Transcribing Other Languages

A while ago, Google acquired a company called Grand Central and renamed its service Google Voice. Similar to gmail, you get a phone number and a voicemail inbox to use as an alternative to your home number.  If there are things that bother you about voice mail, then Google has the solution…almost! At around 18 seconds in they pitch that all voice-mails will be transcribed to text. Sounds great, but what about people who don’t speak English and want to leave voice-messages? No Problem! One of the more unique features is its ability to transcribe incoming voice messages and send them to you via email. But they haven’t nailed it down quite yet. Observe my most recent Voice Mail transcription.

Google Voice Mistake

“Hello thing that I’d get the is it that up about the delivery is scheduled in the good luck with at the demo what they put them on the, but it should take a minute and then and Billy Joel, Jeffrey about the like, 1. Bella lab either. Are you it’s not ok. The new it off. I was down at the same book again. I’m not going to think of them and then I will child. You done or give me that you don’t mind, I Mohammed okay and I’m guessing you’re.”

Want other examples? Check it DennyYunk, JamToday.org, and even some issues with transcribing English.

Fear Not…They’re working on it…I think?

I’m a bit concerned, considering all the hype about Google’s Real-Time Voice Translator. “Google engineers are working on a translator for Google Android smartphones to convert one language into another quickly enough to allow speakers without a common language to communicate with one another in near real time.” (Wired)

Their solution? On the bottom right they have an option that says “Transcript Useful”. When you click on it, it says the following…“Would you like to donate this voicemail to help us improve transcription? Want to help Google’s automated transcription get better? Donated voicemails will be listened to, manually transcribed, and used to improve our transcribing server’s accuracy. They are only used for this purpose.” And as with automatic text translation, what may begin as a fairly primitive technique will, Google hopes, become more sophisticated with the help of millions of users around the world. (DailyMail)

The Long Road Ahead

“It will be some time until we get to use live voice translation — probably in a “few years’ time,” Google’s head of translation services, Franz Och, told The Times. Despite “huge progress recently,” it’s still difficult to recognize various accents, Och explained. (PC World).

I’ve been following them since the days when it was called “Grand Central” and wasn’t owned by Google. My 1st blog (FreeCallReview) was about Free Web Activated VoIP services, I specifically mentioned Grand Central in 2007. That was 3 years ago…and they still have a ways to go.  David Crystal, honorary professor of linguistics at Bangor University, said the problems of dealing with speed of speech and range of accents could prove insurmountable. ‘No system at the moment can handle that properly,’ he added (DailyMail).

——————
PS: Google, if you read this, my goal is simply to see you pay a little more attention to a potential GOLD MINE. Danke!

]]> http://marketingblog.net/2010/04/20/google-voice-translator-fail/feed/ 0 http://marketingblog.net/2010/04/14/how-facebook-pissed-off-my-wife-again/ http://marketingblog.net/2010/04/14/how-facebook-pissed-off-my-wife-again/#comments Wed, 14 Apr 2010 20:45:49 +0000 Joshua Russak http://marketingblog.net/?p=1633 Seriously guys? Facebook’s last attempt at advertising pissed off my wife. I specifically told them: “Facebook, thanks to you my wife is unhappy…and if my wife is unhappy, then I’m unhappy. Fix this!” At least in that case, there was some idiot developer to complain about…but in this case, I’m having trouble figuring out who is to blame.

For an average individual to be offended by facebook is rare, but for someone like my wife (I love you), who spends more time on Facebook than with me, it’s easily possible. In fact, she spends more time on Facebook than most people spend  working at their day job (probably because they’re on facebook too!).

What Did Facebook Do To Piss Her Off?

Having only been married for less than a year, my wife was simply doing what any newlywed would do…try to see what it’ll be like to have a kid with her new last name (Russak). She picks the name “Layla Zehava Russak” (…solid choice if I may say so). As protocol, she decides to see if there was anyone on Facebook with the name already.

She enters in the search and find her result: Uncle-Semit.com’s Shitler’s List Vol. 18…

Facebook Anti-Semitic Search Result

I didn’t believe it myself, but there it was…a Bing! generated result that couldn’t have been any more irrelevant and offensive.

Freedom of Speech Applies To The Internet…

Now I’m facing a huge dilemma. My wife is pissed off at Facebook for offending her, while I’m trying to figure out how this happened and if it can be stopped from happening again. And the answer is simply “No!”.  The right to freedom of speech is recognized as a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and recognized in international human rights law in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). International, national and regional standards recognise that freedom of speech, as one form of freedom of expression, applies to any medium, including the Internet.

Unfortunately, it seems as if search engines are not allowed to censor information in the US as it’s integral to upholding the idea of “Free-Speech”. As a result, Facebook using Bing! search results means anything goes.

…But It Still Pissed Off My Wife!

Whether or not it’s legal…doesn’t make a difference to my wife. It still pissed her off. And as I stated in my last article, “Facebook, thanks to you my wife is unhappy…and if my wife is unhappy, then I’m unhappy.” Yet another week on the couch. I should write an article “How Facebook Ruined My Sex Life” (…though they do have a Facebook group here)

In this case, Facebook may claim “Freedom of Speech”, but here’s the issue. Bing! is only a last result for when a Search Result can’t be located. Facebook needs to get smarter about the results Bing! pulls up. Otherwise, one day a child is going to try and find a name that doesn’t exist and  get XXX related search results instead.

Thanks a lot Facebook.

I was watching my wife browse her Facebook and out of nowhere an ad populated the top of her screen. Pushing her profile an uncomfortable 70 pixels down, there was now an ad for Showtime offering $25 cash back if you sign up now. …WHAT THE F*CK?

Facebook Advertising On Top Of Page

At first I couldn’t believe my eyes. I went ahead and researched how long this has been going. You know what I found? NOTHING! Not one article about Facebook banner ads located at the top of the page. In fact, I went to the Facebook advertising section and this is what it said:

“Your ad cannot include any image with dimensions greater than 110 pixels wide x 80 pixels tall and should have an aspect ratio of 4:3 or 16:9.” (Source)

This ad was 566+ pixels wide…which seems to be in direct contradiction with what it says above. So where did it come from and what’s their pricing model?

Horrible Advertising…

I don’t like where this is going. It has been reported that Facebook could generate between $1 billion and $1.1 billion in revenue this year, according to Mashable. Everyone says “they need to monetize”? Well try and monetize without invading our personal space. And NURSE JACKIE? Come onnnnn!!! Oh, and now it’s serving up ads for NASCAR. Unfortunately I missed that one, but here’s the most recent one: An provocative ad for Evony, a browser-based multiplayer online game with graphic elements reminiscent of Civilization…

…where the heck did they get the idea that my wife likes Nurse Jackie, Nascar and Evony? This is just entertaining.

My Wife Is Unhappy!

Somebody goofed over at corporate. I hope you don’t loose your job over this, but I’m in my 1st year of marriage. Facebook, thanks to you my wife is unhappy…and if my wife is unhappy, then I’m unhappy. Fix this!

I’ve never been more excited for a US Census…EVER! They’re doing a perfect job of marketing to our generation. This television ad is part of the U.S. Census Bureau’s national advertising campaign to boost mail participation rates in the once-a-decade population count. For every percentage point increase in the 2010 Census mail-back participation rate, the Census Bureau saves about $85 million in follow-up costs with households that failed to return their forms. The advertising campaign represents the most extensive and diverse outreach campaign in U.S. history, with advertisements appearing in 28 languages

The 2010 census is the most ambitious count ever of the nation’s population. Did you know that a census is required every 10 years by the U.S. Constitution’s Article 1, Section 2? I didn’t, (but that doesn’t say much)!

What Peaked My Interest?

I was still a bit weary and un-interested, but at this point, I not only felt obligated…I was actually excited! And then I got this letter…

…I couldn’t help but think “Woah, I’m actually excited to fill out this census!” Can’t speak for anyone else, but assume other people felt the same way.

Use of The Internet/Viral Campaign

The commercials went viral and their web-presence was growing, but how effective was it overall? Their YouTube campaign (Youtube.com/user/uscensusbureau) was helpful, though their channel has only received 100,000 views. That’s less than “David After Dentist” which has over 54,000,000+ views on that 1 video alone. It doesn’t imply anything about our country, but for something this important, I feel they should have had more views. STILL…they deserve credit for Blogging, Tweeting, Newsletters and more. They’ve done everything possible to reach us and make us interested, now it’s time to do our part…

For more information, visit 2010.census.gov.

Lady Gaga Goes Super-Viral…

According to Viral Video Chart: It was Discovered 12 Mar 2010, have been 15,683,005 views, 3,910 blog posts (+ this one),  and 9,588 tweets. All of that in a matter of 3 DAYS!!! It seems to be slowing down. (Slowing down in this case is going from Super-Viral to simply Viral, which by any standard, is still amazing!)

Gaga Will Sell Your Product!

Want your product noticed? Have Lady Gaga promote it and I guarantee you’ll see results! This 10 minute video plugs at least 10 separate brands: Virgin Mobile, Diet Coke, Polaroid, Wonder Bread and more…! And not only that…SHE MAKES THEM SEXY! Next time I see Wonder Bread, I’m going to think of this video and Gaga 1/2 naked with star patches for a bra. “The corporatisation of pop seems to have reached a different order of magnitude with Telephone, and I can’t help thinking it fundamentally alters the relationship between pop star and fan.” (Guardian – UK)

Is Lady Gaga Too Sexy For TV?

Despite the prison fights, lesbian kissing, 90% nudity and mass murders, according to CBS-News, “the video for the Lady Gaga-Beyonce collaboration “Telephone” has not been banned by the music television channel, despite previous reports that they would not air the clip.” The rumors that it wouldn’t be on MTV resulted from a “segment that aired on CNN on Sunday in which reporters Fredricka Whitfield and Jacqui Jeras discuss the video — which at press time has been viewed more than 14 million times on YouTube since its release late Thursday — and say that MTV had banned the clip.” (MTV.com) There is no proof of this on the CNN site, but you can find the original clip on MediaIte.com.

In Conclusion:

I would encourage all pop-stars to try and take their videos Super-Viral, but leave the product placement at home. Otherwise, the future of music will be one giant glorified set of commercials. There needs to be a distinction set now, before that ‘fine-line’ is broken. Now stop reading this article and watch the video if you haven’t already: Lady Gaga – Telephone Music Video Premiere

So here I am on YouTube…trying to watch an Awesome Drum Solo by Dave Weckl…and this Ad pops up out of nowhere. Now it would have been okay if it was for a pair of drum-sticks, maybe a Dave Weckl CD. BUT NO! Instead, I get an Ad for “Plenty of Singles Over 40″. And as the mother-cherry on top of it all…THERE’S A SPELLING ERROR!! I quote: “Met Older More Sincere Singles“. Either they’re speaking in past-tense or someone over at MatureSingles is about to get fired.

Take Revenge On Bad Ads: CLICK AWAY!!

So now what? You see a bad ad, you post about it on your blog…what’s next? I’ve seen countless blogs continue talking about bad advertising, but none take a stand. I’m sorry, but I can’t let them get away with this. I CALL ON YOU…THE PEOPLE….TO GO TO THAT YOUTUBE VIDEO AND CLICK THAT AD!!! That’s right…CLICK IT! Here’s the link: Dave Weckl Drum Solo w/ Bad Advertising. They can’t get mad at me…I’m promoting their ad They should be thanking me.

For those of you who are confused, let me explain how this works: Those ad’s you see on YouTube are being paid for by the advertiser. Every time you click that ad, they have to pay Google. Well, if they pay Google for clicks, yet nobody is signing up for their site, the logical decision will be to take down that ad and try somewhere else.

If the ad’s not there…then we’ve done our job and they’ve either run out of money or finally realized: “Placing that ad there was a poor decision!”

Conclusion: If You See A Bad Ad…

If you ever see a poorly placed ad…click it! Make them “pay” for it, literally. Just to show you how serious I am, I just set up a HootSuite account so I can get this blog-post in front of as many eyes as I can. I can’t stand bad advertising and hopefully some of you out there will agree with me.

Axe has officially stepped up their marketing efforts…it’s a whole new ball-game! (…Ignore the pun) Their new slogan: “There’s no nook or cranny that the Axe Detailer can’t reach”.

The best part of this video, a truly touching moment (get your mind out of the gutter)…where they help shine up Mr. Hackerman’s dirty old balls.

Hooray for 2009! 2010 is looking hopeful, but before I jump into the new year…I want to reflect! Time Magazine has an incredible “Best and Worst” lists, among which I discovered this years final blog post….

The 50 Best Websites of 2009

(…besides MarketingBlog.NET)

Clear out your bookmarks. You’re going to need the space for 50 offerings that are indispensable to navigating, enjoying yourself, shopping or just killing time on the Web.

1. Flickr
2. California Coastline
3. Delicious
4. Metafilter
5. popurls
6. Twitter
7. Skype
8. Boing Boing
9. Academic Earth
10. OpenTable
11. Google
12. YouTube
13. Wolfram|Alpha
14. Hulu
15. Vimeo
16. Fora TV
17. Craiglook
18. Shop Goodwill
19. Amazon
20. Kayak
21. Netflix
22. Etsy
23. PropertyShark.com
24. Redfin
25. Wikipedia
26. Internet Archive
27. Kiva
28. ConsumerSearch
29. Metacritic
30. Pollster
31. Facebook
32. Pandora and Last.fm
33. Musicovery
34. Spotify
35. Supercook
36. Yelp
37. Visuwords
38. CouchSurfing
39. BabyNameWizard.com’s NameVoyager
40. Mint
41. TripIt
42. Aardvark
43. drop.io
44. Issuu
45. Photosynth
46. OMGPOP
47. WorldWideTelescope
48. Fonolo
49. Get High Now
50. Know Your Meme

*Original Article Found Here: http://www.time.com

What Happened?

Today I was invited to join the Twitter Retweet Beta Group. Twitter just told me that I’d be “part of a beta group receiving this feature, which means [I] may start seeing retweets in a new way. People who don’t ave this yet will see your retweets prefaced by “RT”.” Naturally, I feel special, but is it really worth all the hype?

Is Twitter Trying to Kill Off 3rd Party Tools?

Twitter can’t seem to keep up, technologically, with the 3rd party tools (TweetDeck, Seesmic, UberTwitter, etc) that support it. Like the suckerfish Remora (what, you don’t watch discovery channel?), these 3rd party apps depend on Twitter, but it looks like Twitter is making attempts to break away.

This little Twitter.com feature places the ability to retweet (essentially, repost) any tweet right inside Twitter’s Web-based interface. Up until now, you had to use a third-party tool, such as TweetDeck, for one-click retweets. This is an obvious attempt to drive away the need for 3rd party tools. “Twitter’s execs are obviously working to get people out of these third-party tools and back onto the parent site by providing many of the features once only found elsewhere.” (PCMag)

Twitter also has another “method” of taking down the suckerfish (aka: 3rd party apps). “Currently, retweets that are executed via the Twitter web “retweet link” are visible to your followers who are using the web interface to read your tweets but are not visible to popular third party clients. [...] In other words, third party applications may not have had a chance to integrate the new API. [...] If most of your followers read your tweets using third party desktop clients, this “bug” could have a serious impact on your personal retweet rate in the short-term.” (Flip The Media)

Pro’s vs Con’s?

PRO: It’s good to see Twitter making attempts at improving it’s technology. Always a good sign for a company that see’s well over 20MM+ unique visits a month (compete.com).

CON: The downside for this new tool? You can’t edit the ReTweet. This leaves room for authenticity, but lacks the creativity your follows may crave.

In Conclusion…

Yea, it’s a stretch to make such claims, but it’s working…for now.  It seems everybody has their own opinion about this new feature, but at the end of the day, I find it foolish that everyone is ripping Twitter about this. It’s a game of survival…Twitter has easily one the battle of “popular social networks”. What we don’t know is who will survive the war and be around in 10 years to talk about it.

File-sharing put a dent in the music industry, blogs/online publishers is shutting down print publishing and sooner or later, Hollywood will face the same scare. They are “headed for the same meat grinder that has chewed up the recorded music sector and print publishing.” ( Greg Sandoval, CNET.com).  Is this true? Can it be? It makes perfect sense….

I read this shockingly alarming article on CNET and felt it was 100% necessary to re-post and spread the word.

End of the world as Hollywood knows it

To: Charlize Theron, Hugh Jackman, Seth Rogen, Tina Fey, Steven Spielberg, Michael Mann, every actor, actress, screenwriter, costumer, best boy, cameraman, set designer, makeup artist, and agent–plus anyone else who makes their living in the film industry.
From: Greg Sandoval, CNET media reporter and film fan.
Re: Your livelihood

October 20, 2009 4:15 AM PDT – Cut your spending. Save your money. Many of the revenue streams that have gushed into your industry for decades, some for nearly a century, are about to dry up. This will likely mean a period of belt tightening like you’ve never seen before.

The end is coming for DVDs, traditional movie rentals, and yes, much of your cable money will likely disappear.

The news isn’t entirely bad; you still have iTunes and Netflix–places where people spend money to buy or rent movies. You still have Hulu, Crackle.com, and YouTube, which are generating ad revenue by streaming full-length films and TV shows online. But the reality is that the amount of money that these legal operations generate is far less than the returns your industry is used to making. Unless some dramatic technological breakthrough occurs that can defeat file sharing, then you are staring at checkmate. Your business is headed for the same meat grinder that has chewed up the recorded music sector and print publishing. What will come out the other side is still uncertain but will likely be much smaller.

I’m sure many of you will write this off as the apocalyptic rantings of Silicon Valley propeller heads. But I urge you to pay attention to recent events.

Over the past five days I’ve been in Los Angeles talking to entertainment attorneys, studio executives, and some of the tech vendors who do business with the studios. I’ve been covering the sector three years now and I’ve never seen people in the film industry so dejected. DVD sales are falling, the number upcoming film releases is expected to drop. Some big shots have even acknowledged the bleak situation in public. The past weekend, at a conference on the USC campus, Disney CEO Bob Iger said the “business model that formed the motion picture business…is changing profoundly before our eyes.”

Iger warned that studios must make profound changes, “or you will no longer have a business.”

Earlier this month, Francis Ford Coppola, the director of “The Godfather” said at the Beirut Film Festival that “the cinema as we know it is falling apart.” He also predicted several of the studios would go out of business.

Of course, not all of your industry’s problems were caused by the Web. Hollywood has paid creators handsomely over the years and costs have skyrocketed. Then there’s the problem with Blu-ray. Iger noted that consumers aren’t upgrading their DVD collections with Blu-ray discs to the degree that the industry had hoped.

But if you’re really inclined to wag a finger, there is nothing disrupting your business more than the Internet. The MPAA has worked hard to force file-sharing sites out of business or push them to the Web’s fringes. At first, the studios tried to kill file sharing with lawsuits. Then they hired security firms, such as MediaDefender and MediaSentry, which promised to discourage file sharers by blocking or slowing the sharing process. None of that worked.

Maybe that’s one reason the MPAA overhauled its “antipiracy” operations three weeks ago. CNET reported on Friday that the studios’ trade group decided to change the name of the “antipiracy” unit to “content protection” and fired three leaders, including the MPAA’s general counsel.

And now, snatching a pirated film or TV show doesn’t require knowledge of torrents. There are scores of sites that stream movies and TV shows over the Web and a viewer doesn’t have to actually download the movie to their hard drive. I spoke to someone at the studios last week who said these sites are tougher to fight because they can crop up anywhere and many are based overseas. Often, said the source, “We don’t know where they are.”

What is happening is that the consumption of unauthorized content appears to be moving out of dorm rooms and into the living rooms of average Americans. Here is what you’re up against:

A 28-year-old woman I’ll call Alexandra (she asked for anonymity) grew up in Missouri, graduated from college, attends church every Sunday, and told me that she watches episodes of the hit cable show “Mad Men” at least twice a week at Surfthechannel.com, a site that hosts links to many unauthorized clips. She gleefully said that visitors can find almost any TV show they want and not pay a dime.

Alexandra said a friend told her about Surfthechannel.com a year or two ago and she watches shows there because she doesn’t want to pay for a cable subscription, or a TV and because it’s so easy.

She explained that she is not a bad person and that “everybody is doing this.” She says one of her professors told her “he and his wife sit at home on the weekends and enjoyed movies they downloaded (illegally) off the Web.”

I ask her if she has tried Hulu, the popular video site created by News Corp. and NBC Universal. The site offers a few feature films and lots of TV shows free to viewers and pays for them by serving ads. She said she had visited Hulu but added that “there’s more of the stuff I want at Surfthechannel.com.”

Alexandra’s statements about Hulu come at a time when the site’s backers are mulling whether to build a pay wall around some of its content. Alexandra and people like her aren’t even accepting Hollywood’s offer of free content because unauthorized sites offer better selection.

What do you think will happen if Hulu begins charging?

Don’t get me wrong. I understand that the returns at Hulu are probably much smaller than what the studios are accustomed to getting. There’s also the problem of growing dissatisfaction among the cable operators. How long will they continue to pay big bucks if more of their customers dump their subscriptions in favor of sites such as Hulu? Leaving a business that generated billions for one that makes far less would be hard for anyone.

But the possibility that studio chiefs must consider is what if the money offered by iTunes, Hulu, and Netflix is all that a digitally ravaged media world offers.

Eric Garland, CEO of Big Champagne, a company that tracks file-sharing usage and sells the data to the studios and major record labels said: “Hulu may be doing immediate harm to elements of your business, but waiting right behind Hulu in the shadows, are things that do so much more harm.”