For two weeks, the Green Peace online army has been driving negative sentiment towards the brand, encouraging users to “boycott Nestle” due to the company’s involvement in purchasing palm oil from an Indonesian company that has been accused by Green Peace of the mass destruction of rainforests in the pacific that are home to endangered Orangutan populations. The anger against Nestle ignited when a Green Peace report was released depicting a parody of the infamous ‘Kit-Kat’ brand logo, which has been doctored to read ‘Killer’. This logo has been brandished all over the web in the past two weeks, in conjunction with a graphic YouTube parody that entails a morbid display of a man “Having a break” with his Kit-Kat… When he proceeds to open it, he pulls out what appears to be an Orangutan finger and starts to chew on it. It’s pretty horrible stuff… (for the curious types, simply search for it on YouTube). Nestle has since made formal complaints to YouTube about the defamatory nature of the Green Peace video, but the copies continue to surface on YouTube and elsewhere on the web.

It’s getting pretty nasty for Nestle, and as the vilification of their brand continues, it is abundantly clear that their public relations efforts via their social media platforms are only rubbing salt in the wound. The biggest mistake the company made was to attempt to go authoritarian in the governance of their Facebook page by threatening users with fan page deletion if they were seen with any branded logos in their profile pictures… The undermining tone of the admin appointed to the fan page only exacerbated the situation even further. See for yourself:

It seems that Nestle’s PR disaster contingency plan has since been put in place… But I think it took them a while to get something in effect (does it suggest that they never had one in the first place?).  If you look at it now, the company’s Facebook fan page is now littered with various links to articles aggrandizing green initiatives, public statements relating to the company’s decision to abandon the supplier of the palm oil and their intentions to address an alternative source to palm oil however the damage has already been done. Big brands are the most volatile when it comes to negative sentiment online. The company failed in its duty to properly educate staff about public relations online and the ‘ripple’ effects of the social web. As the company goes into damage control and tries desperately to salvage any positive reputation it will be interesting to see how long it will take Nestle to recover from such a debacle.

Each facet of Google.com is at all times two steps ahead of its competitors. They’ve established themselves as one of the most valuable worldwide data mines, they’re API technology is yet to be matched by any other competitor, they’re Maps data is so comprehensive that you can even view Area 51 from a bird’s eye view. With Google street view, the fact that you can virtually walk from one place to another online may indicate that augmented reality isn’t so far away after all. It’s ubiquitous and futuristic, and the choke-hold that this technology has over the rest of the market is strengthening. Google Chrome, despite using Apple’s Safari browser technology, has produced some admirable competition amongst the big wigs of browsers. What about Google Apps? This business model has diverted over 25 million businesses away from Microsoft Exchange and Lotus Notes.

Google Maps is arguably one of Google’s most prized possessions, and biggest seed for growth on the search engine’s path to into local search and mobile search domination. It was only a matter of time before Google started cashing in on one of their most significant works to date. Australia looks to be the guinea pig to test the fiscal outcomes of the new Maps venture. It’s all very exciting, but does this actually signify the end of the online paid directory for anything other than linkbait?

Hotfrog.com.au is Australia’s largest independent online directory, but even Hotfrog makes a vast majority of their revenue from Google AdSense and bases their location data on the Google Maps API. It really is a working example of how Google AdSense, in conjunction with Google Maps, has set up the search engine giant for greater influence. But will sites such as Hotfrog continue to make a profit off Google AdSense through their high amount of site traffic? Unlikely.

Unless Google gives an independent directory a “leg-up” in search, these independent businesses are going to suffer as a result of the trend shift towards Google Maps. Look at TrueLocal and the YellowPages, they’ve got nothing to worry about… But why? You would think that the Yellow Pages would be sweating buckets in the digital age with their phone books having more use now as drink coasters, arm rests and booster seats for short people rather than for locating local businesses. In my optinion, the Yellow Pages have covered their tails well here. They are well networked with Sensis, one of Google’s primary data sources for Australian business information.
TrueLocal on the other hand, despite being networked with Yahoo! Australia’s online search directory, are still closely networked with Google as it appears to favour the business directory as a “trusted source”. You would think that a business directory that is relatively new to the game would suffer, but luckily for them they’ve had the financial prowess of News Ltd. to back their venture.

With Google now planning to sell branded ad-space on Google Maps, the game just got interesting. Businesses, big and small, will now have the incentives to go to Google’s Local Business Directory directly. The implications for the smaller business directory websites here is that unless they can achieve Google’s trust, they will not have the backbone necessary to sell their service as a local business directory. After all, why would a business want to buy into a service that isn’t recognised by the biggest search engine in existence?
Welcome to Google’s inner-circle of local business directories. The game of local search is rapidly becoming the game of Google Maps.

If you’re not familiar with gaming applications on Facebook, it’s pretty straight forward stuff. The walls of Facebook are plastered with application activity – paid ads, news feed posts from friends and endowed deep within many search results. If you’re looking for a game on Facebook, you don’t really have to look hard at all. Aside from littering your friend’s wall posts with activity spam, the games on Facebook are generally pretty harmless. So what’s the issue with Facebook gaming apps?

Well, when you signed up for Facebook, you were made to agree on one of the more critical sign-up terms that forebodes you of all personal information being stored forever in the great mystical Facebook inf0rmation vault. So how does this apply to gaming applications?

If you have actually been bored enough to immerse yourself in a Facebook game, upon syncing your facebook profile to the application you’re hit with a disclaimer that blatantly states: “Allowing access will let it access your profile information, photos, your friends’ info and other content that requires it to work.” The terms are given in black and white, and there’s even a game rating to give you an idea of the game quality. You are presented with simple terms that do not hinder your attention away from the intent of the game. But it’s just a disclaimer, right?

It is a common consumer trend to ignore the fine print, and it’s been that way since the dawn of time really… When you buy something from the store, you disregard the terms and conditions specified on the receipt. The same applies within the online world… You create an email account and check all the boxes to speed up the process and ignore the fine print up until you’re getting inundated with spam down the track. The digital realm is an informational society. Each time you are registering with something online, in this case the gaming apps on Facebook, you’re giving a third party both qualitative and quantitative access to your personal data.

The question arises… What exactly are developers doing with your personal information, and is it ethical?

When we sign up for Facebook, we disregard any matters of security given such wide acceptance of the brand name and its household popularity. It’s a natural inclination, a compulsion to sign up without thinking of an dire implications. Blind trust is never intelligent, but we are all guilty of confiding in respected brand name without giving it a second thought.

This is what makes us vulnerable, and this is where game developers on Facebook are acting unethically in preying upon the loyal Facebook subscriber base and their blind trust in the website. Games like Farmville have been extremely sly in developing an “in-game currency” that works to build up your strength in the game and haplessly fuel your addiction to sitting online and literally watching your grass grow. It basically works like this – if you want to get anywhere in the game at all, you need to have in-game wealth. To obtain your wealth, Farmville allows your to purchase this in game currency using your credit card – which is fine – as it is a secure application, and such practice is common throughout the internet (see habbohotel.com for a textbook example). Upon signing up to Farmville, allowing them access to your personal data is a condition of playing – this is perfectly reasonable given that the terms are made abundantly clear. Essentially, upon even getting you to sign up, the game’s mother company is given invaluable amounts of marketing data that can be used for future scams… *cough*… I mean initiatives.

Here’s the sneaky part. Games like farmville provide free ways for you to earn in-game currency – and for the helplessly addicted users, this means more Farmville credits and no money spent. The catch is that in order to earn this free currency, you need to participate in lead gen-type offers – some of which can actually fool you into giving out your phone number or credit card. Start-up game developers who create the popular viral games such as Farmville are coaxed into the generous offers given by dodgy advertisers to have their scams synced up to games like farmville… Check out the post from Michael Arrington of TechCrunch.com and you’ll see exactly what I mean. If you want something even more eye-opening, read the guest post by Dennis Yu, aptly titled “How to spam Facebook like a pro: An insider’s confession“.

It is only fair for developers to be getting paid for their hard-work in creating online games, however there needs to be restrictions imposed on the dodgy deals taking place between developers and spam sharks to gain access to the millions of users obliviously playing Facebook game applications. How can a developer detect a scam? I guess it all comes down to the advertisers intent. Developers need to assert higher levels of integrity when funding their applications, and take a lesson out of business ethics 101. As for the scam sharks, they will forever continue to exist wherever there are advertising loopholes.

Do you use Farmville…? Does giving away potentially comprimising data make it worth the harvest… Or are you effectively joining a rural village of the damned?