The New Coca Cola of Marketing: Xmas Ads
December 4, 2024
Though Coca-Cola has long purported that “It’s the Real Thing,” a recent ad is all fake. NBC News reports, “Coca-Cola Causes Controversy with AI-Made Ad.” We learn:
“Coca-Cola is facing backlash online over an artificial intelligence-made Christmas promotional video that users are calling ‘soulless’ and ‘devoid of any actual creativity.’ The AI-made video features everything from big red Coca-Cola trucks driving through snowy streets to people smiling in scarves and knitted hats holding Coca-Cola bottles. The video was meant to pay homage to the company’s 1995 commercial ‘Holidays Are Coming,’ which featured similar imagery, but with human actors and real trucks.”
The company’s last ad generated with AI, released earlier this year, did not face similar backlash. Is that because, as University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Neeraj Arora suggests, Coke’s Christmas ads are somehow sacrosanct? Or is it because March’s Masterpiece is actually original, clever, and well executed? Or because the artworks copied in that ad are treated with respect and, for some, clearly labeled? Whatever the reason, the riff on Coca-Cola’s own classic 1995 ad missed the mark.
Perhaps it was just too soon. It may be a matter of when, not if, the public comes to accept AI-generated advertising as the norm. One thing is certain: Coca Cola knows how to make sure marketing professors teach memorable case examples of corporate “let’s get hip” thinking.
Cynthia Murrell, December 4, 2024
FOGINT: Telegram and Its Race Against Time
December 3, 2024
The article is a product of the humans working on the FOGINT team. The image is from Gifr.com.
The Financial Times recently stirred debate in the cryptocurrency community with its article, “Telegram Finances Propped Up by Crypto Gains As Founder Fights Charges.” Telegram’s ambitions for an initial public offering (IPO) hinge on proving it has a sustainable, profitable business model.
According to the FT, Telegram sold off cryptocurrency holdings to shore up its balance sheet, reporting revenue of $525 million. The financials, based on unaudited statements, framed the crypto sale as a “tactical” move, with Durov’s confinement in France having no material impact on the company.
CCN added flair with its piece, “Pavel Durov’s Telegram Nets $335M Windfall: Can It Ride a Crypto Bull to a $30B IPO by 2026,” highlighting that while crypto revenues and TON reserves have helped Telegram stay afloat, the firm still faces substantial debt and operating losses—$259 million in 2023 alone.
Crypto.news zeroed in on debt in its article, “How Telegram Made Over Half a Billion Dollars Thanks to Crypto?” Telegram, wholly owned by Durov, has raised $2.4 billion in debt financing, with repayment looming in 2026. In September, it used part of its crypto proceeds to repurchase $124.5 million in bonds. (Note: None of the news sources we reviewed noted that Telegram is using a variant of the MicroStrategy strategy of acquiring crypto currency to pump up the company’s “value.” See DLNews for more detail.)
The FOGINT research team identifies three key dynamics:
- Cash Flow Through Crypto Sales: Telegram’s crypto transactions inject much-needed liquidity, transforming a significant 2023 loss into a manageable red blot on its financial history.
- Tight Links to The Open Network Foundation (TON): Despite TON’s ostensible independence, the Foundation is deeply intertwined with Telegram. This relationship traces back to the U.S. SEC’s 2019 intervention against GRAM (now TON), which forced Telegram to offload its blockchain to the “independent” Foundation in 2023. Regulators in the U.S., UAE, and Switzerland appear to tolerate this arrangement for now.
- Racing Against the Clock: Telegram is fast-tracking innovations, like the BotFather’s high-speed processing and partnerships with firms such as Ku Group. Its developer meetups and funding programs are designed to rapidly build out its ecosystem. The urgency stems from a softening stance toward law enforcement—Telegram now appears more willing to share user data, potentially feeding into global investigative pipelines.
This newfound openness aligns with Telegram’s aggressive push to monetize its TON blockchain. At the November 1-2 Gateway Conference in Dubai, Telegram launched an all-out campaign to promote its crypto ecosystem. From YouTube videos and meetups to venture fund pitches, the effort signals a company operating in overdrive.
Blockchain researcher Sean Brizendine said: “”The Telegram hype is definitely real, and the Durov brothers’ future is on the line. Now is the time to pay attention as Telegram’s moves are breaking fast and furious.”
Why the rush? Telegram’s 900 million users and its wildly popular crypto games have been critical growth engines. But with its ethos of “do what you want” giving way to “use our crypto platform,” the stakes are higher than ever. The “leader” is in the grasp of French authorities. Fast-fashion-like life cycles of its crypto ventures underline a harsh reality: For Telegram, succeeding in crypto is no longer optional—it’s a turning point for the company and its affiliated organizations. Cornered animals can be more dangerous than some people think.
Stephen E Arnold, December 3, 2024
BlueSky: Tweeting Birds Are Flocking Around
December 3, 2024
As X, formerly Twitter, becomes more toxic, alternative BlueSky has welcomed many refugees fleeing Musk’s regime. In fact, the decentralized social media platform recently hit 15 million users. Blood in the Machine takes this opportunity to declare, “Bluesky’s Success Is a Rejection of Big Tech’s Operating System.” The post is largely about enumerating X’s flaws. Will such a marketing angle make the Twitter clone a winner?
After a brief lesson in recent social-media history, blogger Brian Merchant observes:
“The online world has become so hostile to users that Bluesky’s pitch of ‘here is a straightforward feed of text-based user-generated posts that we promise not to mess with’ is revelatory. Its scaling model and raison d’être are a very rejection of the platforms that have colonized the rest of our digital lives, and relentlessly commodified them. No wonder everyone seems to be rooting for its success, even if there are, pointedly, no guarantees those ideals will remain in place.”
Why no guarantees? The taint of venture capital, for one. The platform’s recent $15 million series A funding round was led by Blockchain Capital. Despite that firm’s focus on cryptocurrency, BlueSky promises it will continue to prioritize the user over the likes of crypto and NFTs. Will it deliver? At least wary users can turn to Mastodon. For now.
The write-up continues:
“BlueSky is giving hope to people who spend long hours online precisely because it is purporting to be, and so far succeeding, at least in its very short lifespan, in being everything that big tech is not. No AI spam, no glitchy ad tech, no link throttling, no malignant billionaire owner. BlueSky is not just tapping into this wellspring of goodwill because it promises a return to the halcyon days of *Twitter*—but a return to the days before ossified, rent-seeking tech monopolies drove our collective online experience to hell.”
But how long will this retro trip last?
Cynthia Murrell, December 3, 2024
New Concept: AI High
December 3, 2024
Is the AI hype-a-thon finally slowing? Nope. And our last nerves may not be the only thing to suffer. The AI industry could be shooting itself in the foot. ComputerWorld predicts, “AI Is on a Fast Track, but Hype and Immaturity Could Derail It.” Writer Scot Finnie reports:
“The hype is so extreme that a fall-out, which Gartner describes in its technology hype cycle reports as the ‘trough of disillusionment,’ seems inevitable and might be coming this year. That’s a testament to both genAI’s burgeoning potential and a sign of the technology’s immaturity. The outlook for deep learning for predictive models and genAI for communication and content generation is bright. But what’s been rarely mentioned amid the marketing blitz of recent months is that the challenges are also formidable. Machine learning tools are only as good as the data they’re trained with. Companies are finding that the millions of dollars they’ve spent on genAI have yielded lackluster ROI because their data is filled with contradictions, inaccuracies, and omissions. Plus, the hype surrounding the technology makes it difficult to see that many of the claimed benefits reside in the future, not the present.”
Oops. The article notes some of the persistent problems with generative AI, like hallucinations, repeated crashes ,and bias. Then there are the uses bad actors have for these tools, from phishing scams to deepfakes. For investors, disappointing results and returns are prompting second thoughts. None of this means AI is completely worthless, Finnie advises. He just suggests holding off until the rough edges are smoothed out before going all in. Probably a good idea. Digital mushrooms.
December 3, 2024
Pass a Law to Prevent Youngsters from Accessing Social Media. Yep, That Will Work Well
December 2, 2024
This is the work of a dinobaby. Smart software helps me with art, but the actual writing? Just me and my keyboard.
I spotted a very British “real” news story called “It’s So Easy to Lie: : A Fifth of Children Use Fake Age on Social Media.” I like the idea that one can pick 100 children at random from a school with 13 year olds, only 80 percent will allegedly follow the rules.
Thanks, Midjourney. Good enough. I might point out you did not present a young George Washington despite my efforts to feed you words to which you would respond.
Does the 20 percent figure seem low to you? I would suggest that if a TikTok-type video was popular at that school, more than 20 percent would find a way to get access to that video. If the video was about being thin or a fashion tip, the females would be more interested and they would lie to get that information. The boys might be more interested in other topics, which I shall leave to your imagination.
The write up says:
A newly released survey, conducted by the UK media regulator, indicates 22% of eight to 17 year olds lie that they are 18 or over on social media apps.
I doubt that my hypothetical group of 13 years olds are different from those who are four years older. The write up pointed out:
A number of tech firms have recently announced measures to make social media safer for young people, such as Instagram launching “teen accounts.” However, when BBC news spoke to a group of teenagers at Rosshall Academy, in Glasgow, all of them said they used adult ages for their social media accounts. “It’s just so easy to lie about your age”, said Myley, 15.
Australia believes it has a fix: Ban access. I quite like the $AUS 33 million fine too.
I would suggest that in a group of 100 teens, one will know how to create a fake persona, buy a fake ID from a Telegram vendor, and get an account. Will a Telegram user set up a small online business to sell fake identities or social media accounts to young people? Yep.
Cyber security firms cannot block bad actors. What makes regulators think that social media companies can prevent young people from getting access to their service. Enjoy those meetings. I hope the lunches are good.
My hunch is that the UK is probably going to ban social media access for those under a certain age. Good luck.
Stephen E Arnold, December 2, 2024
FOGINT: Telegram and Its Possible Latent Weakness
December 2, 2024
This write up is the work of a dinobaby. Thanks to Gifer.com for the moving fog!
Cointelegram gathered some interesting information about Telegram. Let’s take a look at some of the data in Cointelegraph’s “Telegram’s Crypto Holdings Rose to $1.3B in H1 2024,” November 25 or 26, 2024. Verification of the data is difficult, which is a frequent issue where crypto valuations are presented. Let’s assume that the general information reflects Telegram’s business position.,
According to the article:
Telegram’s crypto holdings jumped from $400 million to $1.3 billion in H1 2024, driven by Toncoin sales and strategic deals.
Translating: Telegram dumped some crypto, made a profit, and reported the upside to fatten its financial position.
The key point is that Telegram allegedly had about $400 million in digital assets. Now the company has more than $1 billion.
Allegedly Telegram generated about $500 million in revenue in the period from January to June 2024. The boost does not come from advertising and subscriptions. Crypto dealing and other business agreements have bolstered the company’s apparently positive financials. It is worth noting that an audit of Telegram’s finances is rumored to have reported that Telegram lost money in a previous financial period.
The Cointelegraph story reminded its readers that Pavel Durov is confined to France. His legal issues have not been resolved. He has posted bail in the neighborhood of $5 million euros, an indication of the seriousness of the French charges against him.
The FOGINT’s research team notes:
- Telegram is making significant moves with its tie ups with organizations like CryptoCasino.com. This is part of the firm’s effort to become the platform for Telegram-centric gaming
- The Open Network Foundation (which runs on the Telegram platform) continues to promote the TON crypto and the Telegram-centric capabilities on which the Foundation’s services run. One of these initiatives involves investing in TON-centric applications and holding training courses in major international cities.
- Telegram’s “value” as an allegedly secure messaging app is eroding. Mr. Durov has insisted that Telegram cooperates with law enforcement. Those statements mean that Telegram has to kick its online gaming activities and the Foundation’s financial services into high gear.
Net net: Telegram may be strong at first glance, but there may be a latent weakness in the Telegram, Foundation, and TON.Social entities.
Stephen E Arnold, December 2, 2024
Deepfakes: An Interesting and Possibly Pernicious Arms Race
December 2, 2024
As it turns out, deepfakes are a difficult problem to contain. Who knew? As victims from celebrities to schoolchildren multiply exponentially, USA Today asks, “Can Legislation Combat the Surge of Non-Consensual Deepfake Porn?” Journalist Dana Taylor interviewed UCLA’s John Villasenor on the subject. To us, the answer is simple: Absolutely not. As with any technology, regulation is reactive while bad actors are proactive. Villasenor seems to agree. He states:
“It’s sort of an arms race, and the defense is always sort of a few steps behind the offense, right? In other words that you make a detection tool that, let’s say, is good at detecting today’s deepfakes, but then tomorrow somebody has a new deepfake creation technology that is even better and it can fool the current detection technology. And so then you update your detection technology so it can detect the new deepfake technology, but then the deepfake technology evolves again.”
Exactly. So if governments are powerless to stop this horror, what can? Perhaps big firms will fight tech with tech. The professor dreams:
“So I think the longer term solution would have to be automated technologies that are used and hopefully run by the people who run the servers where these are hosted. Because I think any reputable, for example, social media company would not want this kind of content on their own site. So they have it within their control to develop technologies that can detect and automatically filter some of this stuff out. And I think that would go a long way towards mitigating it.”
Sure. But what can be done while we wait on big tech to solve the problem it unleased? Individual responsibility, baby:
“I certainly think it’s good for everybody, and particularly young people these days to be just really aware of knowing how to use the internet responsibly and being careful about the kinds of images that they share on the internet. … Even images that are sort of maybe not crossing the line into being sort of specifically explicit but are close enough to it that it wouldn’t be as hard to modify being aware of that kind of thing as well.”
Great, thanks. Admitting he may sound naive, Villasenor also envisions education to the (partial) rescue:
“There’s some bad actors that are never going to stop being bad actors, but there’s some fraction of people who I think with some education would perhaps be less likely to engage in creating these sorts of… disseminating these sorts of videos.”
Our view is that digital tools allow the dark side of individuals to emerge and expand.
Cynthia Murrell, December 2, 2024
The Golden Fleecer of the Year: Boeing
November 29, 2024
When I was working in Washington, DC, I had the opportunity to be an “advisor” to the head of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. I recall a comment by Craig Hosmer (R. California) and retired rear admiral saying, “Those Air Force guys overpay.” The admiral was correct, but I think that other branches of the US Department of Defense have been snookered a time or two.
In the 1970s and 1980s, Senator William Proxmire (D. Wisconsin) had one of his staff keep an eye of reports about wild and crazy government expenditures. Every year, the Senator reminded people of a chivalric award dating allegedly from the 1400s. Yep, the Middle Ages in DC.
The Order of the Golden Fleece in old timey days of yore meant the recipient received a snazzy chivalric order intended to promote Christian values and the good neighbor policy of Spain and Austria. A person with the fleece was important, a bit like a celebrity arriving at a Hollywood Oscar event. (Yawn)
Thanks, Wikipedia. Allegedly an example of a chivalric Golden Fleece. Yes, that is a sheep, possibly dead or getting ready to be dipped. Thanks,
Reuters, the trusted outfit which tells me it is trusted each time I read one of its “real” news stories, published “Boeing Overcharged Air Force Nearly 8,000% for Soap Dispensers, Watchdog Alleges.” The write up stated in late October 2024:
Boeing overcharged the U.S. Air Force for spare parts for C-17 transport planes, including marking up the price on soap dispensers by 7,943%, according to a report by a Pentagon watchdog. The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General said on Tuesday the Air Force overpaid nearly $1 million for a dozen spare parts, including $149,072 for an undisclosed number of lavatory soap dispensers from the U.S. plane maker and defense contractor.
I have heard that the Department of Defense has not been able to monitor some of its administrative activities or complete an audit of what it does with its allocated funds.
According to the trusted write up:
The Pentagon’s budget is huge, breaking $900 billion last year, making overcharges by defense contractors a regular headache for internal watchdogs, but one that is difficult to detect. The Inspector General also noted it could not determine if the Air Force paid a fair price on $22 million of spare parts because the service did not keep a database of historical prices, obtain supplier quotes or identify commercially similar parts.
My view is that one of the elected officials in Washington, DC, should consider reviving the Proxmire Golden Fleece Award. Boeing may qualify, but there may be other contenders for the award as well.
I quite like the idea of scope changes and engineering change orders for some US government projects. But I have to admit that Senator Proxmire’s identification of a $600 hammer sold to the US Department of Defense is not interesting.
That 8,000 percent mark up is pretty nifty. Oh, on Amazon soap dispensers cost between $20 and $100. Should the Reuters’ story have mentioned:
- Procurement reform
- Poor financial controls
- Lack of common sense?
Of course not! The trust outfit does not get mired in silly technicalities. And Boeing? That outfit is doing a bang up job.
Stephen E Arnold, November 29, 2024
Directories Have Value
November 29, 2024
Why would one build an online directory—to create a helpful reference? Or for self aggrandizement? Maybe both. HackerNoon shares a post by developer Alexander Isora, “Here’s Why Owning a Directory = Owning a Free Infinite Marketing Channel.”
First, he explains why users are drawn to a quality directory on a particular topic: because humans are better than Google’s algorithm at determining relevant content. No argument here. He uses his own directory of Stripe alternatives as an example:
“Why my directory is better than any of the top pages from Google? Because in the SERP [Search Engine Results Page], you will only see articles written by SEO experts. They have no idea about billing systems. They never managed a SaaS. Their set of links is 15 random items from Crunchbase or Product Hunt. Their article has near 0 value for the reader because the only purpose of the article is to bring traffic to the company’s blog. What about mine? I tried a bunch of Stripe alternatives myself. Not just signed up, but earned thousands of real cash through them. I also read 100s of tweets about the experiences of others. I’m an expert now. I can even recognize good ones without trying them. The set of items I published is WAY better than any of the SEO-optimized articles you will ever find on Google. That is the value of a directory.”
Okay, so that is why others would want a subject-matter expert to create a directory. But what is in it for the creator? Why, traffic, of course! A good directory draws eyeballs to one’s own products and services, the post asserts, or one can sell ads for a passive income. One could even sell a directory (to whom?) or turn it into its own SaaS if it is truly popular.
Perhaps ironically, Isora’s next step is to optimize his directories for search engines. Sounds like a plan.
Cynthia Murrell, November 29, 2024
AI In Group Communications: The Good and the Bad
November 29, 2024
In theory, AI that can synthesize many voices into one concise, actionable statement is very helpful. In practice, it is complicated. The Tepper School of Business at Carnegie Mellon announces, “New Paper Co-Authored by Tepper School Researchers Articulates How Large Language Models are Changing Collective Intelligence Forever.” Researchers from Tepper and other institutions worked together on the paper, which was published in Nature Human Behavior. We learn:
“[Professor Anita Williams] Woolley and her co-authors considered how LLMs process and create text, particularly their impact on collective intelligence. For example, LLMs can make it easier for people from different backgrounds and languages to communicate, which means groups can collaborate more effectively. This technology helps share ideas and information smoothly, leading to more inclusive and productive online interactions. While LLMs offer many benefits, they also present challenges, such as ensuring that all voices are heard equally.”
Indeed. The write-up continues:
“‘Because LLMs learn from available online information, they can sometimes overlook minority perspectives or emphasize the most common opinions, which can create a false sense of agreement,’ said Jason Burton, an assistant professor at Copenhagen Business School. Another issue is that LLMs can spread incorrect information if not properly managed because they learn from the vast and varied content available online, which often includes false or misleading data. Without careful oversight and regular updates to ensure data accuracy, LLMs can perpetuate and even amplify misinformation, making it crucial to manage these tools responsibly to avoid misleading outcomes in collective decision-making processes.”
In order to do so, the paper suggests, we must further explore LLMs’ ethical and practical implications. Only then can we craft effective guidelines for responsible AI summarization. Such standards are especially needed, the authors note, for any use of LLMs in policymaking and public discussions.
But not to worry. The big AI firms are all about due diligence, right?
Cynthia Murrell, November 29, 2024
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
