MIT’s Technology Review just published it’s list of 10 Emerging Technologies for 2008. The one piece that resonated with me is Sandy Pentland’s exploration into Reality Mining especially in relation to social networking, new media and interactive.

Reality mining “is all about paying attention to patterns in life and using that information to help [with] things like setting privacy patterns, sharing things with people, notifying people–basically, to help you live your life.”

This becomes a hot topic for a few reasons. First and foremost is, once again, privacy issues. Data capture is part of our daily lives – credit card usage, cookies on sites, social network profiles, company swipe cards – and as technology continues to slowly infiltrate more of our lives, we become more tolerant and accepting of what information is divulged and distributed. Everyone has see the movies with the FBI trying to trace the criminals phone call with the criminal hanging up just before being caught. However, most people don’t think about that even with mobile phones being on all the time A simple Google search on his/her name would surprise a lot of people.

Reality Mining has been a reality for years. And as mobile phones become more prevalent with WI-FI, Bluetooth and GPS-type systems (ala iPhone,) in addition to the laptops we carry around and use, the continual social network is our daily life. And as mobile technology advances, our blip on the grid becomes more prominent. The Human Cyborg ideal continues to press forward. Professor Kevin Warwick first started research into this in 1998 by planting microchips in his arm for recognition of systems in his lab.

The major benefit of Reality Mining is from an anthropological standpoint. How people interact, where they are and when they are. Tying this information into disease outbreaks, advertising models (when a person sees an ad, what do they do right afterwards?) and general healthcare and “human maintenance.” Smartex in Italy is working on clothing that does just that.

It’s a bit of the God factor (being omnipotent and omniscient) that is also fascinating. Knowing where your friends are at any time, knowing what they’re doing, where to get the food your phone knows your craving. It’s bringing the idea of Facebook, Google Maps, Dodgeball and other sites into the physical space. The ultimate social network. Maybe even a step closer to SkyNet.

Real-time in real-time. Very meta.

Share on Facebook

Google’s announcement last Thursday about their venture into online personal health records is a mixed blessing, but one that has been much needed for the healthcare industry. It’s been a hot topic since the original announcement by Google in October. The biggest concern is that of privacy issues and, more so, data security. Microsoft and Google make assurances that data will be secure and privately controlled by individuals.

On the pro front, this announcement will open up the healthcare industry similar to how the iPhone has made carriers rethink their strategy of having strict control of what devices user get. Now patients should control where they take their ailments, rather than big healthcare saying what referrals you need and how to get care. Granted, this will take a while to see the full wave of this effect, but it’s finally happened where there is the challenge to bringing control to the masses. A big idea of web 3.0.

The cons? Well, for one, people will have to be the keepers of their medical history. A lot of people will, a lot of people won’t. Judging the way people can be cyberchondriacs with the likes of WebMD around, a social network space to post every symptom they may think they have would definitely need filtering and a professional opinion. But we’ve all been curious about what the doctor scribbles (yeah, they scribble) on that file. Just ask Elaine on a classic Seinfeld episode trying to see what’s in that file.

But imagine if that information does become publicly searchable (”OMG! She had WHAT when we were dating?”) or the movement into a medical social network (GooTube? Yuck.) It might lead to a new perspective on selective reproduction and a change in human evolution. Scientists are already theorizing on it. 

If the trial with the Cleveland Clinic is a success, we can see a big change in the way medicine and society interacts on that online space. I see it as a portal of innovation and communication – cancer survivors speaking about their therapies, treatments analyzed and discussed, ease of research and innovation – beyond their niche spaces on the web. The power of technology, the power of social media and the human element are enticing for this to work.

Share on Facebook

Rachel Marsden’s blog post here, discusses what she sees as a ‘broken’ model for blog advertising, and how it perhaps is contributing to alarmingly low levels of online political ad spending.

Well, two things here.

First, the vast majority of blogs run some form of cost-per-click advertising like Google’s AdWords. And yes. A blogger will only get paid if people click on the ads, which means they don’t get rewarded for pageviews. But there are ways around this. There are networks like BlogAds that sell ads based upon a CPM. But the blogs that will appeal most to advertisers are going to be the most popular blogs on particular subject matters. That leaves blogs that may attract the 300 most influential people on the internet out of luck. I wish there was a way to measure individual reader value, but unfortunately, there just isn’t. The only hope is to get ‘recognized’ by an advertiser and to work with them directly. That’s what happened with TechCrunch, and they’ve been able to parlay that into a pretty good business.

The other thing is worth spending some time on. MediaPost reports that only $20 million out of $5 billion in political ad spending will go online. And half of that $20 million is going to search.

Half going to search?

This is a classic case of advertisers giving way too much credit to ‘the last click’. There are many factors that get people to search for terms in the first place. Display advertising is one of them. There are millions of undecided voters out there, and they are doing more than ’searching’ for candidates and issues. They are dedicated and loyal readers of blogs, members of communities, and creators of content. Odds are, they are spending more time reading than searching. Why spend so much capturing the low hanging fruit (search) when you can be influencing what the searches are for (display)?

I love search as much as the next guy — especially when it’s about making some kind of sale. And while politics may be the ultimate sales job, there’s just more at stake to me than the sell. There are ideals. Ideas. Our future. Somehow limiting a political message to a few lines of 17 characters seems less like a political statement and more like a political haiku. Politics should be more brand positioning and less direct response. The political message is just too complicated.

Share on Facebook

According to the Pew Internet and American Life Project, 47% of US adult Internet users have Googled themselves this year, up from 22% in 2002, says Wired News.

Pew senior research specialist Mary Madden was surprised the growth wasn’t higher, and I agree.

In an age where the web facilitates random acts of narcissism and vanity, not to mention violations of privacy, I’m surprised more people aren’t searching for their names on the web more often.

So what of the remaining 53% of users that haven’t searched for their names?

Here are my guesses as to what they are Googling:

1. porn
2. bush+[scandal]
3. ron paul
4. pr0n
5. [celebrity] sex tape
6. guitar hero III cheats
7. iPhone
8. wii
9. how to kill my [spouse]
10. google

Share on Facebook

So I was watching a TV spot for the upcoming Lindsay Lohan car accident movie, I Know Who Killed Me. In it was an obvious Ask.com logo, which is also prominently featured in the film’s trailer. This is certainly a product of paid (or otherwise bartered) brand integration/product placement.

In an effort to re-create the experience that Lindsay Lohan has in the trailer, I went to Ask.com, and typed in what she did. Instead of getting the same search result as she did, or better yet, something related to the film, I just got a generic search result.

This was a missed opportunity to bring audiences closer to your film. This would have been a great place to plant some intriguing content to add to the mystery. Instead, not even a paid search ad.

Share on Facebook