21 minutes into this video, Kevin Rose asks Google’s Vice President of Search Product and User Experience, Marissa Mayer “Is Google Skynet?” on behalf of someone who asked the question online and 182 people who voted for that question.

Her first two words are “Uhhhh.. Well…. :D”

There are a lot of people that think Google is SkyNet. What’s SkyNet?

Skynet (Terminator): In the fictional Terminator universe, Skynet is a computer software-based defense system created by humans in the late 20th century.

In the Terminator storyline, Skynet gains sentience shortly after it is placed in control of all of the U.S. military’s weaponry. When they realize that it has become self-aware, and what the computer control is capable of, the human operators try to shut the system down. It retaliates and believes humans are a threat to its existence, it then employs humankind’s own weapons of mass destruction in a campaign to exterminate the human race.

The obvious parallel with Google is that every time you turn around, Google’s acquired another company or created or announced a new product. The bottom line is data. Information. Evidence of connections. The attempt to predict patterns… purchasing tendencies… communications networks… social trends…

Why is data important? Because we have moved from interpersonal conversation to Pony Express… From letters to phone calls… From phone calls to email… From email to text messages… From text messages to instant messages… From instant messages to transparent communications via apps/sites like Twitter, FriendFeed, Facebook… Now, we’re moving into audio and video communications via Oovoo, Skype, Ustream, LiveStream… It’s all data. It’s all information. It all says something about us and the people we interact with and the products we buy or avoid. Someday, it will be aggregated into a meaningful report which will be used by whomever figures it out to make a lot of money.

An example of how this works is Facebook. Instead of hiding my status, I’ve declared myself “single” on Facebook, so they use that information to send me an endless stream of “dating” and “meet women of such and such a type” advertisements on the right side of my screen. I can look forward to at least 60 such ads on any given day, being that they fit 3 on a page. How did they know I might be interested in women available for sex? Because I clicked “single” for status and “women” as far as interests. Elementary… Peep it for yourself:

The reason this is useful is that in order to sell things to people on the internet, you need to be able to prove demographics to a reasonable degree. You have to be able to say to a potential advertiser “I can place your ad for single women in front of 40,000 guys who are looking for girls [who are looking for guys] in this amount of time, for which you will owe me this amount of money”. This is why they want you to use their services, so they can collect data on what you like, what you use, what you endorse, what you dislike, who you follow and who follows you. The “following” part indicates social networks as well as potential spheres of influence.

To go off on a tangent for a second… This is why some people were really hoppin’ mad over Twitter’s “Suggested User List”. At the time that I checked out this list, there was a CAT (like, somebody’s actual pet) on this list, and President-Elect Barack Obama was NOT on this list (Though Al Gore was). People were (and probably still are) mad about this because they weren’t chosen to be ON this list and their standings as influential people on Twitter plummeted faster than people’s bank accounts who had invested money with Bernie Madoff.

Suddenly, people who had ZERO standing in the fishbowl whatsoever were getting thousands and in some cases TENS OF THOUSANDS of new followers on a daily basis. The people who used to be able to press their chests out at having 60,000 followers had to sit there and watch as people raced towards 1 Million followers and beyond. What difference did this make? The people with tens of thousands of followers were looking forward to leveraging that and being seen as influential people in the Twitter space. They’re still way more influential than I am, with my current 2,604 followers, but they’ve been entirely eclipsed by the people that get followers almost as quickly as Twitter gets new users.

I wanted to bring this up because I was having a vigorous discussion today with a friend of mine who’s a rabid conspiracy theorist and she really sparked me to talk about this stuff. The fact of the matter is that the price of admission to any of these sites is giving them direct access to information about the people you know, products and sites you use and your likes & dislikes. When you click “like” on Facebook, that’s recorded. When you click “favorite” on Twitter, that’s recorded. When you follow someone or someone follows you, that’s recorded. The real question here is whether you can afford to be involved or you can afford to NOT be involved…

There’s an easy way not to have your information collected and utilized… Don’t do JACK on the internet. For some people, this is the solution. Don’t put the data out there and you won’t have to worry about it. That’s not the solution for me, personally. According to Google Analytics, Google was responsible for 6,291 of my visits last month, which is 65.48% of the 9,555 total visits to my site. I am fully entrenched and willing to sink or swim on the internet with SkyNet. :D I even went out and bought the G1 Google Phone as the picture to the left just so happened to catch rebooting… even though that was more because of the Android platform and physical keyboard than my stellar Google search result standings.

Ultimately, conspiracy or not, it’s clear that we’re trending towards MORE information being available about everyone rather than less. We’re all communicating with each other more through digital, collectable means. We used to use tokens, now we use MetroCards. We used to have bank books, now we have ATM Cards. We used to write checks, now we have Credit Cards. We have data plans on our computers AND our phones. We socialize with each other more ON the internet than off. It’s way easier and way more efficient than getting on trains and planes and actually going to other states, countries and continents where our friends live. More and more socializing that was done OFFline is now being done ONline. Same thing goes for business. For example I can now share my computer’s screen with clients via the internet instead of having to travel to edit for them or train them on-site.

With or without you, SkyNet’s on the move! :D The decision YOU have to make is whether you’re going to get with the program and go with the flow or keep your information to yourself and do things the old fashioned way. When I traveled to Delaware… (Delaware), I met a bus driver who was also a prize-winning Chicken Farmer. I guarantee you that he’s not interested in SkyNet AT. ALL! :D However, his business doesn’t depend on the internet. People need to eat. People like to each chicken. People like eggs. He’s going to get paid regardless of what Google does…

Can you say the same thing?

~ Bill Cammack | @BillCammack

Related Posts

• Google Your Date?
• Top 10 Reasons to Date a Geek
• GrandCentral becomes Google Voice!
• Tech Stole Your Girlfriend!
• Be Original & Useful

Tyme White linked me to Caroline McCarthy’s article where she interviewed Lindsay Campbell. I found this exchange particularly interesting:

McCarthy: The “girl in front of a camera, talking about stuff” has almost become a Web cliché by now. How do you hope that Moblogic will be different?

Campbell: One of the things that we’d like to move beyond is just being a Web talking head, like a Web counterpart to the TV talking heads. So a lot of the talking on the show is going to be done by people that we meet all over the country, and eventually hopefully in other countries, about the topics that we’re talking about. I’m not an expert, I’m just expert at talking to people, and that’s how the stories are going to get formed.

I found it cool that Caroline brought up what I affectionately call “the formula”, since it’s been my experience that everybody knows it’s going on, but nobody wants to discuss it.

“The Formula” for internet shows is that no matter how your content is aggregated, researched or scripted, make sure you have an attractive female in front of the camera to “talk about stuff”. That’s pretty much it. :D The obvious problem here is that it’s very tough (if not impossible) to tell who’s tuning in to hear about the content, and who’s tuning in to “check out the chick”.

Does it matter why they tuned in? No. Views are views. Sponsors and advertisers want to know how many times their ad is going to be shown. Revenue Sharing is based on hits, not “reasons why”. Also, I’m not knocking utilizing Eye Candy (EC) to draw attention to a show or product or get guys to concentrate on the screen long enough for your message to get across. :D It’s the same thing as having “booth babes” at conventions or car shows.

Or, is it?……..

I think it’s very important to note what percentage of your show’s props are due to content vs the looks and hopefully TALENT of the EC. There are several flavors of EC:

1) Entirely Talentless = Just looks
2) Knows how to read the teleprompter, but not theatrically
3) Enthusiastic and personable, but not knowledgeable
4) Researched and wrote her own material
5) Actually lives what she’s presenting about, obviously knowledgeable and speaking from a first-hand, in-the-trenches perspective.

I suppose flavors 4 and 5 might not qualify for EC, because you’re not “dressing up the show” by having her speak. She’s not a front. She’s the actual show. If you ran into her in person, she could intelligently engage you in conversation about facts that didn’t come up on the show or tangents she didn’t explore. However, for the purpose of this discussion, I’d like to include all the flavors as we consider how dependent your show is on the EC.

So… Let’s think about what happens when “The Face Of The Show” leaves the show…..

Let’s say you’re doing a show with an ECfl5. Actually, there wouldn’t be much for you to do except tell her when the camera’s on. :D She knows the material, she’s prepared what she wants to say, and really all you’re doing (if she needs you for anything at all instead of producing her own show completely independently) is helping HER to bring her vision to the masses. There is no “leaving the show”, because she IS the show. If she makes another show, it’ll be the exact same thing, with a new name, and without YOU connected to it. :)

ECfl4 is pretty much the same thing, except it’s likely that the research she’s doing doesn’t make her AS unique as an ECfl5, though she’s still extremely important for the show to have the same style and delivery. If she leaves the show, not just the look of the show changes, but you’ve lost the ability to write the shows in the same way that you did when you were building your audience. Also, if she joins another team or makes a similar show on her own, she automatically transfers the style of your show to hers. You can get another researcher, but if your viewers don’t appreciate her looks AND her new style, that might be all she wrote.

ECfl3 is a pretty good combination for both sides in a show break-up. :) Guys love to watch her talk. She’s fun and interesting. She’s someone that they would love to actually meet in person at a conference. Perfect. :D At the same time, since she’s not the writer or researcher on the project, none of the infrastructure disappears if she leaves. She’s “acting” what you tell her to act, so that’s what she’ll do on her new show. There are mannerisms that she’ll bring to the new venture that come from working with you or your team, but for you, transitioning to new on-air talent is seamless. She’s basically an informed spokesperson. The information doesn’t leave with her, and next week… (well… whenever you get new EC hahaha) the show goes on as planned.

ECfl2 is pretty much dime-a-dozen. Imagine the reading skills of a used car salesman in a late-night low-budget television commercial. “This. Is. Not. A. Lemon… Believe. You. Me….. I. Gah.Rohn.TEE. Ya. That.” In this case, you might be better off taking your chances and using an actual guy. :D … Or, at least a less-attractive female that can actually deliver the lines well and make your show look intelligent.

The problem here is in comparison to the better flavors. ECfl3 is like having a conversation with a friend. ECfl4&5 are like hearing a technical conversation… Like last year at BlogHerBiz ‘07 when Lisa Stone moderated a panel which included Google’s VP of Search Products and User Experience, Marissa Mayer:

Also, that’s the fault of the producer or whomever’s in charge of the production. If there’s a bad read, have the talent DO.IT.OVER! :/

Which brings us to ECfl1, hehehe… This is when the producer says “I don’t care WHAT you people think! I know she can’t act and I know she can’t read, but she looks good, so I’m going to get hits and that’s all that matters”. Content-wise, these could actually be silent videos, or at least without her talking, because nobody’s listening anyway. It’s kind of a cycle… Since the EC has no mental connection to the material (if you bothered to write any material in the first place) the people who find out about your show and continue to watch it are tuning in to see how the EC looks this week. Because of this, if she leaves the show, your ratings leave with her because the EC *IS* the show, so you’re kaput.

So… Interestingly enough, if you’re a show producer, “middle of the road” is the way to go. If she knows too much, your show suffers when she leaves because she removes the infrastructure. If she comes off as a dolt or a simpleton, your show suffers when she leaves because NOW you have to survive off of the merit of your content….. Content which you disrespected in the first place by not selecting the right woman to represent your project from the giddyap.

And now, in the spirit of EC, I gratuitously embed pictures of Caroline McCarthy and Stephanie Frasco so people will click on my article! :D

Related Posts

• EMS Episode 95: Marissa Mayer @ BlogHerBiz ‘07
• Sexism?
• EMS Episode 94: Debi Fine @ BlogHerBiz ‘07
• Lisa Stone, Marissa Mayer, Debi Fine, Caroline Little & Stacy Morrison @ BlogHerBiz ‘07
• Formats & Codecs

billcammack reelsolidtv blogherbiz blogher videobloggingweek2007

Related Posts

• EMS Episode 94: Debi Fine @ BlogHerBiz ‘07
• EMS Episode 96: Stacy Morrison @ BlogHerBiz ‘07
• Network-Quality Series Developed For The Internet
• About
• EMS Episode 87: Remi Adams @ BlogHerBiz ‘07

Related Posts

• EMS Episode 95: Marissa Mayer @ BlogHerBiz ‘07
• EMS Episode 96: Stacy Morrison @ BlogHerBiz ‘07
• Lisa Stone, Marissa Mayer, Debi Fine, Caroline Little & Stacy Morrison @ BlogHerBiz ‘07
• Network-Quality Series Developed For The Internet
• About

Lisa Stone, Marissa Mayer, Debi Fine, Caroline Little & Stacy Morrison @ BlogHerBiz ‘07, originally uploaded by Bill C..

billcammack lisastone marissamayer sebifine caolinelittle stacymorrison reelsolidtv blogherbiz blogher

Related Posts

• EMS Episode 94: Debi Fine @ BlogHerBiz ‘07
• EMS Episode 95: Marissa Mayer @ BlogHerBiz ‘07
• Eye Candy
• Lisa Stone – BlogHerBiz ‘07 Closing Keynote
• EMS Episode 87: Remi Adams @ BlogHerBiz ‘07