By John Timmer | Published: December 28, 2008 – 09:10PM CT

People who have followed the development of the Internet are probably well aware of the Pew Charitable Trust, which has tracked the growth of the web through its Internet & American Life Project. But a separate arm of the Pew, the Research Center for the People & the Press has uncovered some data relevant to the online world when surveying the US population about the sources of its news. According to the group’s latest survey, performed in early December, the use of Internet news sources has passed that of newspapers for the first time.

The survey was performed from December 3rd through 7th, and it involved 1,489 adult participants. Most of the questions involved perceptions of the major news stories of the year, but several focused on the participants’ source of news. Here, Internet news sources had very significant gains, with 40 percent of the population saying it’s where they get “most” of their national and international news. That’s a significant leap from September of 2007, when only 24 percent had called it the source of most of their news.

The use of newspapers as a source has held steady in the mid-30s for the last several years, and came in at 35 percent of the survey population this time around. This steady performance, combined with the significant rise in the use of Internet, has meant that this is the first time since data collection started in 2001 that the newspapers have been pushed out of their second-place slot. Because of the wording of the survey, users could name more than one source for “most” of their news (which is why I keep putting it in quotes); this allowed TV to hold on to its first-place slot, being the choice of 70 percent of respondents. That’s actually the lowest result ever, and the first time it’s dropped noticeably since 2004, when it was at 74 percent.

These results may have been driven by a major shift in the 19-29 year old age group. In the last year, their news jones has been less satisfied by TV, dropping from 68 percent to 59 percent. The same fraction (59 percent) looked to the Internet for information, a huge rise from the September 2007 survey, when the figure was 34 percent. At the same time, the use of newspapers was up slightly in this population. The Pew report doesn’t indicate what percentage of the total survey population fell into this age group, but the usage patterns for the past several years show a fair bit of variability; it’s not clear whether an of the changes beyond the rise in Internet use should be viewed as significant.

It would be easy at this point to engage in a bit of Internet triumphalism, and there is some justification for this. It’s easier to find specialized news content online, and many papers have responded to declining ad revenues by cutting back on this. In terms of one of my own interests, the death of science content in traditional media (as exemplified by CNN, which recently axed its entire science staff) has definitely left me less interested in getting my news from TV.

Nevertheless, some are arguing that the decline of print is nothing to be celebrated. Although the many eyes of the Internet community can identify stories that might otherwise slip under the radar, few websites have the resources to do the depth of investigation that can be carried out by an experienced news staff. Internet content may have the advantage of being free, but that low price may come at a cost.

By John Timmer | Published: November 20, 2008 – 08:55PM CT

By Jacqui Cheng | Published: November 17, 2008 – 11:53AM CT

No matter how into gadgets and hardware we are, we’re all forced to face a cold truth every once in a while: our PCs and gadgets sometimes break. What’s important, however, is how often it happens and how easy (or difficult, as the case may be) it is for us to remedy the problem. According to survey results from the Pew Internet & American Life Project, Americans tend to have the most frequent problems when it comes to their Internet connections, home PCs, and cell phones, and often find themselves confused about how to fix them.

According to Pew, almost half of adults said they needed someone to help them set up or learn how to use their gadgets. Once they finally get them going, however, things aren’t all smooth sailing—44 percent of adults with home Internet connections reported service failure sometime in the last 12 months. Similarly, 39 percent of those with home PCs or laptops, 29 percent of cell phone users, and 26 percent of those with BlackBerrys, Palm Pilots, or other PDAs said their devices stopped working sometime in the last year. Apparently, the most resilient gadget included in Pew’s survey was the iPod/MP3 player—only 15 percent of those surveyed reported problems over the last year.

Interestingly, age seemed to be a factor in at least one of these technological failures. Although almost all age groups experienced problems with their Internet connections (roughly) equally, younger people appeared to experience cell phone failure of some kind much more frequently than their senior counterparts. According to the numbers, 30 percent of 18 to 29 year-olds and 33 percent of 30 to 49 year-olds had cell phone issues, while only 18 percent of those 65 and older had problems. Pew doesn’t say why, but we’re going to take a guess and say that younger folk are more likely to play around with their cell phone configurations and ultimately run into issues than seniors, who are more likely to just use what they have and not mess around with it too much.

Unsurprisingly, people aren’t very thrilled when this happens either. 40 percent of those surveyed reported feeling confused by the information they got when trying to fix their tech woes, while 48 percent felt discouraged by the amount of effort needed to fix the problem. Even more—59 percent—were impatient about the problem because they needed to use it for important things. Still, despite all these negative emotions, almost three-quarters of the group said that they felt confident that they were on the right track to solving the problem with the help of tech support, friends or family, online support, or just their own know-how.

The category that got the highest number of tech support calls was failed Internet connections, bringing to light the importance of competent and friendly customer service. According to a report from CFI Group in September, however, customer service from cable companies tends to leave customers fuming and “highly vulnerable to new competition.” Looks like it’s time to step it up, lest these companies lose business to someone who can do a better job at keeping those 44 percent of users with Internet connection problems happy.

By Nate Anderson | Published: November 07, 2008 – 05:10AM CT

UK analysis firm Point Topic has just released its new set of worldwide broadband figures, and the news is encouraging: broadband is getting cheaper, fast. Prices have fallen by 20 percent just in 2008, and the year’s not even over with yet.

Although the average worldwide costs paid each month by users of DSL and cable connections are almost identical now, the price per megabit is not. Around the globe, DSL remains far more expensive for the speed you get, but it has also shown the greatest drop in price. Between the first and third quarters of 2008, DSL dropped from $25 per megabit to $18 per megabit.

Cable prices haven’t fallen nearly as much, but cable service remains a far better value on average. While DSL still costs about $1 8per megabit, cable is only $6-7 per megabit. Some of this excellent performance is driven by smaller European operators, which offer both lower prices and faster speeds than they used to. In the US, however, the report notes that “speeds have gone up but the price hasn’t changed.”

Data source: Point Topic

Fiber remains the best value—if you can get it—but it’s also the most expensive option. Average cost per megabit is a mere dollar or two, but the average bill is $65. Countries like South Korea and Japan are largely driving the worldwide growth of fiber to the home, though companies like Verizon offer it in parts of the US as well.

Data source: Point Topic

What’s most depressing about the numbers is the huge regional variations. While Internet access has become almost essential to many Americans, home access remains prohibitively expensive in many parts of the world. Middle Eastern and African countries, for instance, are paying a whopping price for DSL service: $46 per megabit. In Western Europe, the cost is about $6 per megabit. Because phone lines are much more widely installed around the globe than are cable systems, DSL is one of the few viable delivery systems for Internet access in many countries, even when expensive, and is one reasons for DSL’s high worldwide price.

With AT&T boosting the speeds it can deliver over copper phone wire to 18Mbps here in the US, DSL continues to show signs of life, even as fiber and DOCSIS 3.0 cable systems have far more headroom for bandwidth growth.

a study by Anderson Analytics confirms what everyone already suspects: LinkedIn users are rich.

Nearly 60% of users have incomes of $93,000 or more. Executives with an average income of $104,000 make up 28% of the 2,000 random users polled for the study. Another 30% are self-identified “consultants” with an average income of $93,000.

People with lots of connections tend to make more money, according to the study – those with incomes between $200-$350k were seven times more likely to have at least 150 connections than lower income users.

The study segmented users into four categories: executives (28%), networkers/consultants (30%), late adopters (22%) (not sure what this is) and “exploring options (20%).

I mostly abandoned LinkedIn long ago, simply because i couldn’t deal with the volume of inbound requests for introductions and other LinkedIn business. It’s a salesperson’s heaven (another word for “consultant” and “saavy networker” is salesperson). Rich people tend to have more connections, says the survey, which makes sense. These poor executives are constantly being bombarded with connection requests.

So if you have something to sell, stop wasting time on Facebook and MySpace. Get yourself on LinkedIn and add a couple of hundred connections. Before you know it you’ll be pulling in $350k.

At the OMMA and MIXX events last month we heard the message loud and clear – engaging users through social media is the future of marketing. The Managing Partner of Publicis’ VivaKi, David Kenny indicated never in his career has he seen a more effective medium for building brand affinity. Panel after panel mentioned the value of social marketing. Yet surprisingly few seemed to know how to ask the next question or take a next step.

The Web is shifting from a solitary experience to a social one. Today there are over 500 million members of social networks worldwide. Users spend hours engaged on social networks connecting with friends, meeting new people, viewing photos, playing games, etc.

Banner ads on social networks can still play a role in building awareness for a brand, as a broad media buy with a social network can have broad reach. But there’s a significant revenue gap between brand awareness and brand affinity.

What Happens After the Click?

Even Facebook, with its engagement ads, seems to be falling short. Less than 10 minutes into the Sheryl Sandberg-led Facebook panel at Advertising Week, when asked what the next big thing will be on Facebook, what did the group of agencies on the panel say? Branded applications.

Everyone is asking the same questions – what happens after a user clicks on my ad? What is the user experience AFTER the click?

Is the user taken to a page outside Facebook? That’s where most ads go. The problem is that most users don’t WANT to leave Facebook. So they come right back to where they were. And if you’re lucky enough for them to stay, congratulations, but you’ve taken the user out of the environment where they’re able to easily communicate and share your brand with their friends. What’s social about that?

So instead follow Facebook’s advice and send them to a brand Page. But what does the user do on the page? How compelling is the post-click experience? Without some investment the user will likely see a rather generic page, hardly differentiated or strongly branded, with little to engage with. Hopefully the user becomes a ‘fan’ of the brand, but why would the user return? How are users empowered to share brand messages with their friends? Has the Page not only built brand awareness but grown brand affinity?

Creating Social Opportunities

Or perhaps you take the plunge, follow the advice of Publicis’s David Kenny and the agencies on Facebook’s panel, and you build a branded application to engage users in a social context. The application is viral so users naturally share with friends. With the branded application the reach of the media buy is extended as each user shares with their friends, so even after the ads stop there is an active community of advocates sharing brand messages that not only build brand awareness but build brand affinity within their social circles.

The best solution for brand marketing on social networks combines a media buy for reach with a compelling application to provide branded engagement. Applications that build on the developer platform as a marketing channel for brand messages have the power to not only grow brand awareness but also build brand affinity. Applications that provide utility and entertainment, when shared with friends, not only spread brand messages, but the social connections help brands build brand affinity within the community on the social network. Ultimately, successful applications empower users to become brand advocates, sharing their brand affinity with friends.

Kevin Barenblat is co-founder and CEO of Context Optional, a leading social marketing company providing scalable solutions for brand marketing on social networks. This year the company has worked with over twenty Fortune 500 brands such as Bank of America, Kraft, Ford, McDonald’s, Kellogg’s and Electronic Arts on Facebook, MySpace, Bebo, and the iPhone.

Imagery provided by iStock/kutaytanir

Tech Now by Paul Brent

The Pew Internet and American Life Project turns out a steady stream of studies on how North Americans are using technology. The latest report is based on a survey of more than 2,000 adults and it found that the traditional nuclear family is by far the biggest cell phone- and Internet-user group.

In fact, they are using these devices more than single adults or couples without children. The stats indicate that 89 per cent of married-with-children households own multiple cell phones, and nearly half own three or more mobile devices. Of this same group, 66 per cent have a high-speed broadband Internet connection at home, while 58 per cent have at least two home computers.

On all counts, these numbers put them above other groups of users.

So what are we doing with the technology? Well, it seems the family that techs together, stays together.

“Some analysts have worried that new technologies hurt family togetherness, but we see that technology allows for new kinds of connectedness built around cell phones and the Internet,” noted Tracy Kennedy of the Pew Institute, who put together the survey.

For example, 70 per cent of couples talk on their cells at least once a day to say hello or keep up to date on family affairs. And 43 per cent of parents talk to their children at least once a day on the cell to keep in touch.

Kennedy also said, “We were surprised to see that lots of families treat the Internet as a place for shared experiences. They don’t just withdraw from the family to their own computer for private screen time. They pretty regularly say, ‘Hey, look at this.’”

Most parents say there’s much upside and little downside to the way new technologies affect them. And a quarter of parents feel their current family is closer than the family they grew up in. The majority, however (60 per cent), say technology has made no difference in the closeness of the family unit.

Prof. Barry Wellman of the University of Toronto, who was a study author, said, “Family members are neither isolated individuals nor traditional actors in Fun With Dick and Jane homes. Rather, their households are active sites of the interplay of individual activity and family togetherness.”

It’s easy to develop a confusing picture of what goes on inside of multiuser virtual worlds, such as Second Life and World of WarCraft. Some reports suggest that the virtual reality enables people to escape from social interactions they otherwise find difficult; others highlight how users of virtual worlds find them satisfying because of the rich social interactions they enable. Some researchers at Northwestern University looked into just how well real-life social influences translate to the the virtual realm and discovered one that does: racism.

The authors used two different instances of social manipulation that are known to work well in the real world. The first is the “foot in the door” (FITD) approach, in which a small, easily accomplished favor is asked. These tend to make the person who granted the favor happy about their cooperation, and more likely to agree to further requests, even if they require more effort.

read more…

The core of the report describes six areas of emerging technology that will impact higher education within three adoption horizons over the next one to five years.

For both emerging and established democratic societies, the Wikinomics<!– wiki-renamed-hyperlink “Wikinomics” –> era holds the promise and the inevitability of new models for delivering the functions of government. Government 2.0: Wikinomics, Government & Democracy is a global research project that will identify and analyze emerging opportunities to harness new models of collaboration to transform the public sector. It builds on a wealth of continuing research by New Paradigm<!– wiki-renamed-hyperlink “New Paradigm” –> – a renowned think tank led by author and strategist Don Tapscott – and a global faculty of experts.

The investigation will equip subscriber organizations with the insights required to harness new models of Web-based collaboration to reinvent the way they develop policy, partner across institutional boundaries, and engage and serve their constituents. The program will be conducted in partnership with the world’s leading thinkers and practitioners, funded by both governments around the world and private companies seeking to participate in this transformation.

We’ve opened up this workspace to inform members of the public about our new program and to invite input into our research. Feel free to jump in and have fun!

Program Description

Find out more about New Paradigm’s Government 2.0 Investigation and how your organization can participate.

Research Topics

New Paradigm’s Government 2.0 program will investigate how public sector organizations can harness new models of collaboration to reinvigorate government and democracy. Read about the research agenda and suggest new topics for investigation.

Gov 2.0 Resource Center

As part of our ongoing investigation New Paradigm is building a public resource center. Do you know of any great gov 2.0 case studies that New Paradigm should be researching? How about papers on pertinent Gov 2.0 topics, people worth talking to, or other think tanks or government research centers that are doing similar work? Share your suggestions with the community.

Government 2.0 Manifesto

Have your say: What should governments should do now to harness the power of mass collaboration and the web 2.0?

Government 2.0 Blog<!– wiki-renamed-hyperlink “Government 2.0 Blog” –>

Do you have questions about Government 2.0 for New Paradigm researchers and other community members? Would you like to start a discussion with other community members? Post your thoughts on the Government 2.0 Blog<!– wiki-renamed-hyperlink “Government 2.0 Blog” –>