Technically Incorrect

Selling isn't about telling people things. It's actually about making them feel something while you're telling them things.

I mention this because a new series of little Web videos have wafted beneath my browser. They come courtesy of Google. And they are advertising different aspects of the Chrome browser.

Now, I imagine that if I had to listen to Larry Page and Sergey Brin tell me about Chrome it might be enchanting. Well, for a couple of seconds. But it wouldn't be half as enchanting as these little works of art.

Each one centers on a positive aspect of Chrome--stability, speed, or security, for example.

Watching these things makes me think I'd absent-mindedly wandered into some museum of modern art and been seduced by illegitimate, slightly crazy offspring of Salvador Dali and the blokes who made Wallace and Gromit.

Strangely, these ads were actually outsourced to ad agencies, Bartle, Bogle and Hegarty and Glue. And, indeed, the movies seem like they were made with a bit of old bartle and a dollop of glue.

But wouldn't you love to see these things interrupt your NFL game this Sunday, rather than yet another car spot? Oh, come on, Google. You can afford it.

Tiger Woods, this week's Icarus, grew up with the Web.

Indeed, when he seemed to be flying most closely to the sun, Woods insisted that instead of talking to the police, he would only communicate through his own blog, TigerWoods.com.

News of his striking an iron fire hydrant and a wooden tree with his Cadillac Escalade was generated not by conventional media, but by Web media, principally led by TMZ.com.

While the more conventional media were still telling the story of how Woods' wife had supposedly saved him from a terrible fate, TMZ, RadarOnline, and others (the one conventional medium on TMZ's side was the more traditional Enquirer, but traditional media have always despised this under-rated institution) approached the matter with a cynic's eye, a skeptic's nose, and perhaps even a spy's technology.

Together, they produced many alleged lovers and tales of Tiger's conversations with close friends in which he allegedly confided that only a Kobe Special (the evocatively phrased "house on a ring") might remedy the situation.

And now that, according to numerous online sources, we have rumors of sexted photos of the inside of Tiger's trousers, I can think of nothing other than Google CEO Eric Schmidt.

(Credit: Cliff 1066/Flickr)

Is it mere coincidence that on the day that Woods' most hallowed reputation was assaulted by rumors not only of smutty cell phone photos, but of an affair with a fascinating porn star, Google's CEO spoke to the world from on high?

In an interview with CNBC, Schmidt declared in what some might feel was his softest, most touchingly moralistic tone: "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."

His statement was meticulously constructed in response to a question about the trustworthiness of the world's most enveloping search engine. However, surely his answer applies to technology in general.

The problem with technology isn't so much that it immediately reveals, but that it immediately records. That is how Google makes much of its money, by recording the preferences of those who use it.

That is also how photographs, opinions, flings, even drunken nights come back to haunt those who may not wish nor deserve anyone's criticism.

In days gone by, sportspeople, movie stars, even, perish their memory, congressmen could keep their less socially acceptable behavior on the down low because proof was somewhat hard to clutch. Of course, people may have talked. But there was no physical evidence.

Now, the minute Playgirl decides that photographs of Tiger's private life and parts are genuine, all will be revealed in its less than salubrious glory. And Woods' interesting faith in the power of his blog to bring the unquestionable truth to those who admire him will seem like faintly naive bluster.

However, as we watch this whole sad, real, painful and even slightly amusing affair (or, as it seems, affairs) unfold upon our Macs, PCs and smartphones, shouldn't it make us wonder what it is to be free?

In order to live a life of freedom, shouldn't we fly in the other direction from Facebook, put some space between ourselves and MySpace, smash our cell phones and invest in landlines, let go of our laptops and most definitely never imagine that our personal blogs will persuade people that we are who we really think we are?

Shouldn't we attempt to live in a way that no one can observe and no one, especially Google, can record?

Tiger Woods might have gone the old media route--an interview with Diane Sawyer or Oprah. Even a Roger Clemens-like session on "60 Minutes." Perhaps one of those might have garnered him a little sympathy, might have earned him a few points in a game now largely driven by a 24-hour news cycle.

But Woods believed in new technology. And it is new technology that might end up doing him the most damage of all.

Some, perhaps including Rupert Murdoch, might find this story uplifting.

While there has been much recent bellowing, whining, and general cat-on-heat griping about Google making money from the fine work of others, now I can report that some are finding ways to make money piggybacking on the broad spine of Google's engineering.

Two enterprising entities, different in their form but united in their purpose, have attempted to use Google's Street View as a medium for their own commercial messages.

First, there was car rental company AutoShare, the Canadian equivalent Zipcar in the U.S. You know, the folks who are always reserving spots in your favorite parking lot. Well, AutoShare thought it would be fun to ask its customers to look out for its cars on Street View and offer a limited number of them prizes for their vision.

(Credit: AutoShare)

The prize wasn't much: 100 strong Canadian dollars. But with some astute ad targeting in locations such as Facebook and Google, their "In-The-Wild" promotion seems to have entertained the world-weary citizens of Toronto.

Indeed, the AutoShare Twitter page shows that people got rather excited about looking for AutoShare's 200 cars on Google's public-spirited cameras.

This enterprising thought process was, perhaps, topped by Editors. Editors is an indie band (don't most bands have to be indie these days?) from the British town of Birmingham, where the people who claim to be my parents say I was born.

To launch their latest album, Editors used a little Flash trickery to hack into Street View, London version, and create their own custom locations where people could enjoy some of their really very fine music and even see some of the band's fans. (Video embedded)

Editors were rather clever in choosing locations that were not normally accessible on Street View.

Recently, I wrote about IKEA's wonderful use of Facebook to launch a store in Malmo, Sweden. And I know some people thought one should point out that this use was not entirely in accordance with Facebook's promotional guidelines.

However, when companies decide that on occasion they'd prefer to use information you thought might be private for commercial gain, when companies ask you to opt out (if they ask you at all) rather than opt in, there are those who might feel that some enterprising uses of, say, Facebook and Google Street View, should be classified as pioneering.

Great commerce, just like great art, sometimes breaks a couple of rules, doesn't it? In fact, Murdoch has done it quite brilliantly on occasion.

There are many ways of showing respect to those you don't actually respect.

So it's touching to see that Apple has not only produced a few "Get A Mac" ads to darken the hearts of those about to upgrade to Windows 7, but has also donned its Wellington boots, gone down on its knees, and offered a dig in the grubby world of search.

I am grateful to The Next Web, who discovered that Cupertino has been throwing a few grenades into Google searches such as "Download Windows 7" and "Windows 7 download."

(Credit: The Next Web)

While one naturally expects to see ads for Microsoft stores adorning these searches, Apple has slipped in ads that suggest the best way to upgrade to Windows 7 is to actually purchase something from the Apple family.

Some might find it amusing simply that Apple is using such a tactic. But perhaps others will be a little disappointed that the wording for the ad is so straight. No jibes. No subtle suggestions that Windows 7 is merely a Manchurian macrame version of Vista. Not even a hint that Windows 7 will make you more miserable than eggnog ice tea.

How sad.

Rumors have begun to trickle from Googleville that the Jolly Search Giant is beginning to change its mind about those fickle fellows who espouse creativity.

You know, the sort who don't necessarily think you should research 41 different shades of blue. The sort, indeed, who sleep under their desks at ad agencies.

Which leads me to wonder whether a certain rebalancing might shortly occur in the tender relationship between the left-brainers and right-brainers of product selling.

The Web largely began as a functional experience, where everything you looked at was created by those who felt that what it does would always be a little more more important than how it looks. Partly because these people had no idea, nor did they really care, how to create something that actually looked truly inviting.

Few might agree that Google and YouTube, despite the fact that huge numbers of fingers populate them daily, are the most aesthetic of locations. Utilitarian would be the polite way of describing their sense of design.

A 10-year-old mathematician's idea of pulchritude would be a less charitable version. Somehow, every time I go to YouTube, in particular, it feels like the crummiest of Blockbusters, with DVD boxes that are fraying at the corners.

A little like a crummy video store?

(Credit: CC Original Hamster/Flickr)

Ad agencies, very heavy on pretty and very light on engineering, at first tried to mimic print ads and billboards and squeezed them into a medium that was far more individual, far more personal than any seen before.

The Googlies thought ad agencies somewhat risible relics of a disappearing world--like a bunch of Don Johnsons trying to deal with the brainy world of CSI.

Yet while the Web is still very functional, it is also the place where we increasingly live far too much of our lives. We watch TV on the Web. We read papers on the Web. We find lovers on the Web. And we continue to tell them how much we love them on the Web.

I know that some people feel that the pages of, for example, Yahoo Sports and the Huffington Post have been occasionally enhanced by wallpaper ads that add energy to the home pages without taking away from the content.

So advertising, done right, surely has a chance to make Web pages more attractive, more involving, and more inspiring.

There was a time in the U.K., for example, when the TV ads were actually more interesting than much of the programing. It is possible. It does happen. Brazil is another country where advertising can be far more involving far than the latest soap opera.

As Google decides that display advertising is where the new money will inevitably be, ad agencies might just think about creating work that makes Google's pages a little more inviting, a little more, dare one say it, exciting.

How strange it might be, in some optimistic future, if advertising created by outsiders actually helped Google with its business as well as advertisers with theirs.

The advent of Bing has shown that just a little aesthetic sense might, in fact, help to attract real people out there, those scouring the Web for anything that might brighten their day.

Just imagine if Google's and YouTube's pages were adorned with ads that offered wit, charm, and design sense as opposed to little blue words offering last minute vacations or little yellow words promising erectile function.

Might that be good for business? Might it even encourage YouTube, in particular, into a redesign?

Should you be one of those who believe that men are neanderthal, socially awkward hairy animals while women are socially aware, smoothly sensitive beings, then I have some statistics that might increase your estimation of your own superior judgment.

According to research by Brian Solis, sourcing his data from Google's Ad Planner, the majority of functioning beings on almost all social networking sites are women.

Published on Information Is Beautiful, the numbers might create an encouraging belief that if social networking is the future, then the future is female.

Solis's figures suggest that there is only one major social-networking site that is predominantly male: Digg. I know you'll recoil uncontrollably when I tell you that Digg appears to be 64 percent male.

(Credit: Information Is Beautiful)

On the other hand, LinkedIn and YouTube seem to enjoy an equality of fraternity and sorority. While Twitter, Facebook, FriendFeed, Flickr and MySpace, to name but a few, are all, like the population of Brazil, queendoms.

Perhaps the most extraordinary numbers come from MySpace. Somehow, the rather messy nature of the site, the tradition of an excess of spam and porn, might suggest that this was a male-oriented (slightly sleazy males, some might imagine) haven.

These numbers, however, suggest that MySpace is 64 percent female. Which makes one ruminate as to why the home page currently has so much blue and so little fuchsia.

It will be tempting, indeed, for many to put these figures down to traditional psychological differences between the sexes: women like people and men like, well, peeing in public.

However, one might also conclude that women simply resort to more virtual contact because their real world physical everyday life leaves them rather more dissatisfied than it does men.

Lately there seems to have been much evidence that women are increasingly miserable.

Celebrated and, one might have imagined, happy women such as Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post (The Sad Shocking Truth of How Women Are Feeling) and Maureen Dowd of The New York Times (Blue is the New Black) have lamented the lot of Lot's Wife, Mother, Sister and Daughter.

Might misery be driving women to MySpace?

I want to live forever. I want to learn how to fly. High. I feel it coming together.

And, thankfully, so does celebrated large brain and, who knows, maybe "Kids from Fame" aficionado Ray Kurzweil.

In an article reported by the Telegraph, Kurzweil says that our technological and genetic know-how is marching at such a furious pace that in 20 years' time we should be holding in our sweaty, excitable hands the nanotechnological secrets of our existence.

This charmingly optimistic view is but another string hanging from the nano-forecasting bow he's been wearing for years, along with his rather singular vision of the way men and machines will cohabit happily ever after.

Extraordinary nanotechnological secrets should allow us, according to Kurzweil, to replace our kidneys, livers, hearts and, hey, what about minds, with functioning vital organs made by human hands.

They say Kurzweil is 61. He doesn't look a day over 43 to me.

(Credit: Null0/Flickr)

Kurzweil's contemplations, first published in The Sun, offer us these vast nuggets of hope: "I and many other scientists now believe that in around 20 years we will have the means to reprogram our bodies' stone-age software so we can halt, then reverse, aging. Then nanotechnology will let us live for ever."

Yes, you can be 28 again. You can drink yourself stupid and let those nano-nano folks just slip you a new liver. You can have sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and still be able to perform Whitney Houston karaoke better than Whitney herself can these days.

"If we want to go into virtual-reality mode, nanobots will shut down brain signals and take us wherever we want to go," said Kurzweil. "Virtual sex will become commonplace. And in our daily lives, hologram-like figures will pop in our brain to explain what is happening."

One can only hope those hologram-like figures don't resemble the chaps from Google too closely.

And I am not entirely sure I am persuaded by the concept of virtual sex. Perhaps worse would be the concept of some Googleperson-like hologram talking one through virtual sex. And whispering to one after it.

Still, Kurzweil's passionate certainty offers us all hope for a very different future from the one we might have imagined.

I can't wait. No, really. I can't.

It has been said, not least by senior people at Google, that the company dreams of the day when we have Google search implanted in our brains.

Some, mainly human beings, chuckled at the prospect. Perhaps they should stop chuckling.

It must be very difficult to stay interested when you're running the world's largest small ad company, so the appearance of a couple of alien-related doodles suggest that Google's management has finally spaced out.

The latest doodle, which appeared Tuesday, reveals a similar spacecraft to the one that supposedly commemorated the Japanese video game Zero Wing. However, this one seems to be flying over crop circles.

(Credit: Google.com)

To accompany this mystery--or perhaps the selling of the majority shareholders to the rulers of another planet--Google offered these coordinates on its Twitter page: 51.327629, -0.5616088.

The worldly wise have suggested that these coordinates point to a town called Horsell in Surrey, England.

This is the location where the first aliens floated to earth in H.G. Wells' 19th century masterwork--and, for all I know, the Jeff Wayne concept album of the 1970s--called "The War of the Worlds."

It would have been Wells' 143rd birthday September 21.

However, I think they are fooling everyone. After all, crop circles are clearly the creations of alien beings who are merely toying with our farms, the very elemental organizations that prop up our ailing, stomach-stuffing society. And National Geographic is reporting that many new crop circles have appeared overnight.

Aliens are saying to us: "We can take you any time you like."

And, in an attempt to show just how far they can take their dominance, there is every reason to suspect that otherearthly beings have already implanted their own thought-processes into the brains of Google's leaders. Hence, the declarations about brain-implanted search.

We will soon discover that 'google' is, indeed, the Planet Bunga's word for "We own you, dummies."

And we will all be subject to the Bungans rather esoteric way of thought and deed.

I know some, especially those who hug singularity to their bosoms, cannot wait for the day.

Microsoft has responded swiftly to suggestions that its Bing search engine seems to throw up ads alongside the keyword "pornography".

In a post Thursday, I outlined some of the suspicions that surrounded the appearance of ads for Bing next to searches for fleshy entertainment.

A Microsoft representative declared in an e-mail: "Microsoft has not purchased the keyword 'pornography,' and this term has never been in our AdWords account."

This will serve as a considerable relief to many upstanding citizens.

I searched 'pornography' on Flickr and this picture is what I got.

(Credit: CC Kessiye/Flickr)

The company representative continued: "It is our policy on the Bing marketing team that we do not have any adult content as part of any of our keyword buys or other marketing campaigns."

However, Microsoft has vivid views about how this alleged relationship between "binging" and films featuring somewhat less talented actors naked might have come about.

"The keyword that seems to be triggering these results is 'free videos,'" the Microsoft representative explained. "We are following up with Google to understand why this ad is showing up in these types of queries."

That should be a very interesting conversation. One looks forward to reading a transcript.