built a large online following and gained a huge amount of free publicity from this online buzz. Even though their product is priced way out of the range of the average budget, these users have helped promote the car to such an extent that there was a year-long waiting list by the time the first car rolled off the production line.

That sort of financial security, at a time when most automotive manufacturers have been struggling for survival has meant that they could be aggressive in designing new models and expanding their business across the USA, Canada and Europe. They have recently announced that they are now profitable, which is more than can be said for many established automakers.

Lightening's approach

Little can be said for the Lightening Car Company’s website. Despite their product being arguably more visually appealing and having many practical benefits (such as a battery that can be recharged in 10 minutes as opposed to 3 hours), they’ve secured hardly any of their fair share of the tidal wave of momentum they could have tapped into. Their site is basic, static and, aside from a few attractive images, doing very little.

Of course, it may be that Lightening are quite happy with what they have, but they are undoubtedly missing out on a huge amount of publicity and sales that could be transforming their business and maximising their chances of success in the long term.

What can we learn from this?

Simply having an excellent product on a website that ranks very well for your chosen keyword is only going to scratch the surface of what is possible. You need to be pulling out all the stops to maximise the potential of your website. Engage with your users - it will pay off.

With the internet now reaching far-flung corners of the world, and social networking still on the rise (Facebook now boasts over 300 million active users), Facebook has now introduced a stripped back, lighter version of its more-popular-than-ever social networking site, cleverly named Facebook Lite.

The faster-loading site is designed with countries that have limited broadband in mind. Currently aimed at India, where statistics show a large number of new users flocking to the site, it is likely to be tested next in Russia and China.

What is Facebook Lite?

According to the big cheese itself, Facebook Lite is “a fast-loading, simplified version of Facebook that enables people to make comments, accept friend requests, write on people's walls, and look at photos and status updates”. 

Of course, with the rapid rise in mobile internet taking over the world (I only have to look around the office to notice 10 different iPhones in my vicinity); Facebook Lite has benefits for developed countries as well. With it’s simplified design, it may even find everyday users migrating to the interface, where the less overwhelming design could be better suited to casual users.

The speculation that this was Facebook’s attempt to bite back at Twitter has now died down, although with the recent acquisition of FriendFeed, there are still some rumours floating around that Facebook still has an Ace up it’s sleeve…

It hit me on Saturday afternoon, apparently out of the blue:

The internet knows too much.

It might have been to do with hearing news that social media sites now contain so much information about people’s whereabouts, they are being used by burglers as a form of online shopping.

It may have been connected to recent research I read which showed Twitter is 40% ‘pointless babble’ and 37% ‘mindless chatter’.

Or it could have been down to the rumours that some scientists are speculating the internet could, one day, become so vast and complex that it spontaneously develops consciousness.

I resolved to do what little I could to limit my contribution to this tangled mass of information. I decided to commit social media suicide.

Goodbye, sweet virtual world

It started well. Twitter let me go without a fuss. I had invested very little of myself into the account, after all: no photos, fewer ‘friends’, no groups joined, and I knew I could still find any information I wanted using Twitter Search. Click. Done. Free.

Next: Facebook. I thought about everything Facebook had given me over the last three years: messages from long-forgotten school friends, strange new games involving vampires and zombies, an unauthorised version of Scrabble which was eventually removed due to copyright issues.

I clicked on ‘deactivate’ and was completely thrown by what I saw. For its deserters, Facebook has developed a type of emotional blackmail so potent that I lost my will to leave altogether. This is what it said:

'Are you sure you want to deactivate your account? Your friends will no longer be able to keep in touch with you. Ben will miss you. Nadia will miss you. Sarah-Louise will miss you. Jon will miss you. Annabel will miss you' (each epitaph with a specially sourced photo featuring both me and the friend in question).

I’ll be giving it another go soon. I have temporarily re-activated my Twitter account, though - I just needed to check something.

How to leave Twitter:
Click on ‘settings’ (top of page), then click on ‘delete my account’ (bottom of page)

How to leave Facebook:
Click on ‘settings’ (top of page), then click on ‘deactivate’ (bottom of page). You'll need a steady hand and a firm conviction.

The pending Microsoft / Yahoo deal is big news for search. It will make Microsoft the 2^nd largest company in the world, and a much stronger contender against Google.

What’s the deal?

In the 10-year deal, Microsoft’s Bing, which was launched just two months ago and is already gaining market share, will power search queries on Yahoo’s sites. Yahoo’s sales force will be responsible for selling premium search ads to big buyers for both companies.

Microsoft will initially pay Yahoo 88% of the search revenue generated through Yahoo’s sites – at least for the first 5 years. However, it will be another 2 and a half years before we see it go into effect – the companies still have to go through antitrust and privacy inspections.

The deal may involve redundancies on Yahoo’s side, despite Microsoft being required to hire at least 400 Yahoo engineers and pay them market-competitive compensation packages.

Yahoo says...

According to Yahoo’s website, they estimate the deal will ‘boost its annual operating income by about $500 million and yield capital expenditure savings of $200 million’. Yahoo also expects the deal to boost annual operating cash flow by about $275 million.

However, due to a lack of an anticipated upfront payment from Microsoft, initial share prices fell for Yahoo – despite analysts speculating that the partnership is a good deal, and perhaps the only way that the two companies, struggling to battle Google, can finally start gaining ground on the search giant.

There are, of course, limits to the deal. Yahoo has termination clauses involved if certain revenues fall below specific percentages; and the deal doesn’t include any other of the companies web properties such as instant messaging, email or display advertising.

Is this good news for search?

Here at atom42, we agree with Matt Cutts, who said that competition within the search landscape can only be a good thing. It is likely to help push both Microhoo and Google to provide better results and more helpful search features in the future.

A few years ago, Google kidnapped all their best engineers and smuggled them into a little room filled with squillions of emails, tweets, live updates, events, virtual friends, requests, forums, searches, blogs, groups, irritating quizzes, fans, pages and rss feeds, along with some giant vats of Red Bull.

Google then instructed those engineers to think in terms of 'what would email look like if we invented it today?', and build a tool so mind-bogglingly new and gadgety that it would throw all other social mediums out of the water in one fail swoop.

Now those engineers have re-emerged - exhausted, relieved and with a massive sugar-hangover - to reveal their all-encompassing communication solution: Google Wave.

What is ‘Google Wave’?

Google Wave is the name of their creation. The ‘wave’ itself is also an aspect of that creation. As one commentator put it, Google Wave is 'like email on crack'. The best way to describe it is to explain how you use it. You create a wave and add people to it. All the people you’ve added are then able to share text, pictures, gadgets and feeds from other places on the internet on the same wave page you created.

The moment you change something, all the other people on the wave can see that it has been changed. You can also see how your particular wave evolved from start to finish with Google Wave’s ‘playback’ option. The same goes for Google Wave’s integrated games.

When you create a message for your wave, for instance an invite to an event, all the people on your wave can go in and edit or add to that same message in real-time, rather than having to create their own, separate responses as you would do in an email or on Facebook. Talking about Facebook, you can receive updates (or ‘waves’ of updates) from Facebook and Twitter in your Google Wave inbox, making it a more integrated social system.

An email revolution could be afoot...

Essentially, this is an exciting new kind of email which allows people to communicate and work together simultaneously on a live email/conversation document with richly formatted text, videos, maps, photos, games and more, and it might be about to revolutionise email.