I am profoundly saddened by Steve Jobs passing. His vision and unique ability to execute changed the world many times over. Some people say that no one ever truly dies until they are forgotten. I believe that this is true. If it is, Steve will live in the hearts and minds of all of loved and respected him forever.

Steve has been in the new quite a bit these past few days – fitting tributes to a life well lived. I received this email from my friend Bob Lambert, the CEO of LA-based the digital firm, who served for 25 years served as chief technical strategist for The Walt Disney Company and Disney Studios. I was so taken with this writing; I asked Bob if I could share it with you. I don’t think I could say it any better.

Friends,

Oceans of ink will be written about Steve Jobs passing this week, but I wanted to add my own voice and personal comment to this.

I’m saddened by the loss of a brilliant man before it was time for him to go. It was one of the greatest honors of my career to have crossed paths with him serendipitously so many times along the way.

Steve was more Galileo than Edison. His ideas and persistence and vision changed the way we see the world, literally and figuratively.  And, like Galileo’s world, there were both personal and professional bumps in the road, success and tragedy.

Really good technology does not revolve around clever engineers and fast processors; instead, it orbits most successfully around people, and the ability to connect us in simple ways with tools for our everyday lives and our imaginations.

It is with thoughtful, human-centric design that we escape the bounds of overly complicated stuff, bypass frustration, and instead learn, teach, have fun, and connect with people, music, and art in new and inspiring ways. It’s exactly that kind of ideation and innovation, that lets the human spirit soar, and new businesses blossom.

Inventors and entrepreneurs like Steve teach us that a clever idea CAN change the world…or at least a portion of it that we learn to carry in our pocket every day.

I first bumped into Steve at Apple, before the Sculley and Amelio years. At the time, I didn’t “get” the Apple thing. It seemed a loyal band of semi-rabid followers, like the early advocates of Amiga Computers.  We all have a chance to be wrong.

In the late 1980s, Steve came to Disney to evangelize – and that is exactly the right word – NeXT Computers. As the senior-most technology exec at Disney Studios, I set up a meeting with then Disney chiefs Frank Wells, Michael Eisner, and Jeffrey Katzenberg. I watched my career do a perceived-unravel in a small conference room while Steve pounded them with verve combined with vitriol; extolling the virtues of the sleek black cube called NeXT, saying it was simply “idiotic” if people didn’t get the significance.

NeXT was, indeed, packed with a dictionary, business tools, graphics tools, a cool interface, even an encyclopedia – nearly twenty years before anyone heard of “Wikipedia.” Our execs were nonplussed, and America wasn’t quite ready for it, either. Steve only ran NeXT for a couple of years before moving on, though they did make a big sale to a major film producer’s on-lot production division, who found the sleek black cubes fit in nicely with the all-black Hollywood office decor.

Even back then, Steve saw a concept none of the rest of us would visualize until decades later: technology as fashion. You buy your next phone not because it’s packed with new features, but because it’s stylishly new and hip and au courant.

I connected with Steve again years later, when he stepped in to write a big check to re-fund Pixar. In 1986, just as Pixar’s fortunes as a hardware maker (PIC-1 image computers) were dwindling, and years before they set their first film production deal with Disney, Steve saw an opportunity. Just as Disney was about to close a multi-year software development deal with Pixar, Steve become Pixar’s largest investor. The first week of October 1986 – 25 years ago this week – Disney and Pixar signed their first business deal, with Steve’s explicit head-nod to partner with Disney in a new field that would only a few years later garner the two companies an Academy Sci-Tech Award – and, a few years after that, launch a string of some of the most successful and beloved movies of all time.

As poetic justice would have it, almost exactly 20 years after Steve helped enable Pixar’s first efforts, Disney would purchase animation’s new king in a $7.4 billion deal, making Steve the largest single shareholder of the Mouse House, and seating him as a wonderful new one-man brain-trust among Disney’s revamped board of directors. He would soon become one of Disney’s (and the entire media industry’s) most valuable advisors on pioneering new ideas in content, technology, business models, and consumer demand.

He was exhaustingly brilliant in his tireless advocacy of doing the right thing, and took the long view of what consumers, not engineers, really want to do with technology – quite simply, to make lives and careers simpler, easier, and more fun.

I will not be the most eloquent of the people who have something insightful to say about Steve Jobs this week. But, I can say from the heart that he was, and is, an American original; an inventor and marketeer extraordinaire – a little bit Edison, a little bit Tesla, and a dash of P.T. Barnum – all rolled into his own unique style of denim and black turtleneck.

When you see something inventive this week, celebrate it. There’s a little of that Jobs spirit in all of us, insisting there’s always a better way to do things.

Tip your hat to the folks in your world who help make that happen.

Bob Lambert

Lambert is CEO of LA-based the digital firm, and for 25 years served as chief technical strategist for The Walt Disney Company and Disney Studios.

The Obama administration has called for the creation of a Privacy Policy Office to assist in developing an Internet “privacy bill of rights.” The U.S. Commerce Department’s report stopped short of asking directly for privacy legislation. But it is recommending a “framework” to protect people from data collectors.

Just the name of this new office, “Privacy Policy Office,” should be enough to scare any future-thinking marketer half to death. And sadly, there is no reason to be optimistic about what this office might recommend or how the Leadership will respond.

After all, under what circumstances would you think it was OK to be watched? The answer for everyone is going to be, “There are NO circumstances where I would be willing to be watched.” And, if there is a circumstance under which you might agree to be watched, the data collected from whatever behaviors you exhibit will be useless – because people behave differently when they know they are being watched.

And that’s just speaking about real-time/online data. If you were asked, you probably would not agree to have your financial or medical data collected and aggregated. When a credit-reporting agency creates a profile based upon your bill-paying habits, it is really of no benefit to you. You might argue that “good” citizens could be separated from “bad” citizens if such data were to be analyzed … but the reality is that any minor mistake with the handling of that data will almost always inure to your detriment. So why allow it to be used at all. Your data is yours … it is much easier just to say, “no thank you … I prefer my privacy, please.”

Now, the data that online advertising and marketing folks like to aggregate and analyze are data that illustrate how you behave and interact with your connected world: what you watch, what you click, what you don’t click, where you are, who or what you are near, etc. If asked, who, in their right mind, would agree to be watched? I wouldn’t. And, I know it’s perfectly safe … or is it?

Cisco’s Retriever software sits inside of every Scientific Atlanta and Cisco set-top box in the United States. It knows exactly what channel the box is tuned to and for how long. Yes, Cisco (more accurately, your cable television provider) “knows” exactly what you watch. They know it in a way that Nielsen Media Research never will. They know what “you” personally watch. Not people like you, not households, not demographics … you!

If you are watching soft-core porn on Cinemax at 2:00am as opposed to Ice Road Truckers or something on NatGeo … they know. If you have pix-in-pix going with Showtime and Science Channel at the same time … they know.

If you click on an American Express ad on a Turner non-news site, like NASCAR.com and then visit another Turner site like PGA.com, they will show you a follow-up ad. Why? Because … they know.

If you send a Gmail to a friend about fly fishing, then search a few sites on the same subject … they really know!

Who are “they?” At the moment, “they” are a bunch of extremely large log files with aggregated data of millions and millions of users that are parsed by software attempting to figure out how to serve you the most relevant advertising and content. This actually does have a benefit for you and for the businesses that are aggregating the data. You get computer help sorting out the overwhelming amount of information that is available in the Information Age and the businesses get computer help sorting out how to allocate their advertising dollars.

Additionally, you get the benefit of seeing the kind of content that you are most likely to enjoy.

The Administration, the Leadership and every ambitious politician will tell you that all of this comes at a terrible cost. Although, no one can give even one concrete example of how using data to drive relevant content to a consumer has ever hurt anyone in any way. But, why confuse this issue with facts. It’s much easier to spread FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt)!

If you truly spy on people, you will get accurate data. After all, if you don’t know you are being watched, you just do life as it actually happens. On the other hand, if you tell people that they are being “watched,” which is not exactly accurate, but is a great shorthand way to scare the hell out of everyone — they will “act” for whoever is watching. This renders the data all but useless.

“They.” Who ever “they” are? “Watched.” I wonder who is “watching?” These are terribly scary, unfortunate terms that everyone is going to interpret as evil.

The war on data-driven creative and advertising has started. Because this is a complex issue, it is being thrown into the same bucket with the data collectors who want to inform insurance companies that you have a genetic defect and should render you uninsureable.

Because this issue is so complex and, because privacy is such an emotional subject, there is a real danger that the data needs of the advertising and marketing industry will get caught in the crossfire. In fact, there is a real possibility that it will become a target in-and-of itself.

This is a real emergency! It is time for the advertising and marketing business to start to advertise and market itself. The brand brief is simple: Make data-driven content acceptable to the American people and make the politicians look stupid for trying to scare everyone about Big Brother when they should be concentrating on securing our actual privacy. If we don’t get this one right, the data-driven advertising business probably has less than a year to live. Let’s get it right!

What is Net Neutrality? The best definition available is in the sidebar. However, the specifics of the Net Neutrality fight, and the proposed guidelines (which will soon become rules) are all a smoke screen. Let’s talk about how the future is likely to unfold if a reasonable agreement is not reached.

There’s an ongoing battle between Level 3 and Comcast that has found its way into the news. It’s a good example of the kind of issues that are intended consequences of the Net Neutrality debate. Netflix uses Level 3 to deliver its videos to customers. It pays Level 3 for bandwidth. If you are a Comcast customer, you pay Comcast for bandwidth. In theory Level 3 is getting paid and Comcast is getting paid and everything should be fine. However, in order for your Netflix movie to arrive at your Comcast-connected home, the bits have to pass from Level 3 to Comcast. If you’re Comcast, this is an excellent place to put a tollbooth.

Up to now, Level 3 and Comcast have had an arrangement that allowed each company to send bits bidirectionally. The arrangement was made back when both companies sent about the same amount of bits to each other. But now that Level 3 is sending more bits through Comcast than Comcast is sending through Level 3, Comcast wants to be paid. This is the nature of the current battle in its simplest terms. But, like I said, it’s a smoke screen.

Net Neutrality Defined On September 21, 2009, Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Julius Genachowski outlined the concrete actions he believed the Commission would have to take to preserve a free and open Internet. He said, “The Internet is an extraordinary platform for innovation, job creation, investment, and opportunity. It has unleashed the potential of entrepreneurs and enabled the launch and growth of small businesses across America. It is vital that we safeguard the free and open Internet.” The commissioner presented six principles that we might use to craft these new rules: 1) Consumers are entitled to access whatever lawful Internet content they want. 2) Consumers are entitled to run whatever applications and services they want, subject to the needs of law enforcement. 3) Consumers can connect to networks whatever legal devices they want, so long as they do not harm them. 4) Consumers are entitled to competition between networks, applications, services and content providers. 5) Service providers are not allowed to discriminate between applications, services and content outside of reasonable network management. 6) Service providers must be transparent about the network management practices they use. This week the Chairman spun his position a bit. He is now in favor of bandwidth metering to allow Internet service providers to charge based upon actual usage (a “pay for what you actually use” as opposed to an “all you can eat” model).

The cliché description for the public Internet (courtesy of Al Gore) is the “Information Superhighway.” It’s a reasonable metaphor for the way information travels around the Internet. Even engineers like to call bunches of bits getting from place to place, “traffic.”

In the physical travel world, you can get from place to place several different ways. You can walk, ride a bike, take a car, take a bus, take a train or fly. Of course, while some places are only accessible by air, we all know that remote locations very often require us to use multiple modes of transportation. Now, imagine that people are bits.

The physical transportation world also has a fairly well defined class structure. It is segmented with modes of travel that efficiently meet the needs of each constituency – and it is economically segregated. You are about as likely to find an Upper Eastside Socialite in the lounge at the Port Authority bus terminal waiting for a bus to South Carolina, as you are to find a single mother of six on welfare in the Admiral’s Club at JFK Terminal 8 waiting for her first class seat to the Vineyard. It happens, but not often. Most of the time, modes of travel: air, train, bus, car, bike, feet, are a function of economic class, means and emergent need. So, to keep the metaphor going, imagine that Comcast is Cathay Pacific Airlines and Time Warner Cable’s basic broadband service is Amtrak and Verizon’s low-end DSL service is Greyhound.

How would we expect the economic landscape to look in a world where, instead of one Information Superhighway, we’d have web of public and privately owned Information Super Toll Roads? Would we expect people who could only afford Greyhound bus service to do business with companies in Europe or Asia? Would we expect people who could only afford Amtrak train service to compete with people who could deliver merchandise overnight via air? Would organizations that own toll roads make it just a little too expensive to compete with them? Would organizations that own airlines charge competitors for extra bags and bigger seats? Keep asking travel questions, they all apply!

It is hard to be optimistic about a future world where there is a low-powered free and open Internet and a web of private toll roads owned by non-governmental organizations that inherently compete with their customers. The specter of such a world bodes ill for innovation, entrepreneurship and, in some ways, even the doing of digital life.

This line of thinking begs for the question: Will a plurality of Internet under-classes evolve? Want a current day analog? Look at the prepaid mobile phone business. It’s huge, and so unstructured that even the service providers don’t know who is using their products or how they are using them.

Back in the day, phone companies charged us for making calls, but receiving a call was free. This was a function of technology, not desire. As soon as cell phones hit the market, we started paying for time used (bandwidth) both coming and going. What’s happening with Net Neutrality is a fight over exactly the same issue. Now, we pay for the bandwidth we use on one end. If this goes the wrong way, we (you and I) will pay for bandwidth both coming and going. On a personal level, this is not onerous. However, at the enterprise level, if we were to govern America for the best possible GDP (as opposed to governing for corporate profits) it has the potential to be a huge problem.

I am NOT advocating any government involvement with the Internet. I think government has proven that it has no business being in any business. However, this is not a debate you can leave to others. Get your elected officials on the phone. Take a few minutes to learn about the issue. This is the moment that we have to step up and become architects of our digital future. Become part of the solution … America needs you!

Harry called me today. He’s become a loyal viewer of Live Digital, my weekly television show, and he figured he’d email me and ask me if I could send him info about web marketing for his carpet and floor covering company. I wasn’t sure quite what to send him, so we set up a call.

After pleasantries were exchanged, Harry cut to the chase, “Can you get my website to the frontpage of Google?” Really, this is an exact quote. “… the frontpage of Google?” What Harry wanted was obvious, but his choice of words betrayed anything other than superficial knowledge of what he wanted from me.

To be polite, I suggested that before he did the SEO and SEM necessary to accomplish his goals on Google, he might want to think about what his business goals were. He told me that his website was created for him for free by a company that now wants to charge him money, but he thinks they are asking too much.

I told him I thought his website was worth exactly what he paid for it and suggested that he take it down and put up a nice splash page with some pictures of carpeting, the locations of his stores with links to Google maps and his phone number. Then he asked me, “Will that get me to the frontpage of Google?”

At this point I was fascinated with the conversation, so I went into my standard explanation about business goals like, selling more carpet and floor covering. I spoke about conversion metrics and how he might measure the success of his web marketing efforts. Driving foot traffic over the doors of his two retail locations, etc.

“How much will this cost?” asked Harry. I answered, “It won’t cost you anything, it will make you money.” Harry did not understand. We discussed the investment he would need to make in a comprehensive marketing plan for his business and spoke about workflow, execution and the differences between advertising, marketing, sales and public relations. After a ten-minute lesson in 21st century retail marketing, Harry asked me, “Will that get me to the frontpage of Google?”

Finally, I asked him how much he thought he should spend to create a website that would increase his business? “I don’t know,” he answered. “The one I have was free.”

When I reiterated that his free website was probably hurting his retail business rather than helping it, he asked me for some free suggestions that he could implement for free that would … yep, you guessed it … get him to the frontpage of Google.

This is a real conversation that actually took place, I’ve changed the owner’s name, but other than that, this is exactly how it went. Let’s review:

• A retailer with two doors, one in Manhattan and one in Brooklyn.
• A website that was created for him as a promotion by a template-using website company with the hopes that he would eventually pay.
• A business owner with absolutely no clue how advertising, marketing, sales and PR work in the 21st century for local retail businesses in his vertical.
• A business owner with zero aptitude and zero headcount to implement even the simplest technological solution.

This week, I have seen about 20 pitches from companies offering hyper-local and location-based solutions targeting local advertisers. Next week I will probably see 10 more. Hasn’t anyone spoken to Harry?

There is no incremental local retail advertising to be had. The money simply isn’t there. If a local company is big enough advertise, it is already doing it. If it is not big enough to advertise — there’s a reason. The myth of local advertising is that it exists at all. It simply does not.

There is no version of the world where Harry’s business is worth going after, or taking. He will require three times the amount of customer handholding that a customer three times his size would require. He will never spend enough to justify speaking to him. He will torture you for every dollar he is asked to spend, because of how hard he has to personally work to make the dollar in the first place. Harry is a real person with a real business … but he is not a growth opportunity for a technology-driven hyper-local advertising business. Harry is not a growth opportunity for anyone — not even for himself.

You can’t go door-to-door to find lots of Harrys. You can’t afford the customer service. You can’t expect him to use a dashboard without training. It will cost you so much money to acquire Harry as a customer, you could never get an ROI on the customer acquisition cost.

Next time someone brings you a new business model and talks about local advertising as the market, look up a local carpet and floor covering retailer with a couple of doors and $1.5 to $2 million in gross sales. Ask the proprietor about how you can help him, and don’t be surprised if he asks you if your technology can “get him on the frontpage of Google.”