The problem for print publishers — one that Netflix arguably doesn’t share — is that their legacy business still produces the bulk of the revenue they pull in via advertising, and therefore, the incentive to de-emphasize or radically downsize that part of the business isn’t as obvious. Hence, the reason why you see so many publishers opting for paywalls, which bring in incremental revenue but are mostly intended to function like a line of sandbags, keeping existing print subscribers from deserting that business for the free web.

Netflix doesn’t have to worry about the impact of its shift on advertising revenue the way that newspapers do, which is probably why it has accelerated its move, while many print publishers are still waffling about what to do more than a decade after the rise of the consumer web. All Netflix has to worry about is the impact on its customers, which is why Hastings has become so apologetic. The effect of the changes on the company’s revenue — and the resulting decline in the company’s share price — are enough to make it obvious that people don’t like the change.

Poor, poor Netflix. This is starting to feel like the early stages of a (very) bad breakup.

We already loved you—how could we not? You have spent years enticing us—the eager and easy-to-please consumers—with simple DVD rentals and multiple-device streaming services, along with an ever-growing library of movies, documentaries, and television shows—both new and old.

Stop trying so hard to make us hate you!

New feature by Foursquare allows you to “share the places you love” with Foursquare lists.

Sounds similar to Twitter lists, but is it?

What do you think?

Will this attract new and old users to Foursquare? Will it be a top feature? Will it only be used by everyone, or just anyone on vacation?

What do you think the intent is of Foursquare by releasing this feature?

Is it, perhaps, to compete with Twitter or Google+?

One of the most fascinating aspects about the launch of Google+ is the way it reframes how we, as individuals, interact with our communities. As Brian Solis so rightly points out, the initial Facebook model of creating a single social graph of up to 5000 friends must now be compared to a series of what Google+ calls ‘circles’ that expand and contract as we pass through various life stages, jobs, relationships and experiences in our lives.

This contrast is very instructive as to the future, and is particularly important for brands trying to engage with their customer communities. By now, most brands have overcome their reticence to participate in social media, and exhausted their knee-jerk reaction to buy their way to a sizable social footprint that is at least comparable to their competitors. But the challenges continue to arise.

This new reframing, just as Twitter emerged after Facebook, and Google+ after Twitter, we will see more social platforms emerge that will become increasingly sophisticated and nuanjced in their expression of how individiuals prefer to relate to each other.  Ultimately, it’s possible that these platforms themselves will be designed as templates that the users themselves can customize in terms of the best way to express their community and experience of life.

What this means for brands is significant. It is already challenging to engage and maintain the interest of your customers in real time across multiple platforms, especially as many brands are still fighting the inertia that inevitably comes with hierarchical structures designed with control in mind. But now, as the social business marketplace becomes increasingly fragmented and more and more micro-communities, specific to a variety of media (Path, Instagram) start to emerge, brands face the prospect of reaching an increasing number of specific audiences, conversations and communities all in real time.

It’s not even a week old and already there’s a power list out of Google+ users. You know you’re curious – so go on and click.

Hat tip to @SteveRubel for finding this list.

Image via cogdogblog

Have you heard about the controversey surrounding Facebook’s new (well, kind of) face recognition feature? They’ve had the feature for some time, but now you can be sure that it has been activated on your account—without your permission, of course.

The New York Times had one of the better posts about it yesterday:

Facebook is pushing the privacy line once again, according to a new report from a security and antivirus company.

According to the report, from Sophos, Facebook recently began changing its users’ privacy settings to automatically turn on a facial recognition feature that detects a user’s face in an image. Once the person’s face is detected, the Web site then encourages Facebook friends to tag them. Facebook introduced this feature last year for its North American users; it is now rolling it out globally.

Facebook never fails, it seems, to edge us closer toward having our own moments of absolute panic concerning our personal privacy online. Or sheer terror, even.

For years, Facebook’s communications strategy to users has always been to limit awareness while rolling out new features, then deal with the consequences later on. Although controversial, this has worked out in their favor time and time again. The negative press and social media chatter dies down in a week or two and most users willingly accept the new, invasive features—or at least they slowly warm up to the idea. After all, we need Facebook more than they need us, and they know it.

At the end of the day we will most likey accept these new privacy-restricting features, regardless of how awful they are or how much they break sacred ethical business standards, forcing us to give up the ability to control what is rightly ours. They’ve done their homework; they’ve done their research; and they’ve compelted countless hours of user studies.

Image via badjonni

Facebook is not the uneducated toddler lacking any comprehension of what it means to be play nice that we think they are. Because unfortunately for us, their strategy actually works. And it will continue to work even better in the future as our culture continues to shift from one that values privacy to one that is more transparent and open. If you don’t believe me that this is happening, find the nearest high school student and ask for his or her opinion. Being more open is a social norm for many Facebook users already, even to the point where they might not know what you are talking about if you ask. Is this a universal view? Of course not. But I dare you to find a college freshman and ask, just to be sure.

In the end, I suppose, both businesses and consumers benefit as long as Facebook has the balance of an Olympic gymnist while intelligently positioning themselves smack on the center of the fence.

Facebook continues to finds ways to connect our social lives more and more for our continuing pleasure and satisfaction. They do this while at the same time collecting far above and beyond the most extensive data set of human behavior in existence for the sole purpose of exploiting the spoils to feed profits of gargantuan proportions. Hey, it’s a business. Corporate social responsibility need not apply—we’ll continue to feed our addiction regardless. They know exactly how to give us what we want and push the limit just enough each time that it becomes impossible to “just say no” to Facebook. We’ll get over it, eventually.

How to Disable Face Recognition for your Facebook Account

Jeez, this was definitely not easy to find. The New York Times article shares how it can be disabled, or you can just go to your account’s privacy options page and follow the images below.

13% of online adults use the status update service Twitter, which represents a significant increase from the 8% of online adults who identified themselves as Twitter users in November 2010. 95% of Twitter users own a mobile phone, and half of these users access the service on their handheld device.

Check out the link for full details, to read the full report, and to view Pew’s survey questions used for operationalizing and measuring the concepts examined. One great aspect of their study was to sample the population in such a way to include both English- and Spanish-speaking populations.

Interesting take from LA Times about research done by Hitwise.

I love Frontline. They produce some of the best journalism and each episode is always on a strikingly relevant topic.

Their February 2nd episode digital_nation is no different, which poses the question, “Is our 24/7 wired world causing us to lose as much as we’ve gained?”

In Digital Nation: Life on the Virtual Frontier, Frontline presents an in-depth exploration of what it means to be human in a 21st-century digital world… [and] embarks on a journey to understand the implications of living in a world consumed by technology and the impact that this constant connectivity may have on future generations.

You can watch the full 90-minute episode online now for free at PBS or Hulu.