Alert Blog Reviews

Isn’t everything better with Twitter? All right, let’s admit it: we had to see at least part of this coming. Microsoft Live search had maps with bird’s eye view and even the equivalent of Street View in some places, and we all had to know that eventually that product would get rolled over to the Bing brand, too. Well, now that’s happening: but Bing wants to take it to the next level. And, of course, the best, most obvious way to take maps to the next level is to add Twitter. Everything is cooler with teh social, right? Now in beta , Bing Maps uses the same Silverlight technology that Microsoft Live Maps did, including directions, street-level views and even museum tours—but now with Twitter’s geolocation API, they have a “mash in” to add Tweets (so not only can you see the mummies, you can also read 19 Tweets saying how boring they are). Other “maps apps” include traffic, what’s nearby, hyperlocal content, 3D images from Photosynth, webcams, roadside attractions, restaurants, public artwork and . . . graffiti (really?). The street level views (called Streetside) are obviously not as complete as Google Maps’. Bing (No coverage outside the continental US; the blue dude is just the cursor): Google (just in the US; they’re in more than a dozen other countries, too): What do you think? Will Twitter and museum tours be enough to get a leg up on MapQuest and Google Maps?

Go here to read the rest:
Bing Revamps Maps—Now with Twitter!

It seems like every month another news organization toys with the idea of charging for their content. But, we always rejoin, you’ll ultimately sacrifice your audience if you charge for news content. However, the Boston Consulting Group says that may not always be the case—in fact, even Americans are willing to pay for online news . Well, sort of. The average amount an American was willing to pay for news was $3—and not $3 a day, but $3 a month . Not exactly the profits Rupert Murdoch dreams of, is it? The survey also found that people were more willing to pay for news that was: Unique, such as local news (67 percent overall are interested; 72 percent of U.S. respondents) or specialized coverage (63 percent overall are interested; 73 percent of U.S. respondents) Timely, such as a continual news alert service (54 percent overall are interested; 61 percent of U.S. respondents) Conveniently accessible on a device of choice And good news for newspapers: “consumers are more likely to pay for online news provided by newspapers than by other media, such as television stations, Web sites, or online portals,” especially since these other media have so much free competition. Interestingly, while Americans were more likely to pay for sites that offered access to multiple papers, only national and local—not major metropolitan-based papers—have that level of appeal. (I’m not sure which category The New York Times and Washington Post fall into here.) Marc Vos, a Milan-based partner and leader of BCG’s media sector in Europe, tells newspapers that they “should be experimenting with paid online content. It will take trial and error to find what works.” The prospects aren’t so bleak everywhere. In addition to 1000 US respondents, the survey also looked at results in Germany, Australia, France, the UK, Spain, Italy, Norway, Finland. While Australians also wanted to pay only $3 (USD?) for their news, other countries saw higher rates. The New York Times said that this may be because Western Europe has more consolidated news offerings, where news in the US is a very fragmented industry. However, before Western European news sites get all excited, note that the highest amount on the survey, in Italy, was $7 a month. What do you think? What would you be willing to pay for news? Pilgrim’s Partners: SponsoredReviews.com – Bloggers earn cash, Advertisers build buzz!

Read this article:
Consumers Willing to Pay (Pennies) for News

Dear World: Google is advertising in your countries. Duh. Turkey has recently determined that Google owes them $47M US (71M Turkish lira) in back taxes on advertising sold in Turkey. The government maintains that because Google sells advertising in Turkey and maintains an office and registered subsidiary in the country. Google, on the other hand, points out that “it runs its ad network operations from Ireland and thus is not obliged to pay taxes in Turkey merely because it owns a subsidiary there.” The suit recognizes that bills and checks (or should I say cheques?) for such advertising are addressed from/to the company’s European headquarters in Dublin. Says TechCrunch: In a statement, Google said it is acting in accordance with the tax laws of every country in which it operates, including Turkish laws, and that its negotiations with the government on this issue are ongoing. . . . We’ve also been in touch with a Turkish lawyer, who tells us the government is making a valid claim, pointing out that Google has set up a full-fledged company called Google Reklamcılık ve Pazarlama Ltd. Şti. (which means Google Advertising and Marketing Ltd.) in Turkey rather than what he refers to as a ‘liaison’ branch. Had it done the latter, says the lawyer, the company would have had to pay very little or no taxes at all. Personally, I’m a little skeptical of the Turkish government’s claim, mostly because if Google has really been taxable all this time (and since Google is the #1 online and search ad company in Turkey), they (the government or Google) would have figured this out a lot sooner. Did the Turkish government just figure out they could tax Google? Or is this, as TechCrunch points out, just a bargaining tactic tor force Google’s negotiations to go faster? (Note: the Turkish government says they’ve determined this after a year of investigating. Again, a year? It doesn’t take a year to figure out that someone should be paying you taxes, especially not if a Turkish lawyer can figure it out in one email. If they really wanted the taxes, they could have indicated that Google should be paying taxes at the beginning of the investigation instead of stalling a year while Google racked up more income that they could penalize. I think being dishonest like that should be reason enough to lose the suit.) Here’s what I think: if you really want to tax Google, countries of the world, then do it—but pass a new law that they can’t get out of. Don’t try to cobble together a legal argument, backform your present laws that may or may not fit the situation, or stall an entire year to try to squeeze more out of them. Because, after all, taxing Internet companies for selling stuff in your jurisdiction has worked really well in New York , North Carolina , etc. What do you think? Will Turkey get their cash, will the case get thrown out, or are they really just hoping for Google to settle for any amount? Will this make Google reluctant to operate in that country in the future?

Read more:
Turkey Suing Google for $47M in Back Taxes