And the friendliness extended both ways — if you go to the White House transcript of the event, search for the word “privacy.” Not a mention. Same with “FTC” and “user.” “Social” only brings up mentions of Social Security and the social compact (OMG! That’s such a socialist idea!).

In the last year several congressmen have stuck their nose into the social network’s privacy hiccoughs, even sending Facebook letters demanding answers to questions about its privacy policy. In response, Facebook has discovered the power the almighty dollar holds over our nation’s capital.

Today TechCrunch reports that Facebook spent $230,000 on government lobbying efforts in the first quarter of 2011, which is more than half of the $350,000 the company spent during the whole of 2010 and about five times as much as it spent in the first quarter of last year.

Of course, that lobbying money is still a drop in the bucket compared to the $5.16 billion Google spent on lobbying in 2010, but Google has a lot more areas of interest than Facebook. While the social network wants avoid the legislative pen of any would-be online privacy champions, Google is mired in anti-trust muck, privacy issues and whatever else can be hurled at it.

However, it seems Zuck has won over the biggest man in DC — maybe we’ll catch Obama roaming the Rose Garden wearing the hoodie Zuck gave him with “Facebook” emblazoned on the back.

Are you paying attention Larry Page? Maybe you should invite Obama to a dinner date with Google cofounder Sergey Brin. OK, I’m just suggesting that because I’d love to see a play/movie called ”My Dinner With Sergey.”

Oracle Corporation announced today an agreement to acquire Sun Microsystems for $9.50 per share in cash, or about $7.4 billion total. The deal comes after IBM-Sun talks fell apart. (WSJ)

Google’s search robot will finally be crawling its way to your TV. (TeeVee)

Eyeing diners, restaurants take to Twitter. (Reuters)

Techcrunch says bloggers should stop doing what it basically does, trash startups in a heartbeat. (Techcrunch)

WPP has filed a lawsuit against Spot Runner, the self-service ad creator, securities fraud and breach of contract. (SIA)

President Obama named Aneesh Chopra, currently Virginia’s secretary of technology, the U.S.’s first chief technology officer. (Video below)

In the case of Presidential politics, it turns out that, Obama the majority of the wealthiest Americans went against their stereotypical voting habits and voted for Obama even though he explicitly stated his desire to raise their taxes. As the WSJ reports, it will be interesting to see how that support holds-up especially as the ”theoretical tax pain” becomes closer to reality.

The president’s plan includes a high federal income tax for those earning more than $250,000, a lower rate at which they can deduct mortgage interest payments, and paying more in capital gains. This proposed tax pain, set to take effect in 2011, doesn’t include the in office tax decisions which look to have a potentially retroactive impact on certain employees of the already crippled financial community.

Watching the battle unfold on Capitol Hill reminds us a little of the similar struggle that occurs within our industry. A majority of wealthy Americans voted for Obama, theoretically supporting his vision to have them shoulder an increased burden for bailing out the rest of the country, but that doesn’t mean he has their support when it comes time to enact those ideals. Sounds to us not much different from those in the performance marketing community who talk about a cleaner space and doing right by the consumer, but when the rules change limiting how marketers can promote products, i.e., when people start seeing it more difficult to make money, the conversation starts to take a different tone. We all know it is the right thing to do, but the consequences of it are so much more demanding than it seems in theory. Yet, if it seems like those in our industry have it tough, just think about trying to solve the problems of the nation. Look at median income as a starting point.

From 2000 to 2007, an economic period encompassing the recovery from the tech bubble bursting, median income among households headed by those under 65 fell by $1,951 (as reported in Obama’s 2009 budget), the first such time this has happened since World War II. In other words, according to the budget, existing government policies made inequities in income distribution worse. As written in the opening lines of the budget, “There’s nothing wrong with making money, but there is something wrong when we allow the playing field to be tilted so far in the favor of so few.”

Taken together, these points make for a compelling case that America as we know it needs a little fixing, that the system doesn’t hold true to the ideals which have made this country so popular for others in the past hundred years. Given that the data points to too few making too much, or put another way, too many not seeing their earnings grow enough, the question naturally focuses on how to create a more level playing field where all can succeed. Hard to think of anyone who would disagree with equality in success, but forced distribution of wealth might not be the answer. Our suggestion is a simple one; the wealthy must reinvest, much like people with certain real estate gains who when moving must buy or pay fees. That at least offers choice, which even when faced between two unattractive choices makes the decision more palatable.

Compounding the current situation is a second problem. The rich don’t feel so rich anymore and the younger, non-rich, could easily end up feeling more distrust in “the system” along with building resentment towards those with money. No one does well in an environment full of resentment, and it is even more problematic when each side resents the other – the wealthy feel resentment towards having their money go towards programs they don’t believe in and those who have experienced their own wealth degradation who not only resent the “have’s” but who also don’t trust the system in which they live. In other words, both sides feel the same emotion but for different reasons. Most of the haves have lived through challenging economic times before and deep down have some confidence that the system will restore itself.

The same cannot be said for those who are experiencing a lagging economy for the first time. Says Joseph Brusuelas, economist at Moody’s Economy.com and reported in the Journal, “I worry we’ve lost a generation of investors, which will make it much more difficult to fuel the expansion in the corporate sector necessary to dig our way out of this.” It’s a good point, especially if this is your first experience with the market. Why put your good money to work after bad money? What assurances or reasons have the market given you given for you to trust it? Needless to say, this isn’t an enviable problem to solve.

For those who remember the tech-bubble bursting, it is perhaps hard to believe that the market could do a related nose dive so few years after recovering. This past week, the financial sector celebrated a not so proud milestone, losing more in value than tech stocks did from 2000 to 2002. It unfortunately shows just how ephemeral the gains were, built not out of principle but hype, just as the tech stock valuations were years ago.

The real loss, as mentioned above, though comes from the longer lasting impact the financial collapse has, not so much on the markets, but mentally; it leaves an emotional scar. And, unlike the tech sector where the gains felt too good to be true, those in the financial sector were too complex to really know whether we should doubt them. While many of the loans to people seemed suspect, few would have expected the financial institutions to leverage themselves so completely that our entire system would find itself teetering on the brink of existence. It’s no wonder that we are left with no constituents truly happy.

The rich resent their burden (many have thought about relocating outside the States) and those not technically rich feel just as disenfranchised albeit with fewer options but plenty of blame. The true audacity of hope in this case is not getting stuck in the rhetoric of hope.

Courtesy of the DM Confidential editor

– Express your opinion, comment below.

“I thought we were moving past paying back campaign favors with key positions. I thought we were changing the world.

Transparency doesn’t mean appointing your supporters so they can continue building their brand by plugging in familiar connectivity. Tools like Google-owned and advertising-supported YouTube and Google Moderator are already being tossed around as cornerstones of your administration’s communication strategy.

Just because the committee to elect you effectively exploited the consuming public’s fascination with Google doesn’t mean Google should be the alpha and omega of your talent search.

I encourage you to look beyond the monolithic information access society we’re building and do the right thing when it comes to listening to the people. Public servants genuinely interested in change shouldn’t hold financial interests in the companies they choose to utilize as communication platforms. I believe we used to call that a conflict of interest.”

Read the whole thing:

– Express your opinion, comment below.

His campaign fully utilized the Internet for fund raising, communications, as a key component to what was arguably one of the most successful campaigns (as measured by the popular vote and Electoral College totals) of the last few decades. During the transition, the president-elect has not only made use of well-established technologies like You Tube to communicate with the American public, but he has made clear his intention to make a real and substantive commitment to nurturing the growth of technology and innovation by announcing his intention to appoint a national CTO.

But perhaps the most impressive aspect of Obama’s embrace of technology has been his use of mobile technology, which has not just been limited to his beloved Blackberry. His campaign’s use of the mobile Internet demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of the power of the mobile medium that many in both the technology and marketing worlds have not yet fully grasped.

This embrace of mobile has continued after his Election Day victory—leading up to the inauguration, in fact, the Obama transition team sent emails to supporters encouraging them to send text messages to get information about inaugural events, both in D.C. and in their local area (in case you’re interested, you can text OPEN to 56333). But the Obama team’s embrace of mobile marketing began long before his election, with what can only be described as a brilliantly executed mobile campaign.

Capitalizing on the buzz generated by the lead-up to his vice-presidential running mate pick, the Obama team asked supporters, and those who were simply curious, to text a short code message to the campaign, with the promise that they would be the first to find out the name of the running mate—via text message, of course.

As a result, the campaign collected millions of mobile phone numbers (according to an official statement)—a rousing success by any measure—while continuing to solicit phone numbers through its other campaign activities. According to Nielsen Mobile, the announcement via text message was the single largest mobile marketing event ever, with more than 2.9 million text messages sent. But this was just the tip of the iceberg.

The campaign didn’t stop at text messaging, although that was perhaps the most striking example of its embrace of mobile. The Obama team also put together a mobile Internet site. And notably, the campaign supplemented that with an iPhone “Obama” application—to the almost audible applause of techies—where iPhone and iPod Touch users could have one-button access to campaign information, volunteer, and donate time or money, among other things.

Unlike collecting lists of email addresses, landline phone numbers or the old standard—direct mail marketing, or PC-based Internet marketing, the mobile Internet is perhaps the most effective way of connecting with new supporters (or customers) and keeping in touch.

For one thing, mobile technologies like text messaging and the mobile web represent an immediate call to action—avoiding the need to boot up a PC and often even eliminating the need for log-ins or other impediments to successful engagement. Mobile also represents a personal, nearly instant, way to reach people since most people carry their phone with them all the time, and consider it an integral part of their daily lives.

Finally, the Obama campaign’s mobile strategy is an example of the fact that collecting mobile numbers and information via smart marketing tactics is instantly opt-in, avoiding many of the pitfalls of traditional email or direct marketing—most notably privacy concerns and incorrect email addresses or phone numbers.

The Obama campaign’s mobile marketing tactics allowed it to capitalize on the energy generated at campaign events—with mobile providing a perfect channel for motivated attendees to instantly connect with the campaign via the mobile Internet. They even implored attendees to text message three acquaintances directly from campaign events to encourage family and friends to join the Obama movement. Once it had collected millions of active mobile numbers during and after the running mate announcement, the campaign continued to use text messages and its other mobile Internet properties to fundraise, mobilize volunteers, and alert supporters about events in their local areas—even solicit Red Cross donations for victims of hurricane Ike.

And perhaps most importantly, the campaign used its mobile Internet presence to activate supporters on Election Day, reminding them to vote and to encourage friends and family to do the same.

So, as Barack Obama takes the presidential oath of office, it is likely that most marketers and advertising executives will not be thinking (too much at least) about what lessons they can learn from his campaign. However, when it comes to its use of mobile technology, there are many potential takeaways from the Obama approach. If nothing else, the Obama campaign showed, for all to see, that mobile marketing works.

There are numerous examples that corroborate this assertion, but the Obama example may be the most striking and, no doubt, the most well-documented and transparent. The mobile Internet strategy didn’t win the election, but it helped mobilize supporters with unprecedented effectiveness and tapped into word of mouth and buzz, and the ability to capitalize on that buzz.

For the most part, the tactics employed by the Obama campaign’s mobile strategists can be easily translated to business. But, as I’ve always said, success marketing on the mobile Internet takes experimentation and innovative thinking. It’s about finding the right mix of techniques and tactics.

For the Obama campaign, text messaging combined with an easily navigable mobile web site supported by mobile banner advertisements was most effective. For most brands, the best mix will likely ultimately be a mobile Internet site with traffic driven by mobile banner ads. But one thing is for sure—mobile marketing works—just ask President Obama.

– Express your opinion, comment below.

Others do it, but news video has been slow in utilizing the technique. The site’s video player will let you search the transcript of a video to locate a specific passage. You can highlight the text on the transcript and the player will automatically play that portion of the video. Viewers can clip that snippet of video and transfer it elsewhere.

My question is how is this going to bring them money? It’s like tivo. How are you going to sell ads against it? Product placement? (kidding). Obviously online video watching is burgeoning, with 75 percent of users watch online videos, with predictions that it will rise to 88 percent in 2012. Video advertising had a 245 percent increase in the first half of 2008, at $345 million, compared to the first half of 2007.

Users viewed 12.7 billion online videos during November 2008, up more than one-third over November 2007, according to comScore Video Metrix. ComScore said more than 146 million watched an average of 87 videos per viewer in November 2008, 77 percent of US Internet users.

– Express your opinion, comment below.

The Democrat-sponsored plan gives $650 million to digital-television transfers, which apparently was going broke, and includes $20 billion in proposed spending for health information technology. The proposal also includes $6 billion for broadband.

Legislators, telecom companies and advocates pushed for increasing the availability and building greater quality high-speed Web access in the U.S. (I was surprised to find that the US slipped to 15th from 4th place since 2001 in broadband penetration). Cable companies wanted tax breaks, which they didn’t get, and subsidies to push into underserved areas, cutting costs and expanding user base.

The Telecommunications Industry Association wanted a $25 billion grant program. But some is better than none.

– Express your opinion, comment below.

The top 20 cable and telephone providers in the US signed up 1.3 million new high-speed Internet subscribers in the third quarter of 2008, according to the Leichtman Research Group. Cable companies have 36.5 million broadband subscribers, and telephone companies have about 30.2 million subscribers. Legislators, telecom companies and advocates are pushing for increasing the availability and building greater quality high-speed web access in the U.S already, including asking for some $25 billion as part of the president-elect’s stimulus package.

“Over the past two quarters the top cable providers accounted for 71% of the net broadband additions… cable’s recent success… is more a function of the telcos’ shift in focus towards higher value subscribers while cable has been… marketing broadband as part of its nearly ubiquitously available Triple Play bundles,” said Bruce Leichtman, president and principal analyst for LRG, Inc.

Now tax breaks and subsidies, and maybe some altruistic reasons, are a big reason for advocates to push for government aid to speed broadband. But if broadband is already expanding because of consumers tastes, does it need taxpayer support?

– Express your opinion, comment below.

“(This) will be a year of continued fragmentation in the digital space. Technologies will provide consumers with increased control over the content they receive and force marketers to work harder and smarter to engage consumers with relevant messages where, when and how they wish to receive them.

The ascent of the digerati-empowered Obama administration would suggest a period of rocketing investment in the digital investment led by the government. But, the impact of the worst economy since the Great Depression will have a major balancing effect, curbing experimentation in deference to the known in order to make it through these times.

Indeed, between the election and the economic meltdown, fall 2008 was a kind of fracture point – setting in motion a dynamic “push me, pull you” tension for 2009 with digital right at the middle. We’ll examine these two events, and how they will effect the digital space moving forward.

The Election

Like Kennedy before him, President-elect Barack Obama understands the power of technology. The Obama campaign leveraged text messaging, web based fund raising and online organization in an unprecedented way that was a decisive factor in his victory. By appointing a CTO, President-elect Obama created a role that has never before existed in the White House administration. The CTO will be in charge of updating and maintaining the “E-Government” by exploring emerging technologies, upgrading technological infrastructure, improving federal agency communication, and finding overarching solutions to federal or general technological obstacles.

So what does this mean for 2009? It means federal money is going to be heavily invested into digital infrastructure projects. Call it the New Digital Deal. Digital jobs will be created by this overhaul, from job postings in advertising to content management.

In additional to new positions, there are new regulations on the horizon. Case in point, President-elect Obama has mentioned regulating direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharma advertisements, as well as requiring pharma companies to report advertising expenses to the SEC. At this time, it is unlikely that pharmaceutical advertisers will be adversely affected by this new administration. Even if these regulations change the nature of DTC marketing, it will likely favor digital marketing investment, given the opt-in nature of the channel and recognizing that audiences are already in an information seeking mindset. But, they are regulations to be aware of, nonetheless.

The Recession

At the same time, the recession will have wide-ranging impact on the digital space. Companies will focus on projects with greater ROI potential. Profitability, now more important than ever, will need to be proven quantitatively and digital analytics experts will be increasingly sought after to help companies measure and understand where money should be allotted.

However, we’re unlikely to see the kind of costly experimentation that can lead to breakthrough innovations and entirely new technologies. The answer to this innovation question may be found, surprisingly, in Wall Street. Jobs will be scarce in the financial sector, driving a lot of former financial advisers to tangential careers in engineering and technology sectors, spurring investment and excitement in these areas.

In an effort to do more with less, new forms of digital advertising will encourage consumer participation and deliver direct communication through virals, CPC ads, or streaming content. As a result, there will be more interaction between businesses, clients, and consumers to redefine what marketing is. The brand emphasis will shift from “parent” (“You must buy this, you must go here…”) to “friend” (“Check this out, you might like this…”), creating a greater emphasis on user generated content and company voice.

The attention to the bottom line will push companies to explore more closely numerous existing underutilized technologies in order to more effectively reach their consumers, though the channel though.

Overall, these two overarching trends will play a major roll in 2009. Their influence will trickle down into more specific areas of digital marketing, from social networking to mobile marketing. How these specific areas will take shape is best saved for a future article… and another look into an even more fractured crystal ball.”

– Express your opinion, comment below.

Courtesy of Reuters.com.

Steve Gorman is a reporter for Reuters.com.