Recently in eBusiness and Marketing Category

Symantec today issued its latest Internet Security Threat Report, covering attacks and vulnerabilities measured during the second half of 2004. Highlights of the report are available in this release:

Symantec Internet Security Threat Report Highlights Rise in Threats to Confidential Information

Key findings of the report include:

• Rise in Threats to Confidential Information
• Steady Increase in Phishing Attacks
• Increase in Attacks Against Web Applications
• Rise in Number of Windows Virus/Worm Variants
• Increase in Severe, Easy-to-Exploit, Remotely Exploitable Vulnerabilities

The report covers trends in attacks, vulnerabilities, malicious code, and other areas.

Symantec warns of the following emerging and future trends:

-- The use of bots and bot networks for financial gain will likely increase, especially as the diverse means of acquiring new bots and developing bot networks become more prevalent.

-- Malicious code targeting mobile devices is expected to increase in number and severity. With many groups researching vulnerabilities in Bluetooth-enabled devices, the possibility of a worm or some other type of malicious code propagating by exploiting these vulnerabilities increases.

-- Symantec expects that client-side attacks using worms and viruses as propagation methods will become more common.

-- Attacks hidden in embedded content in audio and video images are expected to increase. This is worrisome because image files are ubiquitous, almost universally trusted, and an integral part of modern day computing.

-- Symantec expects security risks associated with adware and spyware will likely increase. Impending legislation to curb these risks is not expected to be an effective or sufficient deterrent on its own.

AB -- 3/21/05

This afternoon, a press release came into our TMCnet Web site through the PR Newswire feed. I was interested to see that the release referred to a new form of advertising that recently appeared on TMCnet itself:

Epygi, Content Directions Break New Ground With Interactive Multilink Ad

This interactive "MultiLink" ad format was developed by a company called Content Directions. I had noticed these ads on our Selecting VoIP Solutions channel, but I didn't realize that TMCnet is the first place where they have appeared. Check them out -- they're interesting!

This statement from Epygi CEO Jeff Kirchner sounds like it was manufactured by Content Directions' copywriter, but it does give an idea how the ads work and how they might deliver value:

"CDI's implementation of DOI technology allows Epygi to syndicate our marketing and sales information globally in real time ads and information updates all over the Web. We can instantly update information in every channel, keeping pace with an accelerating business. Knowing that public information and channel information is updated automatically via CDI's MultiLink creation and maintenance process represents a breakthrough in sales support and channel development for Epygi. The same MultiLink can also be disseminated as a contextual link within product reviews, white papers, news articles, electronic feeds, blog entries, and downloadable marketing brochures. It is a permanent link that always brings customers back to our most current product information."

AB -- 3/21/05

Interesting follow-up to my post yesterday about word of mouth marketing.

I had commented on an interesting release from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA), announcing a new set of ethical standards. Today, this announcement critical of WOMMA appeared:

National Institute on Media and the Family: Word of Mouth Marketing Association's Code of Ethics Neglects Parental Involvement

The Institute's statement in part says this:

"By recruiting minors for online viral advertising campaigns, marketers sometimes expose them and their friends to sexually explicit information, age inappropriate language, sexual images and even open the virtual door to predatory adults who use the Internet to stalk children."

Ouch! The National Institute on Media and the Family describes itself as "an independent non-partisan, non-sectarian, nonprofit organization."

AB -- 2/20/05

For some time I've been intrigued by the idea of Word of Mouth Marketing. Many business people will tell you that their best marketing happens by word of mouth. But conventional wisdom says that this is something you can't control.

Not so, says a growing group of professionals in the business of creating "buzz." So I thought it was interesting to see this announcement today:

What's Ethical Buzz? Word of Mouth Marketing Association's New Code of Conduct Defines Standards for Marketers

This release comes from the Word of Mouth Marketing Association (WOMMA), which claims 40 corporate members. The association has just come out with a code of conduct for its members. Here's an interesting quote that gives insight into the thinking of this group:

At the heart of the Code is what WOMMA calls its Honesty ROI -- honest disclosure of Relationship, Opinion, and Identity. This demands that advocates (those who are spreading a marketer's message by "word of mouth") disclose their relationship with marketers in their conversations with other consumers; that they be allowed to form their own honest opinions and let those with whom they're communicating form their own opinions; and that everyone be transparent and reveal their identity to anyone with whom they're communicating.

Through reading and thinking about this approach to marketing -- and trying it out to some extent -- I have become convinced that it is indeed possible to generate and to some extent control word of mouth. So I'm happy to see a more organized effort to build a body of knowledge and best practices in this area.

AB -- 2/9/05

This news item from Digimarc, developer of digital watermarking technology, directs attention to a copyright infringement case soon to go to the U.S. Supreme Court:

Digimarc Participates in Amicus Brief to U.S. Supreme Court Considering Landmark Copyright Infringement Case

As a creative professional, I generally stand on the side of the artist in intellectual property issues. At the same time, I have long felt that an import sub-text in the controversy over P2P file-sharing is the possibility of a legitimate business model that satisfies the desire of consumers to obtain music electronically and yet allows for compensation for the people who created the music.

According to Digimarc, digital watermarking makes such a business model possible. The news release quotes Reed Stager, Digimarc Vice President of Corporate Marketing, Licensing and Public Policy:

"A variety of commercially available implementations of digital watermarking exist today that can identify audio, video and image content, and associated rights management information, to assist in the handling of that content in ways that facilitate legitimate commerce and fair uses.

"Digital watermarking has been widely deployed by record companies and movie studios to forensically track leaked content back to its source, and offers a viable and proven means of enabling trusted transactions and innovative models of digital content distribution while protecting copyrights."

Digimarc has submitted a friend-of-the-court brief (available here in PDF) with the Supreme Court in connection with Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios vs. Grokster, being prepared now.

AB -- 1/25/05

The Pew Internet & American Life Project just came out with a new report, "Search Engine Users," by Senior Research Fellow Deborah Fallows. (You can view the whole report in PDF at that link.)

The subtitle of the report gives you an idea of the somewhat paradoxical results of the study: "Internet searchers are confident, satisfied and trusting -- but they are also unaware and naive."

I can understand that conclusion, having observed many Web usability tests that in part studied users' attempts to use search engines. I've found that users love to use search tools, but they also have a lot of problems with them. In fact, on one Web site I worked on, I asked the Web technical team to remove the site search function entirely because it had such major usability problems. My feeling is that bad search is worse than no search at all.

But I digress. The Pew study focuses on Internet search engines rather than site search engines (although it is evident that usability issues enter the picture here as well).

As I said, Internet users love to search. Some of Pew's findings:

+ 84% of internet users have used search engines. On any given day, 56% of those online use search engines.

+92% of those who use search engines say they are confident about their searching abilities, with over half of them, 52%, saying they’re “very confident”.

+87% of searchers say they have successful search experiences most of the time, including some 17% of users who say they always find the information for which they are looking.

+ 68% of users say that search engines are a fair and unbiased source of information; 19% say they don’t place that trust in search engines.

Now comes the paradox.

Users (70% of respondents) told Pew that they don't object to the idea of having paid results on search engines; 45% said they would stop using search engines if the distinction between unbiased and paid results was not clear.

But in fact only 1 out of 6 users say that they can "consistently distinguish between paid and unpaid results." So they want to be able to tell the difference but most say they can't!

Here's what users think search engines should do to distinguish paid from unpaid results:

+ 42% say paid results should be labeled with words paid or sponsored

+ 20% say paid results should be listed with different size or color than other results.

+ 19% say paid results should be listed in a different section of results page from unpaid results

+ 12% say search engines should provide an explanation about their pay procedures in the results page.

+ 7% either said they don’t know or they refused to answer.

The study goes into a lot of detail to identify demographics of searchers, what they search for, which search engines they use and how much they trust the results they get.

AB -- 1/25/05

Today I saw this cute but overly-exuberant headline:

StreamShield Predicts the End of the Phishing Season

The release comes from StreamShield Networks, UK-based provider of content security systems. The company's product is designed to detect and block dangerous content by means of "multiple anti-phishing techniques, including statistical analysis of email content, blocking access to bogus websites and digital finger printing of messages to identify fraudulent content."

This is certainly a laudable and necessary effort, but is it going to bring an end to phishing? I don't think so.

As I've said before, every time we build a higher wall, the bad guys are going to make a taller ladder. To claim that security systems are going to bring about permanent solutions might look like a good marketing pitch, but that's really all it is. Electronic security is a long-term, continuing battle -- and if you're in the security business, that's probably a good thing.

AB -- 1/20/05

Why do so many online shoppers abandon their shopping carts? This has been a nagging question for online retailers for many years. A new study provides a partial answer:

Retail Websites Are Powerful Drivers of In-Store Sales, Brand Loyalty, and Customer Satisfaction, Says Groundbreaking Study of Multi-Channel Shoppers by ForeSee Results and FGI Research

The study actually covered a whole lot more about Web shopping and its effect on customer satisfaction, but I was especially intrigued by the light shed on the shopping-cart mystery. Consider this excerpt:

"A surprisingly large proportion of multi-channel shoppers -- 86 percent of those surveyed in the study -- prefer to make purchases offline. Yet this statistic dramatically understates the influence of the web channel. Nearly 40% of multi-channel shoppers prefer to use the web for browsing and researching their purchases. Of this group of people who would typically be viewed as unconverted browsers or 'shopping-cart abandoners,' 71 percent complete their purchase in the store."

The study indicates that retailers' Web sites are significant drivers of customer satisfaction, even for customers who actually complete their purchases in the bricks-and-mortar store.

AB -- 1/19/05

Today, this news item appeared from an email security firm:

On One-Year Anniversary of CAN-SPAM Act, MX Logic Reports 97 Percent of 2004 Spam Failed to Comply with the Law; Spam, Other Email Threats Will Continue to Increase in 2005

The group acknowledges that the US CAN-SPAM act has created awareness of the email spam problem and has provided the basis for new legal action against spammers in the US, but contends that the law has had "no meaningful impact on the unrelenting flow of spam that continues to clog the Internet and plague inboxes," according to MX Logic's CTO Scott Chasin.

MX Logic's press release lays out some interesting predictions for 2005, including an increase in "spam without economic profit," such as propaganda from political groups, terrorists and hate groups.

As someone who has been using email as a marketing tool since 1995 and has been writing about the email spam problem since 1996, I have serious doubts about the long-term efficacy of any US anti-spam law, whether it's the flimsy CAN-SPAM effort or something stronger.

I'm pretty sure that the fight against email spam is going to have to continue as long as people continue to use email to communicate. It seems evident that spam is profitable for somebody, although nearly any business would be stupid to try it. And as long as it is profitable for somebody, somebody's going to keep doing it.

(Here's an article I wrote awhile back, attempting to give a definition of "spam." Basically my thinking these days is that your email is spam if the recipient thinks it is.)

A next-generation Internet might be able to have better spam controls built into it, but it's going to be a long time before an Internet like that will be available to most users, if ever.

The best thing for now is for companies to continue to develop better and better technological solutions to combat unwanted email. They're going to have to, because every time you build a higher wall, the bad guys are going to build a taller ladder.

I've never much liked client-based spam filters such as anti-spam software or the filtering capabilities that come with Outlook. But I do like Cloudmark's SafetyBar (formerly SpamNet), which I've been using for 3-4 years now. It's not really an anti-spam software program, although you do have to download software. The real power of it is that it's a network of over a million users who collectively identify and filter spam. It's not perfect and has its drawbacks, but I find that SafetyBar eliminates 95% or more of spam from my inbox -- not too bad.

AB -- 1/3/05

While I'm on the topic of 'The Top 10 This or That for 2004,' (see Most-Used IM Acronyms from earlier today) this release also came through today:

America Online Announces 2nd Annual 'Top 10 Spam Terms'

AOL's top 10 spam subject lines for 2004 were:

1. "We carry the most popular medications" (Vioxx appeared often)
2. "You've been sent an Insta-Kiss!" (phishing/ID theft scam)
3. "You Have 17 New Pictures" (phishing/ID theft scam)
4. "STEAMY HOT LESBIAN ACTION LIVE ON CAMERA!"
5. "All orders are shipped from authorized locations" (re: online medications)
6. "2005 Digital Cable Filters"
7. "F R E E* 30 Second Pre-Qualification MORTGAGE Application"
8. "HURRY HURRY Hot Stock on the RISE"
9. "Sale PRICES ARE BEST ONLINE!"
10. "Breaking news on the Top Pick stock"

Some of those do look familiar!

AOL says that the character of spammers has changed over time. The company describes the newer spammers as "sophisticated, nefarious, shadowy, devious, deceitful, sneaky, malicious, and -- unfortunately -- dedicated .... Gone are most 'small-time' spammers, and what is left are the 'hardcore, kingpin spammers.'"

AB -- 12/29/04