2013-05-19T12:21:03-04:00 Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=craig-agranoff Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Craig Agranoff Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2398289 2013-01-03T17:09:02-05:00 2013-03-05T05:12:01-05:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
The way AdWords is used is not always ethical, however, and as with most advertising forms, the results often go to those with the deepest pockets. The trick is to use PPC effectively rather than blanketing it with bids to rank on every possible keyword related to your campaign. The good news is that it's much cheaper for a campaign to use AdWords in an ethical manner than it is for negative campaigns to try to destroy opponents with it.

Here's why.

An ethical campaign for John Smith whose running for mayor can focus on words like "John Smith Mayor" and "John Smith Boca Raton" and, while the payment per click will be higher for those specific words if the campaign wants to retain top position, it's only for two words. So even at $1 per click, a $1,000/day budget (which seems like a lot, but during peak campaign times in a sizable town, it's not) can keep Smith's campaign in top ranking. What's more, those clicks can be focused to just those who're likely eligible to vote (i.e., focused by congressional district or ZIP code), making the money spent even more targeted.

By contrast, the opponent's campaign that hopes to give a negative stigma to John Smith would have to target a wider range of keywords, including those Smith's campaign is using. This is because learning which specific keywords Smith is using will be a matter of hit-and-miss testing (which could take days or weeks ñ valuable time during campaign season) and adding negative connotations means adding wider keyword options. So not only does this anti-campaign have to run "John Smith Mayor" and "John Smith Boca Raton," but they also have to go with phrases like "John Smith Bad Mayor," "John Smith Great Choice" and so forth. To stay competitive, they'll have to commit several thousand a day versus Smith's $1,000.

Last but not least, negative campaigns rarely work well. Statistics have shown that negatively-focused campaigns tend to have lower conversion rates (in terms of undecided voters) than do positive campaigns. The only exception is when the campaign is about a specific issue rather than a specific candidate. Even then, however, the negative campaign is usually more about rallying the already decided than it is about converting the undecided.

Finally, legal issues would cause that negative campaign some problems. While issues of libel are vague with political speech (usually, you can get away with all kinds of slander if the person you refer to is a politician or candidate), it is still possible for a negative campaign to find itself in deep water legally ñ at least during the election cycle.

Further, Google has specific rules about what can and cannot be said in political campaign ads on AdWords and most other PPC engines will abide by similar rules. They also have specific anti-violence and funds solicitation policies that will also apply. Because advertising on AdWords (including political ads) are reviewed by a human within a few days of being posted, a negative campaign may find itself getting its ads shut down regularly. Even ethical campaigns may have this problem if they do not have a professional crafting their ads for them.

Those who chronically abuse this will find their domain (website) banned from AdWords entirely, so no more ads with that domain link will be allowed. JohnSmithSucks.com would very quickly become a useless anti-campaign if that happened.

Obviously, there are ways a truly negative and unethical campaign could get around all of these rules, but again, they're costly. So unless the anti-campaign has deep pockets, it's not likely to get far.

In the end, your political campaign should definitely utilize AdWords as part of its online presence and, more to the point, should do so ethically and with a professional's guidance.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2277454 2012-12-17T17:46:43-05:00 2013-02-16T05:12:01-05:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
Do you pay that money to purchase it? Or should you enforce your trademark (TM) and try to take the domain on infringement grounds?

The legalities of domains and trademarks are not very cut-and-dry. In fact, they're extremely convoluted and even experts in the field can run into questions that they can't answer. There are two basic criteria that most trademark infringements, in regards to domain name registrations, must meet before they can be enforced. These define what's called "bad faith registration."

Dates of registration -- the trademark should usually have been registered (meaning the filing date, not the award date) before the domain name, otherwise the domain is probably not infringing on the TM. The exceptions are when domains are sold or transferred after TM registration, especially if those sales are to competitors to the TM owner.

Foreknowledge of the TM -- the person who owns the domain can sell or transfer the domain, or even legally purchase the domain after TM registration if he or she was not aware of the trademark. In other words, in order for infringement to be shown, the TM owner must have informed the domain owner that he or she owns a trademarked domain.

As an example to illustrate these two points, let us assume that a person has purchased "ABC123.com" and is planning to try to resell the domain because of its search engine optimization possibilities and perceived value due to its top level (dot com) low character count (only six). In the business of domaining, this is a common practice since domains are usually valued by keyword, length, and what kind of dot they carry. Dot com carries more value than dot tv or dot co, for example.

Now the ABC-123 Toy Company owns the trademark for "ABC 123" and has decided to begin a new toy line under the name. They registered the TM a couple of years before, but have not been using it up to this point. When they go to register the domain, they see that the domain owner who recently purchased the domain is asking $10,000 for it.

They have three options: offer to buy it, sue to take it, or inform the owner of the infringement and see if he or she will hand it over. In the first case, a lot of trouble and attorney fees can be saved, but a lot of money is spent regardlessly. In the second case, the fight could drag out and end up costing more than the purchase price. In the third case, the seller may not have any plans to hand it over and might jack up the price now that he knows someone really wants it.

Except that in the third case, the seller has now been informed that someone owns the TM for the domain they have and so the only legal buyer is now the ABC-123 Toy Company. If the seller attempts to sell to another party, or does sell to another party, then the seller or the new owner can be taken to arbitration and will almost certainly lose the domain (with no recompense from ABC-123) because the seller had previously been informed that the domain name infringed on a trademark.

That opens a new can of worms for the seller, who is now likely liable under the law for fraud.

The domain name buying and selling business is not as simple as it used to be, but domainers are usually aware that some of their domains are, eventually, going to infringe on someone's trademark registration. Talking with domainers that I know, I've found that most of them take this as a part of their business and when someone demands a domain based on TM infringements, they will check the trademark and if it's valid, they just hand over the domain. Otherwise, it becomes useless to them as they can no longer (easily) sell it without a lot of headaches appearing post-sale.

There are, of course, exceptions to these rules -- nothing is hard and fast. Neither am I an attorney, so what I tell you here is not legal advice and should not be taken as such. Still, the world of trademarks and domain names is convoluted and the two often bump heads.

How about you? Have you been on the receiving end of either of these scenarios where a domain's ownership was disputed because of a trademark? Let's talk about it.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2143724 2012-11-16T09:08:47-05:00 2013-01-16T05:12:01-05:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
TripIt
Available for free on the Android, iPhone/iPad, BlackBerry and Windows Phone 7, TripIt is the ultimate travel itinerary organizer. It works very simply and is an app that most savvy travelers have had in their toolkit for years.

All this app requires, once installed, is that you forward your confirmation emails (from hotels, flights, etc) to a specific email address associated with your TripIt account. The app then automatically gleans the information from the emails (flight times, hotel dates, etc) and pulls it into your phone for a one-stop spot to find all of your travel info, including confirmation numbers and more. All in an organized itinerary that scrolls by date and time.

Simple, easy, and very effective. Once you've tried it, you won't go back to the old "printouts stuffed into my pocket" option.

Hotel Tonight
Although 99% of our travel plans work out just fine with only a handful of easy-to-handle glitches, with the time of year and the amount of traveling being done, the holidays always seem to include that quiet threat of being stranded. You know the feeling. Your flight is coming into an airport where you have a short layover to your next leg and the captain comes on the speakers.. "The city is expecting some severe weather, so be sure to check with the airline about any connecting flights and delays."

Hotel Tonight is an app made for finding hotel rooms at the last minute and at big discounts. You can't book until after noon and can only book for that night, but in situations where you're stranded until the weather clears, this can be your personal survival tool of choice. Not only does it find you a room quickly, it finds it at discount and can save you up to half (sometimes even more). Don't leave home without it installed on your iPhone, iPad, or Android.

Dark Sky
Speaking of weather events, Dark Sky is probably the best (and coolest-looking) weather app you'll ever find. It displays very advanced radar and satellite imagery to show you, up to the second, what is happening with the weather wherever you are or wherever you're going. The app for example, will tell you it will rain in 7 minutes and stop in 15 minutes, followed by more rain in 20 minutes. Until you see the smooth radar animation in action, it is tough to appreciate. This is the type of app that gets bought out in the near future, and at $3.99 it is well worth the purchase.

Available for iPhone and iPad, this app is especially great on the tablet.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1868331 2012-09-10T15:42:12-04:00 2012-11-10T05:12:01-05:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
Rather than relying on an agent or broker, those who use online trading portals go directly to the market and buy and sell without a broker. Most online trading sites have very small fees and some have nothing more than an annual membership purchase. All of them offer a new way for investors large and small to be more in control of their own financial destiny.

One sector still struggling that has not entered the e-commerce era, however, is real estate. Although it's one of the largest markets in the country, it's still using an outdated paradigm of brokers and agents all of which often collect large fees for each transaction made. To go with that, the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) real estate agents use to list homes locally and nationally has a monopoly on listings.

Just a few minor changes could drastically change how real estate is handled, opening the system up to both entrepreneurs and seller-to-consumer brokerages that reduce fees dramatically. Sites could largely take place of brokers/agents, finding potential buyers and offering full information disclosure automatically. The agents who finalize the deals (most states required licensed agents for most home sales through brokers) would see lower commissions per sale, but have a big increase in sales volumes without changing workload.

With the current system, excessive fees often come out of money that would otherwise be the buyer's down payment, reducing chances of securing a loan and increasing costs and interest rates, deterring buyers. Removing those things would increase the number of responsible and available buyers almost immediately. The benefits to the struggling U.S. economy especially in this important sector would be tremendous.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1657648 2012-07-08T16:41:46-04:00 2012-09-07T05:12:12-04:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
Instead, we have cell phones, smart phones, tablets, and laptops that tell us the time. We have clocks in our cars, maybe, but not on our wrists. When most people want to know what time it is, they reach for their phone.

The pocket watch gave way to the wrist watch which has given way to a new type of pocket watch.

A friend remarked that this is nothing. A lot of people don't even know how to read a clock anymore, unless it has numbers or a digital display for the time. Which is true. The traditional 12 hour clock face has become a quaint throwback rather than the norm. Most of our clocks are digital numbers in 12 or 24 hour readouts.

He mentioned this and then pointed out that he has a wall clock with no numbers on it, just an hour, minute and second hand. He says people who see it often ask him what time it is, as they can't see the numbers. Being a philosophically cheeky guy, he usually responds with something like "Why does it matter?" or "Time is a construct of human creation and has no meaning to the universe at large."

But the traditional or even non-traditional time readout has not disappeared. Neither has the watch. One Japanese company, TokyoFlash, has taken watch readouts to a whole new level.

They have watches with faces that read in LED dots representing hours and minutes that you have to add up in a way similar to reading an abacus or calculating Roman numerals. Three green dots plus a red one might mean 30-10, translating to 10:30. Or the numbers might be presented as an optical illusion requiring you to unfocus your eyes so you can see through the blizzard and read the time.

Whatever the readout, it's sure to be unique and mind-altering. Like the clock with no numbers, it makes you think. Even something as mundane as telling the time can be an intellectual experience if you let it.

Watches aren't dead. They're evolving.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1542126 2012-05-24T11:08:10-04:00 2012-07-24T05:12:07-04:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
When you think about it though, social media is still in its childhood. It was only born around the 2003-2004 time period. Not only that, but many people did not start using it as a place to find any kind of business until about 2009. So how many people exactly could be experienced in social media for five to seven years? Sounds like a pretty small job pool to me.

Actually the whole idea of determining expertise by time spent is a little presumptuous in the first place. This may be one job where time is not the best determination of expertise. An expert is usually someone who is very knowledgeable in their area. This is not always quantified by time, but by the accuracy and familiarity with a subject. An important piece to developing a social media presence is to make up a team that knows how to use social media as it works right now, and can forecast developing trends in the near and future.

Let's see... I guess I could say I have been messing around with LinkedIn, Myspace (hey a lot of people used it back then), Facebook and Twitter for five years. Does that make me an expert? I don't think five years of tweeting should be considered proof positive that I am qualified to lead an effective social campaign.

How about this? Instead of focusing on time spent in the field, it would make better sense to find someone who is well informed, has researched the area, can give a good presentation, has gotten to know the business's needs (after being given access to the necessary information), and who can adapt their strategy according to changing needs of the target groups.

The need for expertise in the area of social media is becoming more and more important to businesses and organizations of all sizes. They can guide the use of these sites to improve visibility and image. They breech the gap between physical and Internet images and follow new methods of 'word-of-mouth' referrals.

How a company intends to fill those positions with a requirement of five to seven years of experience is quite beyond my understanding. This is another area where businesses wishing to get into current trends and become effective will need to do a little more research on the subject to come up with new criteria that will more effectively draw in applicants who are qualified and have knowledge and direction to offer.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1340010 2012-03-14T15:36:07-04:00 2012-05-14T05:12:01-04:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
Rule #1 -- Nothing Is Private

It doesn't matter if the website you're visiting or the profile you're creating is "private" or not, even if it's encrypted by the latest in NASA algorithms and protected by a half dozen ronin warriors with skills surpassing those of Raiden... private is rarely private for long on the Web.

Ask Angie Varona, age 14, of Miami. She posted some bikini-clad photos of herself for her boyfriend at the time on a private Photobucket account. Within a year, Angie's photos were being used to advertise pornographic websites and had been spread far and wide after her account was hacked. Now at 18 years of age, facing reputation problems during a time when she should be registering for college, Angie is instead publicly and nationally warning teenagers about the dangers their decisions can post to their futures.

Angie's not alone. Thousands of children every year become unwitting victims of child pornography when their "private" photos are stolen and spread on questionable websites.

That's just one problem. In another account, which I published recently, the comments made by someone on their Facebook wall ultimately came back to haunt them when they were in court during a civil case.

Nothing is private.

Rule #2 -- Context Is Everything

Before you make a response, any response, to something online, think about two things: what context was the original message/post/information given in (the author's intent) and how could your response be taken out of context to mean something different from your intent?

Most of the problems people have with their reputations online center around rash comments made on websites or social media when responding to someone else. In the heat of the moment, people will often type things that they would otherwise never consider. Unlike in the courtroom, however, there is no temporary insanity defense on the Internet.

What you type will potentially stay there forever and be visible forever. Even if you try to scrub it later. Things online have a way of being copy-pasted, redistributed, and otherwise proliferated so that removing the original doesn't mean the content is gone forever.

Whole websites and services are based on keeping old information alive, in fact. The Internet Wayback Machine is one example.

So keep things in context and simmer down and think about what you're posting before you actually publish.

Rule #3 -- Usernames and "Anonymous" Posting Is Not Anonymous

There is little anonymity in using a username or posting anonymously to "mask" your identity. In most every case, these masks are as flimsy as Clark Kent's eyeglasses. They only work in comic books and movies. In real life, its' easy to see through these flimsy disguises.

Every time you do anything online, it is likely being recorded and traced to your Internet connection. Unless you take extraordinary steps to cover your tracks (which few do and even fewer know how to do well), you can be identified.

So always assume that everything you're posting can be traced to you, personally.

If we all act according to these three simple rules, not only will the Internet become a more sociable place, but our reputations will remain intact as well.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1305016 2012-03-04T19:00:00-05:00 2012-05-04T05:12:01-04:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
Each of these brings a slightly different dynamic to the conference. Some are disruptive, some are helpful, some are just plain annoying. Some of us even change personalities according to our interest level in the subject matter of the conference (and whether or not we were coerced into attending).

Which one of these are you?

Type 1 - The Uber-Attender

This is the person that sits up front, right in the middle, as close to the podium as possible and spends the entire conference taking prolific notes. This person often interrupts to ask questions or asks most of the questions given during the Q&A period. It's almost assured that this person will be fascinated by minute details having to do with the subject.

Type 2 - The Sleeper

Opposite the Uber-Attender is the sleeper. This is the person who sits in the far back corner and either dozes through most of the presentations or spends the entire time flipping through unrelated magazines or reading a book. This person was probably forced to attend by a superior and is likely there in their stead. He or she will have no interest in the subject matter and during conversations before or after the presentation will probably avoid talking about the subject completely.

Type 3 - The Socialiser

Similar to the Sleeper, the Socialiser couldn't care less about the subject at hand. Unlike the Sleeper, however, this person will be quite active during the presentations themselves, usually tweeting or texting (or both) or even using the free WiFi to check emails and surf the Web.Woe to the person in the room who may have given the Socialiser their contact information beforehand as they'll surely be deluged with attempts at humour during the presentations.

Type 4 - The Networker

This person attends conferences for one purpose and one purpose only: to network with other people in the industry. Most likely, this person is hoping to use the contacts made to land a better (or any) job. This person will spend the entire event handing out business cards to everyone from the bussboy to the CEO who presented the keynote.

Type 5 - The Collector

The Collector is the person that spends most of the event trolling around for freebies. From baseball hats to the hotel's napkins, this person fills suitcases with the stuff and takes it home. By the time any portion of the event concludes to move on to another, this person will have purse or pockets (or both) full of pilfered goodies and will often make frequent trips to their room to unload so they can collect more.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1305013 2012-02-28T16:37:37-05:00 2012-04-29T05:12:01-04:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
For example, in a recent case in Orange County, California, two neighbors were in a long-running dispute that had turned ugly. When one of them declared that it was out of character for him to use foul language and issue threats, the other's attorney then showed the jury screen captures of the man's Facebook wall that included derogatory comments towards his client and abusive, heavy language to go with it. The jury awarded the Facebook-scouring attorney's client nearly half a million dollars.

Attorney John Mitchell Jackson says that it's becoming standard procedure for trial attorneys to mine social media. He says it's "the trial attorney's obligation and duty to accumulate as much information as he or she can to support the client's case or defend against it. Many trial lawyers today are learning as much as they can about the parties and the witnesses through social media sites. And what people need to understand is that this information doesn't simply evaporate into thin air after it leaves your screen. It can be mined, analyzed and reviewed in civil and criminal cases."

Jackson can cite several examples of cases where social media was a central point of the trial for both the good and ill of his clients. Although it might appear obvious that if you're becoming involved in a suit, removing your social network profiles might be a good idea, Jackson actually advises against that.

It is a form of evidence tampering to remove social media profiles during trial, it turns out. Legally, it's called "spoilation" and can result in serious penalties. Most attorneys will advise their clients not to utilize social media during trial, however, so as not to give away anything new or divulge trial strategy.

In fact, from this perspective, social media can actually help a case or at least the public relations happening around it. Legal teams can use their clients' social media sites to advantage in order to report honest, useful information about a trial or case. This works well because lawyers aren't the only ones using social media during a trial.

Reporters use it as well. If you've read the news lately, then you know this. Quite often reporters will refer to an accused person's Facebook or Twitter accounts. Those accounts, in fact, can be the crux of the story itself, even, such as with the recent video posted on YouTube two two high school girls here in South Florida.

For these reasons, how we use social media on a daily basis can affect us in ways we may not imagine. Using caution and common sense as a general rule when interacting using Twitter, Facebook, etc. is just.. well, common sense. Those frat party photos can come back to haunt you, but even that snide comment made in response to someone else's posting can sneak up on you later too. But you probably knew this already if you read my book on the topic.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1177649 2012-01-18T11:29:21-05:00 2012-03-19T05:12:01-04:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
The state is attracting angel investors, called this because they are usually the first to invest in a completely unproven business. I think that Florida should follow suit. It's attracting them through tax incentives. Angel investors in Louisiana can claim a state income or franchise tax credit on up to 35% of their investment, depending on the way the money is used. If the money is used to make payroll, then you get the full 35%. If it's used for production expenditures (including digital interactive productions) inside the state, you can take up to 25% in credit. So if an angel investor puts $100,000 into a startup, they could potentially take a writeoff of up to $35,000 of it. That's a lot of incentive.

Here in Florida, to my knowledge there is no talk of creating such incentives. Considering the incentives being offered in this state, it's apparent that it's the aircraft and space industry that gets most of the attention.

There are almost no incentives at all in Miami either. Or anywhere else in Florida, for that matter. Unless you're in a business that creates a lot of capital (meaning hardware or tangibles), you're out of luck. Making the latest, greatest Facebook app? Starting up the coolest new social media idea? Building software that will fundamentally change healthcare? No incentives in Florida. Sorry.

This puts us Floridians at a disadvantage, I think, that will slow our growth in the long run. Ultimately it will lead to some creative talent leaving this state to seek funding in a more tax friendly region. We have great programs in place like the Miami Innovation Fund and Incubate Miami that are doing awesome things for the tech startup community. But these programs are dependent on angel investors and their funds. Giving those investors incentives to do business in Florida would go a long way towards promoting Miami as the best place to do IT.

Don't you agree?
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1177653 2012-01-02T19:00:00-05:00 2012-01-02T17:36:39-05:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
Yet if you read about them the way I just described them, you can see that both are discriminating. When a group is underrepresented in a field of work, it could be because of discrimination. When a group is banding together to exclude other groups in order to promote itself, that is clearly discrimination. Yet when the stories are printed, it's usually just the first thing that's mentioned as discriminatory. The second is usually applauded as a good thing.

Let's take a recent headline from popular tech blog TechCrunch (http://techcrunch.com/2011/12/21/no-boys-allowed-women-innovate-mobile-accelerator-is-just-for-women/ ) and then switch some of the words around. You tell me why it is that one choice of words is seen as discriminatory while another is not:

No Blacks Allowed: Asians Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Asians

No Women Allowed: Men Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Men

No Hispanics Allowed: Whites Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Whites

No Christians Allowed: Jews Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Jews

Any of these four headlines can be seen as discriminatory because of the way they're worded. After all, you're clearly telling one group that they aren't able to participate and that you're promoting another group over them. The original headline, 'No Boys Allowed: Women Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Women' was a story about a startup incubator group started by three women who want to help other women get their businesses going. There's nothing wrong with this: if you want to promote your group and do so by excluding all other groups, it should be your right to do so. But what if they'd been "white people" promoting only other "white people?" Would that change things for some reason?

Basically, my question is this: What's the difference between promoting, say, Jews as a group versus promoting whites as a group? Why is one considered worse than the other? I personally happen to be of Russian heritage, yet if I were to begin an incubator, my headline would read like this instead:

No Idiots Allowed: Good Ideas Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just for Good Ideas

Why? Because black, white, yellow, or red, I think everyone should have the same chance. Why do people put so much effort into creating groups and then telling others that they aren't invited? It seems to me that this behavior only creates more discrimination, not less. Does it matter which race, or religion cures cancer?

I think that what the world in general, but technology specifically, really needs is more innovation, not more group-making. Instead of putting all of this energy into being "black" or "Muslim" or "white" why not just put it into being "human"? That should be our New Years resolution.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1123111 2011-12-12T17:22:26-05:00 2012-02-11T05:12:01-05:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/ Americas Venture Capital Conference hosted by Florida International University's Eugenio Pino and Family Global Entrepreneurship Center. A part of Global Entrepreneurship Week, the event is two days of excellent panel discussions and startup help and recognition. Thanks to an aggressive PR team at CVOX Group, I was included and given a pass to attend.

Likely the best part of the event are the prizes for new ventures, with this year's winners being among many great others consultadr.com and passthenotes.com. Really classy was the return of the $10,000 prize money by consultadr, asking that it be put towards funding next year's event.

Florida International University is working hard to expand their allure to those wishing to get into IT fields, entrepreneurship in tech, etc. Rather than scaling back or cutting out "non-core programs" like many universities have done in the past couple of years, FIU is aggressively expanding and thinking outside of the standard university box. They are hoping to bring in 60,000 students by 2020 and bring in hundreds of new professors, most of them in the tech and business fields. Their plan is simply to attract the new, smart, technical entrepreneurs of tomorrow from all of the Americas.

Another popular event that excitingly arose out of the AVCC was a loosely based offshoot of the show Shark Tank, hosted separately from the FIU event by some of the sponsors. I must compliment Faquiry Diaz from Tres Mares for spearheading it. This was a chance for entrepreneurs to pitch a round of investors in only a few minutes. Many of those wishing to pitch this harsh panel which included the likes of Dave McClure, and Artem Mikhlin, were from the previous weeks hackathon, that took place during Global Entrepreneurship Week. With only 24 hours to use, teams had to come up with an idea, create a business plan, and then build the company's starting tech. Some of the ideas were truly wacky and not likely to get anywhere in reality, but the winner was a cool little app idea called What Up Bridge that alerts people when drawbridges are up so they can avoid the traffic jams that go with that. Given the tiny 24-hour time frame to conceive and implement the idea, this one was definitely tops. Personally I expected more out of those who participated. Many will argue that 24 hours isn't a lot of time, but events around the world, including TechCrunch Disrupt, have produced some amazing applications in the same timeframe.

Will Florida become the new Silicon Valley? Honestly, I hope not. Florida is unique and should remain that way. Our greatest strength is in our diversity of people, opinions, and ideas. Our close links with Latin America and the Eastern Seaboard mean that we have opportunities that no other place in the world does.

FIU and events like Global Entrepreneurship Week are highlighting that.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1123127 2011-12-01T10:27:13-05:00 2012-01-31T05:12:02-05:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/ QR Scanner for iPhones, so I do want to disclose that.

After all, what can be better than seeing an ad in a magazine, on a bus stop, or elsewhere in the world, pointing your device's camera at it, and being instantly moved to an interactive mobile website, downloading a great app, or otherwise interacting with what was once just a 2-D, static advertisement? Think of the possibilities for ads both large and small, from the flier the local band stapled to the telephone pole to the multi-million dollar ad campaign McDonald's puts in your favorite magazine.. these QR Codes could have been something great.

Right?

Well, maybe, but even in Japan where they're as common as URLs on ads, they aren't really all that popular or useful. Mostly they just lead users to more advertising, a lot of fluff with little substance.

Now we have yet another reason to ignore them: hackers.

A recent rash of Android-based QR Codes have been spreading. These are codes which lead to a download of an Android phone app that, once launched, sends random text messages from your phone to a premium number which charges you $5USD per text. The app itself is a hacked (and legitimate-appearing) version of Jimm, a Russian ICQ client. Most victims don't realize they've been hacked until they get their next phone bill. Woe to those who have auto-pay on their accounts!

The QR Code was once full of potential, and might still be, but really.. how useful is a glorified bar code? Really? To what purpose could it be put other than marketing and the occasional hack? There were a lot of other ideas for them, but none have come to fruition in any real numbers.

So the QR Code remains the "idea that once was" but nothing more. Too bad. It was really a good one. As phones get smarter, perhaps the coming of Augmented Reality to a phone near you will supplant the great idea behind QR and give us QAR instead? ]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1117669 2011-11-30T00:00:01-05:00 2012-01-29T05:12:01-05:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
One PR firm here in South Florida has been doing this recently by exploiting the tight community that took years to build, and offering money to tweet events to their followers. The practice has raised some questions about the ethics of sending tweets without disclosing that you're being compensated for it.

I will admit up front that I have been paid to send tweets once at an event that took place in Palm Beach County for Greg Norman. At the time I didn't think to disclose the nominal payment, since it never dawned on me back then. When doing it for pay, except as a journalist, I know always make sure to disclose somewhere in that stream that I was being paid for the tweets I was sending outside of these events.

The conundrum here is that some marketing and PR firms will not hire you or will rescind payment if you do this. Especially those attempting to create a "meme" or a "buzz" about a specific subject by having several local Twitter users send tweets during the same few days. Does this create an ethical dilemma for people?

I asked a few local Twitter users what they think about this question. When asked "Do you think that tweeting for payment ethically requires that you disclose to your list that you are being paid to send the tweets?" they gave the following responses:

@Nate_Cousineau: "Twitter is a forum for opinions (among other things), so when someone's opinion is being financially influenced they owe it to their followers to disclose this. Not to do so, in my opinion, would be disingenuous and misleading. The importance of disclosure is obviously increased when you're dealing with people of greater influence, such as celebrities."

Anonymous: "nope it is not important because these people follow me and I do not tweet about things that are not something I believe in to begin with. I see it as I am being paid to talk about something I would have talked about anyways. BONUS!"

@stacismail: "I do not believe it needs to be stated that you are being paid to tweet. Aside from assuming there is obvious compensation ($$, pizza, whatever) based on the hashtags, content & volume, some tweeters are polite enough to inform their followers in advance that they will be bombarding their timelines."

@greenarchitect: "Anytime people are being paid to do something they may be persuaded in a way that they wouldn't if there was not a financial motivation. They may back a product or an idea just because they are getting paid to do so, not because they believe in it."

@dromannn: "There should be like a universal hashtag that users use to indicate this."

It's funny that @dromannn should mention that. The Federal Trade Commission has issued guidelines for commercial speech and disclosure on the Internet. They specifically address Twitter and suggest the hashtags #paid ad and #paid #ad. Another common one they don't list is #affil (short for affiliate).

Of course, the question is where the line is drawn. Does hosting a #tweetup and giving free pizza and soda count as compensation or just courtesy (especially when it is disclosed everywhere that attendees get free pizza)? Certainly if this is only offered to those who are talking about the event, then it's obviously an inducement that could be considered compensation, but if everyone at the event is eating with you, then I would say it's not.

There's a fine line between talking about something as a citizen journalist and being paid to mention something on someone's behalf. Whether or not there are FTC rules about it, it's just plain honest for people to be up front about these things.

Another side of this disclosure coin is the businesses paying for the tweets. An event host, for instance, that is paying attendees to talk about the event on social networks like Twitter has, I feel, an ethical duty to disclose that fact. Many do not do this.

In talking with friends on my network, it's become clear that people generally expect those who are being paid to disclose that they are being compensated. Does the same go for those who are paying for the service? I would think so, but others may not agree.
]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.1115091 2011-11-27T13:12:23-05:00 2012-01-27T05:12:02-05:00

Craig Agranoff http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-agranoff/
As an example: Dropbox. Is this most useful of technologies, allowing you to easily store, share, and even back up files in the cloud, a product? Or is it a feature of a larger product? Steve Jobs turned down buyout queries from Dropbox's founder, Drew Houston, when the service was still very new, but growing quickly in user base. Jobs told Houston, point blank, that he saw Dropbox as merely a feature that should be something included in any file sharing or backup system and nothing unique.

Whether or not Jobs was right is an important question. Is Dropbox, as an example of one of today's hot startups, a full fledged product or is it merely a feature? Considered objectively, I think that Dropbox is a feature with potential to become a full product.

The rationale is simple: a service that offers full off-site file storage, sharing, and collaboration is a product. Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft all have cloud services like this. They allow built-in integration with other popular products and act as a central hub for the e-products sold by those companies. Dropbox, by comparison, is primitive and not nearly as user-friendly (i.e. automated).

On the other hand, Dropbox has something the other three don't: independence. It's loneliness is its greatest selling point and the fact that it's growing in user base amongst the tech demographics is a testament to this. In fact, it's one of the few that is totally cross-platform: it works on iOS, Windows, and Linux and in exactly the same way on all three ñ it also works on most mobile platforms to boot.

Plenty of other startups are offering apps, services, etc. that are, when you boil them down, just features that belong on larger, more integrative products. Some may be deliberately so, hoping for the future buyout. Others, like Dropbox, are a great idea that just needs time to move from feature to product status, but who face serious struggles during that transition. Dropbox, for instance, has a lot of users, but only a very small percentage are paying anything for the service.

For a startup to really succeed, it must answer the question of whether it's a feature or a real product. In my experience dealing with startups, very few can objectively answer the fundamental question of whether they are a feature or product. If the former, it must either make a plan and move forward towards becoming a product or it must aim to be a future acquisition by a larger product for which it should be a feature.

Being honest with yourself as the founder of a startup is the first major step towards success. Entrepreneurs who refuse to see past their own marketing hype are doomed to fail by it. Venture capitalists and potential investors are not going to be so rosy-eyed. ]]>