Jim Bursch commented on my latest Attention post, suggesting his own My Mindshare 10-point Declaration is aligned with the AttentionTrust. Unfortunately, it looks like he is getting slammed at Craigslist and not getting traction in the blogoverse (from reading his blog).
Jim, I think you might be running into backlash from the PayPerPost click-fraud-like problem (the link is to Doc Searls’ discussion of same).
I know, you slam it in your own blog as well, but it really does come across as something very similar. At the very top of things, you push for value in terms of paying users to be a part of your co-op:
A pay-per-click bulletin board that
pays you for your mindshare.
And then on the “Mind Control” bulletin board:
That sure sounds a lot like PayPerPost.
It seems like you might be sincere, but the immediate appeal to $$ for clickstream behavior sounds a lot like PayPerPost’s approach to monetizing Attention. Which is to say, a big turn off.
You might also kill the music on your home page. That happens to be one of the top ten online advertising techniques that people hate.
The tricky thing is, in some ways, you are aligned with AttentionTrust.
Now, I do owe Steve Gillmor a call to find out more about how GestureBank is going to work and at a minimum it anonymizes user behavior, which is a huge advance over Jim’s approach. But somewhere along the line, isn’t it also going to generate value for users in some concrete way? Maybe not direct payments, but extracting value from our clickstream has a lot of parallels with PayPerPost and MyMindshare.
The non-profit status of the AttentionTrust and the focus on user rights and privacy protection make their efforts much more seemly, but I’m looking forward to getting more details from Steve.
If, at the end of the day, Attention is to be monetized directly, how do we distinguish the PayPerPost’s from more legitimate efforts?
(after further thought, maybe it is just a matter of transparency & disclosure…)