Be Wary of Intelius People Search

I've mentioned Intelius at times as one place to pay for more extensive information on people than you might get from free Internet-based services (though depending on what you need, spending any money at all is a waste). It's rarely needed, however there can be times in reporting when you could use more background. Only, it turns out that Intelius has a bad habit of deceptive marketing, as TechCrunch notes:

They are still selling people information that you can find on other sites like WhitePages.com for free. And during and immediately after the transaction, users are asked if they want $10 cash back. If they click yes, they are signed up for a $25/month credit card subscription.

Consumer complaints continue to flood the company. 1,159 consumer complaints have been filed with the Better Business Bureau in the last 36 months. There are another 214 complaints on RipoffReport. And they have had to deal with class action lawsuits in both Washington and California. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.

So if you need information that isn't readily available, find another source. Who needs this type of deceptive headache, or the people who would use such tactics?

HP Competes with Google on Books - Only Smarter

Hewlett-Packard, which, aside from PCs, is a giant in imaging, is taking on Google on the book front and has thrown the gauntlet down via a partnership with the University of Michigan, one of Google's most important partners in its online book offering, because it has one of the great academic research libraries. First, check the story I wrote at BNET for the details. I really do think that HP has outsmarted Google on its own territory.

That's the view from the business and tech front, but let's consider what this means for writers. Remember that there's still wrangling over negotiations on the class action suit by writers and publishers. (I opted out, considering it a bad deal, so don't have a direct personal stake in it.) The HP announcement would seem likely to have a big impact on how the discussions are going:

• Google is going to point to this as proof that there is competition and that it's not closing things off.


• The writers and publishers should argue that the HP deal shows that there's no need to grab rights going forward.


• The judge might well see the HP deal as proof that handing over rights to so-called orphaned works (still in copyright but the rights holder difficult to ascertain or find) is bad from a market view because it would provide a sanctioned advantage to one company over another.

My short take, for whatever it's worth, is that the HP entry is going to do more to kill the rights grab than almost anything else that could have happened. On the balance, the argument becomes that there's no need for a special deal and that Google or any other company can clearly go into business looking at public domain works and that they don't need to have an extraordinary access to the intellectual property rights of individuals or organizations.

Furthermore, this gives Google a competitive kick in the rear. Since HP is doing it, why not Xerox, which is also big in imaging? Why not Amazon? IBM? It's a case where more is merrier, at least for those of us who own book rights. In fact, I'm wondering why some of the organized writers groups don't do something equal to HP's tactics. Instead of protesting, often long after the horse is out of the barn, some activity, create something practical instead. How about partnering with an Amazon or Barnes & Noble or Xerox or someone who might have the wherewithal to create a competing service. Think of it as an iUniverse that is actually effective - able to store scanned or reproduced books, create paper copies on demand, take and fulfill orders, split revenues. Negotiate with a few and use that as leverage to get a better deal out of one, rather than getting tied into an Amazon "you can have 35 percent" deal. That would be real activism, because it could be effective and makes the market system work for writers, rather than the other way around.

Image courtesy of stock.xchng user designkryt.

Wired on Demand Media

I've covered some of the financial background of Demand Media and its writer mill, Demand Studios, but I'd strong suggest that people also read this article in Wired. It looks at the operational model of the company, which is essentially a virtual factory making money off piecework by writers, videographers, and, soon, photographers.

The process is automatic, random, and endless, a Stirling engine fueled by the world’s unceasing desire to know how to grow avocado trees from pits or how to throw an Atlanta Braves-themed birthday party. It is a database of human needs, and if you haven’t stumbled on a Demand video or article yet, you soon will. By next summer, according to founder and CEO Richard Rosenblatt, Demand will be publishing 1 million items a month, the equivalent of four English-language Wikipedias a year. Demand is already one of the largest suppliers of content to YouTube, where its 170,000 videos make up more than twice the content of CBS, the Associated Press, Al Jazeera English, Universal Music Group, CollegeHumor, and Soulja Boy combined. Demand also posts its material to its network of 45 B-list sites — ranging from eHow and Livestrong.com to the little-known doggy-photo site TheDailyPuppy.com — that manage to pull in more traffic than ESPN, NBC Universal, and Time Warner’s online properties (excluding AOL) put together. To appreciate the impact Demand is poised to have on the Web, imagine a classroom where one kid raises his hand after every question and screams out the answer. He may not be smart or even right, but he makes it difficult to hear anybody else.

The result is a factory stamping out moneymaking content. “I call them the Henry Ford of online video,” says Jordan Hoffner, director of content partnerships at YouTube. Media companies like The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, AOL, and USA Today have either hired Demand or studied its innovations. This year, the privately held Demand is expected to bring in about $200 million in revenue; its most recent round of financing by blue-chip investors valued the company at $1 billion.

Using sophisticated automation, computers decide on the topics and issue story assignments based on what does well in web searches and advertising terms. Equally automated analysis predicts how much revenue in search advertising the piece can bring in. Those that offer enough revenue are given the nod.

It's essentially a service article machine, turning out what might as well be front-of-book pieces at a cheap rate. Will it compete with all writing markets? No, because they can't get the research and work that many who hire writers need. However, does it undercut certain types of content? Absolutely. If you're used to writing quick how-tos or other service-type material, then as things move to the web, you are basically out of business. And can it affect all markets? I suspect it could, as the greatly lowered prices begin to affect perception of value.

Questex Files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

B-to-B publisher Questex filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy. It handled publications in a number of industries, including "technology, telecommunications, beauty, spa, travel, hospitality, leisure, home entertainment, landscape design, building services and natural resources.":

In a statement this afternoon, Questex Media Holdings Group said it had reached an agreement with senior lenders to reduce the company debt and provide “significant financing” to continue operations. Questex says that day-to-day operations will not be affected by the filing or the restructuring, and no job losses or magazine closures were expected.

Its ad pages declined by about a third in the first half of 2009, compared to 2008.

The Deadline Theme Song

As I'm under the gun on a project, here's a video clip of Steely Dan performing "Don't Take Me Alive" for all my professional brethren under the gun with the deadline police outside, megaphones blaring, "Drop the pen and come out with the manuscript over your head."