Recently i had a rather unique chance of being exposed to some of the remains of the Soviet era. I saw a box of detergent from the 1970’s. It wasn’t just any detergent, but an imported one, which was a rarity at that time. People would put an effort to get as much as possible of imported detergent, stock it, and use it for generations - go figure when would be the next time you could get it. This is how today, over 30 years older, we can get a chance of traveling back in time.

This particular detergent was imported nowhere else, but from Iran, and the box has a very nice, typical 1970’s design. But the best feature of that detergent is its name. It’s called “Barf”. Take a look yourself…

Now, the questions is, does it have any meaning in Persian, or there was just someone with a very sarcastic sense of humor in Iran who decided to sell Russians detergent with such an interesting name? Maybe it is similar to the sense of humor of a person who sold Israeli paper cups to Saudi Arabia?

I took this picture on Friday night on Times Square. It was just before i bumped into a number a various types (and ages) of Harry Potters and other witch-looking crowd (not counting a rather fat spiderman). At the moment it seemed cute and amusing. Until the next morning, when it became claustrophobic.

Walking around the New York City on Saturday, July 21st, you could not escape the thick, orange books. People carried them around, they read them in the subway, on benches of the Central Park, took them in when they went to visit Metropolitan, etc. You could see kids with the book and you could see adults. You could see people sitting, walking, laying, and still reading the book. Literally every second book you saw in public spaces was the new Harry Potter. Today the Harrypotteria continued when there was a girl on the bus to DC reading HarryPotter, and on the way to the metro another copy of the book was spotted.

And i keep asking myself why and how the book became so popular? What is the genius of this creation that is not presents in (much less appreciated today) classics? Or is it pure marketing? Very good marketing…?

Recently i came across the following interview by Andy Carvin with some of the democratic candidates, asking them about the the potential role of government in bridging the digital divide. Interestingly enough all the candidates mentioned access to broadband as the main issue constituting the divide in US with access to computers as the second one (Chris Dodd talked about bridging educational gaps through access???). Education came in occasionally, only if explicitly prompted by the interviewer. Gravel was the only one to mention net neutrality, but still in a very weird and local context. Richardson talked about the need of corporate involvement.

Of course the “digital divide” is not a major point on anyones agenda, but it is still interesting to see how it is framed in good old terms of access - give them computers and broadband and everything will be OK. But how? Why?

I hate to acknowledge that, but it seems like the marketing efforts of web 2.0 promoters have effects.  At least on me, as I start thinking in their terms.  For example, today i saw this article about AT&T supporting some open access to cellular airwaves that has been so far exclusively allocated to bidders. Reading it I wondered, if the mobile carriers are not trying now to join the whole 2.0 celebration by opening up their infrastructures for user generated content and applications. If they do so, what is it based on? A clever market research? Or the hype effect of extreme 2.0-ing of everything? Or maybe it is a very visionary thinking regarding the nature of cellular infrastructure? For example a couple of years ago I heard lecture by an MIT professor (really trying to remember his name right now, but can’t) claiming that the spectrum is basically an unlimited resource and as such current policy strategy is in fact based on wrong assumptions. If that’s the case, industry driven opening up of the infrastructure is a very smart move both politically and from the marketing point of view.

What do you think? Any other ideas?

Finally an interesting poll on Facebook. As opposed to usual “what is your favorite lollipop flavor” this time they asked what is people primary email. According to the info on the website they closed the survey at 1000 respondents sampled from all their users. 51.6% of the respondents were female and 46.5% of ages 18-24. Although we don’t really know what is the age/gender distribution of Facebook users is, the results are still amusing.

First of all, Hotmail appears as the leading email provider for most Facebookers. Almost 40% prefer it over Yahoo (21%) and Gmail (16%). You can click the image to see it in a readable size.

I am a bit surprised with Gmail underperformance, but gender specific results are even more curious. According to this poll, males prefer Gmail over Yahoo, and even in the leading Hotmail, female preference is the dominant one. I think this is really interesting, especially given that the difference is so big, but i cannot think of potential explanation. Any ideas?

The age split is also interesting. For example it seems like Google has a relatively stronger presence among ages 18-34, while younger people prefer Yahoo.

Of course nothing too definite can be derived from these polls, but i still find these results interesting. Don’t you think?

Not really, but kind of related. I tried to look for any information about the actual population that Facebook surveys, because apparently they are charging for those polls. Of course on the poll help page there is no information about it, except for a disclaimer that Facebook does not verify the statistic validity of their results. However, there is a curious passage regarding the appropriate ways to source data. Here it is:

“When sourcing the results of a poll, cite “Facebook Polling” and not “Facebook” generally. For example, “According to a survey conducted by XYZ on Facebook Polling, 80 percent of respondents…” and, “Facebook Polling users responded that they are more likely to…” are appropriate statements, whereas “According to a Facebook survey…” and, “According to a survey of Facebook users…” are incorrect statements.”

And my question is why saying “according to a survey of facebook users” is an incorrect way to interpret the results? Are they surveying anyone outsede the facebook users database? Am I missing something?