Knowing that’s probably not going to happen in our working lifetimes, what’s the next step?

Great article and really thought-provoking. My experience is actually the opposite – if we give marketers the ability to tell a story (ie, control cadence and placement), it opens the door for engagement that we haven’t been able to do online except in tightly controlled environment (like a sponsorship with a specific publisher). To your example about Starbucks… is there anybody out there who doesn’t know about Starbucks yet? It’s going to take a really creative ad to get response and increase the brand impact. Why aren’t they running funny ads to people surfing from inside the store saying Hey! Go get a refill! and then when you get home it flips and says… mmmm Starbucks brewed at home. (Obviously I’m a tech guy not a creative guy, but you get the idea).

Brian

How is what Google is doing different than what a photojournalist has been doing for years for the NYT, AP, etc. when they shoot editorial photography for a story? They don’t ask for your permission when capturing that “content” to tell a story. It’s presumed that what’s out in a public domain (in the case of the photographer, anything in what’s designated as “public” space) is fair game, accounting for few exceptions. And those photos help sell stories. In the case of Google, they have access to what’s in the ether of the entire Web. Unlike Napster whose model circumvented an expectation of payment (for music), it seems as if Google had no such obstacle of perception around permission or compensation to explicitly overcome. Rather ingenious business model.

Carla
@carlainsf

The Telcos also have something to offer. Direct access to their network and billing system. A better idea would be for them to first reach out to the developers to help them leverage their advantages.