Is Social Media a Threat to American Culture?

I recently encountered a book on the used book shelf at a Salvation Army Store which held the position that social media was destroying our culture.  Admittedly I only gave the book a quick browse but I’d have to say on the basis of that quick look that the first word that came to mind was one that describes “used oats” (i.e.: oats that have been run through a bull already).  Needless to say, I did not purchase it… even at $1.99 in hardback it was a waste of money. It did however provide me a topic for this article.

The author, a successful resident of Silicon Valley, argued that social media was destroying our culture based upon the demise of a number newspapers and magazines and the corresponding writing jobs being lost.  First, I think this is more due to the Internet in general than Social Media in particular.  Second, I’m sure that this is a similar argument to those that were heard when the automobile replaced the horse and buggy, or when audiotapes replaced vinyl records, or when any technology was replaced in the last century.  The fact is that the newspapers and magazines that fail will be those that do not embrace the Internet, do not provide the type and quality of content that the public wishes to read, and do not reduce costs to operate in a profitable manner.  What is a far greater danger to America is a scenario where our Federal Government decides that, like some banks or auto manufacturers, some publishers are “too big to fail” and bails them out with federal funds. This would essentially give the government financial control of our news media and correspondingly influence over the news we receive.  This would effectively destroy freedom of the press and pose a far greater risk to America than Social Media on the Internet.

Another argument that the author presented revolved around the idea that the established media was being replaced by “amateurs” who wouldn’t do as good a job as the “professionals”.  I stand directly on the side of the amateurs on this one.  For the most part the professional media has abandoned impartiality over the past few decades and the internet has frequently provided alternative viewpoints and filled in the gaps intentionally ignored by biased professional newscasters.  Most amateurs make no attempt to conceal their bias. (For the record…I am a conservative)  By comparison, the established media pretends to be unbiased while consistently filtering coverage to support their bias and interests.  News organizations are owned by corporations, like GE who have huge investments in outside industries.  If you do not believe that this is a legitimate concern I suggest you visit this website: Gehealthcare and consider all the ties that GE has to the healthcare industry.  Then ask yourself this question:

Do you honestly believe a news organization owned by a company with a huge interest in medical technology, would report anything negative regarding a bill that would add 30 million new people to healthcare rolls thus driving up demand for their products thereby generating millions (ultimately billions) of dollars in additional profits? (GE owns NBC )

Whether you or I agree with the healthcare bill is not the question here… The question is whether broadcast news can be trusted to put its self-interests aside with billions of dollars in potential profits at risk.  Personally I think anyone who believes that GE would willingly turn its back on billions, is violating the 11th commandment… “Thou shalt not kid thyself”

Some readers may remember in the 1990’s when NBC aired a demonstration that they said proved that the GM pickup truck’s gas tanks were dangerous in a collision.  What they neglected to tell the audience was that they had planted an explosive device on the test truck to make certain that there was an explosion. GM got a copy of the tape and analyzed it.  The explosion actually started a few frames before the collision took place and NBC settled the ensuing lawsuit out of court. The point is… on a slow day, the news media will create news to get ratings and the money that goes with them.

In truth, the established media outlets, with all their vested interests appear to be more of a danger to American Culture than social media will ever be.  Social media provides an open exchange of ideas while the established media outlets tolerate no ideas outside of their own.  The Internet and social media provide free public access to political ideas and discourse that hitherto were reserved for the “professionals” many of whom have sold-out their objectivity.  Thanks to the Internet average Americans can publish an opinion or news article without the approval of an editor whose primary job is to generate news for profit and to protect readers/viewers from a new idea or facts that might raise embarrassing questions.

With broadcasters’ interests reaching out into so many non-broadcast related industries, and with government exercising more control than ever over the business community, the objectivity of American news organizations must be constantly scrutinized by their viewers and readers.  These media organizations are under tremendous pressure from both corporate and political organizations.  Their employees’ careers are at risk along with billions in corporate profits.  Under this pressure it is far too easy to let objectivity fall to the wayside in exchange for financial and career success.

When broadcasting companies are broadcasters only with no corporate ties to outside industries which could sway their news coverage, they may have a point to make about unbiased “professional” news sources.  In the meantime Internet freelancers are doing more to encourage free and open communications and an exchange of ideas than most of the “professionals” have done in decades.  In any case, don’t believe everything  you see or read.  Test it, get both sides, and make up your own mind… even if I wrote it.

April 24, 2010 | Rand | 6 Comments »

Internet Sales Tax – A Simple Solution

This spring there was a flurry of political activity as various state governments launched efforts to tax Internet transactions.  As state coffers suffer as a result of the economy, the Internet has been perceived as a golden opportunity by state lawmakers. One of the most common approaches has been to enact what is now being called an “Amazon Law” as a means to collect sales tax.  So what is an “Amazon Law” and how does it affect the average Internet user?

In the past the United States Supreme Court ruled that companies with no physical presence in a state could not be compelled to collect state sales tax.  After that ruling, most states responded by passing laws that made its citizens responsible for voluntarily paying sales tax on Internet Purchases. Personally I think any lawmaker who thought this was going to be effective should have been discharged on the basis of being delusional.  America was founded by a people who didn’t like paying taxes and little has changed.  The line of citizens volunteering to pay sales tax on Internet purchases has been conspicuous by its absence.

Failing to squeeze more money out of its citizenry by these measures, the State of New York passed what is now being called an “Amazon Law”.  That law maintains that if an Internet business has performance-based advertisers in a state, the state considers it to meet the physical presence required by the Supreme Court and therefore the business must collect state sales taxes.  They initially went after Amazon.com hence the name.  Amazon will appeal it and eventually the US Supreme Court will rule whether this legally constitutes physical presence or not.

What it all boils down to is that by state law, an Internet publisher who places an ad for “Willy’s Widgets” on its website, and is paid a small commission if a reader clicks on that ad and purchases a widget, constitutes an physical presence for Willy’s Widgets in that state.  The truth is that the internet publisher has simply sold Willy’s advertising space on a commission basis.  The publisher is not an employee, and is no more involved in transactions than the telephone yellow pages would be.

Unfortunately for the states who have enacted “Amazon Laws” most advertisers simply cancel any agreements with publishers in the state and for obvious reasons it doesn’t appear to have significantly hurt their sales.  It doesn’t halt Internet purchases, it doesn’t limit search engines finding “Willy’s Widgets” and it doesn’t drive customers back to local merchants.  It only reduces the poor publisher’s income …on which he previously paid taxes.  Lawmakers seem oblivious to the fact that it’s a world wide web, not a state wide web.  The Commonwealth of Virginia considered passing an “Amazon Law” but didn’t, in part because they determined that if firms canceled advertising agreements as expected, the state would likely suffer a net loss in taxes collected.

I personally don’t feel that the state deserves to collect sales taxes as it doesn’t really  provide any services pertaining to the transaction that are not already taxed.  But understanding that some taxes are necessary, this convoluted exercise to get around the Supreme Court ruling strikes me as particularly foolish, when a relatively simple solution is available.  Understanding that I am no proponent of taxes in any form, here is a proposed solution for our lawmakers:

“Each Internet transaction is subject to state and local sales tax, based upon the merchant’s primary location.  The merchant shall collect sales tax and remit it to the respective authorities in accord with existing tax law.”

Now I realize that this simple 36 word legislation is an insult to professional politicians used to generating thousands of pages of ineffective and indigestible legislation, but its simplicity is obvious.  If a business is headquartered in Miami, collect Miami sales tax.  If it is headquartered in Phoenix, collect Phoenix sales tax.  It eliminates any argument about physical presence and it is basically fair to everyone.  If I walk into a business and purchase an item, I would pay the applicable sales tax.  Why not forgo wasting millions of taxpayer dollars in useless litigation and just pay the blasted tax and move on?

I don’t really believe a law like this will ever be passed.  Certain cities and states would certainly see it as unfair because they have higher taxes and businesses wouldn’t want to locate in their areas, or even worse, would flee high tax jurisdictions in favor of lower tax communities in order to be more competitive.

In any case, this is just my opinion and I am sure that given sufficient time State and Federal lawmakers will figure out a way to over-tax the Internet or bankrupt taxpayers trying.

April 21, 2010 | Rand | 9 Comments »

Are Facebook “Causes” True Barometers Of Support?

In a practical sense the answer seems to be a resounding… NO.

Some may ask, “How can that be… there are Causes with millions of members!”  My answer to that is, “So what?”  The fact is, if that membership doesn’t somehow translate into material support in some form that moves the cause forward, it is of little to no value in the real world and constitutes no real support at all.

When measured by this yardstick, the unfortunate truth appears to be that few causes have been able to convert what is essentially an online “fan club” into substantive real world support.  It is also true that it is not an easy task.

My firm recently undertook the task and we have come to realize just how difficult it really is.  Here’s the story of our attempt, perhaps you will find it interesting.

Recently my company, Corande Publishing launched a new FREE e-Magazine called “Homecare Monthly”.  We developed the publication to provide a means to support the fight against cancer by pledging a portion of advertising revenue to selected nonprofit organizations based upon subscriber choices.  We selected eight separate cancer-oriented nonprofit organizations; each associated with a “Facebook Cause” and set up a free subscription system whereby subscribers could choose which organization they wished to support and we’d pro-rate the contributions based upon subscriber selections.

Since each cause has over one million members, estimates indicate that the members of each cause have the potential to raise up to a $100,000 per month or more by simply accepting one FREE email per month. That’s a potential of over a million dollars per year for each cause to fund the fight against cancer.

It sounds promising doesn’t it?  The members get a free publication, the cause gets support, and the advertising pays for it all.  Simply subscribe free and raise millions of dollars for your cause to fight cancer!  We really thought we had found a way to help fund a worthy and important cause.

Unfortunately thus far it hasn’t lived up to the promise…

We published comments with subscription links on each cause page announcing that cause members could raise funds for their cause by simply subscribing free to a new family-oriented monthly e-magazine.

The results: almost nothing, zero, nada, zilch.  After a week we have received one single subscription from one member of one cause.  Though millions of users have enlisted as members to these eight causes, over the course of a week, only one was willing to accept a free subscription to help fund their cause!

So the question we’re left with is… WHY?

I have yet to arrive at an answer, only more questions seem to arise.

…Do they not “get it”?  Surely the concept isn’t that difficult to comprehend, manufacturers have been doing this for years.

…Are millions of people simply pretending to care?  I don’t really believe this but you have to wonder why they joined the causes.

…Are they afraid of something? The website clearly indicates a strong privacy policy.

I would welcome reader comment and input…perhaps together we can solve what is thus far to me a mystery.

Quick Apology
It has been some time since my last post, but we’ve been dealing with some issues including the launch of a new product.  Now that I’ve cleared some things off my plate I’ll try to resume regular posting.

April 14, 2010 | Rand | 6 Comments »