That one business owner is making a choice that software developers, newpaper chains, school text book publishers and many other fields are going to have to make in the next year – which camp are they going to join in the Internet’s cold war.

As the web matures, we’re seeing four big empires develop – Google, Apple, Facebook and Amazon which are going to demand organisations and consumers make a choice on who they will align with.

That decision is going to be painful for a lot of business; each empire is going to take a cut in one way or another with Apple’s iStore charges being the most obvious.

For those who choose to go the non-aligned path – develop in HTML5 and other open web standards things will be rocky and sometimes tough. At least those on the open net won’t have to contend with a “business partner” whose objectives may often be different to their own.

Over time, we’ll see the winners and losers but for the moment businesses, particularly big corporations and publishers should have no doubt that the choices they make today on things as seemingly trivial things like reader comments may have serious ramifications in a few years time.

Consumers aren’t immune from this either; those purchases through iTunes, Amazon or Google are often locked to that service for a reason.

Probably the development that we should watch closest right now is Apple’s push into education publishing; those governments, universities and schools that lock into the iPad platform are making a commitment on behalf of tax payers, faculty and students that will affect all of them for many years.

For many, it might be worthwhile hedging the bets and sticking to open standards. A decision to join one or two of the big Internet empires is something that shouldn’t be made lightly.

In The Information Diet, Clay A. Johnson builds the case for being more selective in what we read, watch and listen to. In it, Clay describes how we have reached the stage of intellectual obesity, what constitutes a poor diet and suggests strategies to improve the quality of the information we consume.

The Information Diet is based upon a simple premise, that just as balanced food diet is important for physical health so too is a diverse intake of news and information necessary for a healthy understanding of the world.

Clay A. Johnson came to this view after seeing a protestor holding up a placard reading “Keep your government hands off my Medicare.” Could an unbalanced information diet cause a kind of intellectual obesity that warps otherwise intelligent peoples’ perspectives?

The analogy is well explored by Clay as he looks at how we can go about creating a form of “infoveganism” that favours selecting information that comes as close from the source as possible

Just as fast food replaces fibre and nutrients with fat, sugars and salt to appeal to our tastes, media organisations process information to appeal to our own perceived biases and beliefs.

Clay doesn’t just accuse the right wing of politics in this – he is as scathing of those who consider the DailyKos, Huffington Post or Keith Olbermann as their primary sources as those who do likewise with Fox News or Bill O’Reilly.

The rise of opinion driven media – something that pre-dates the web – has been because the industrial production of processed information is quicker and more profitable that the higher cost, slower alternatives; which is the same reason for the rise of the fast food industry.

For society, this has meant our political discourse has become flabbier as voters base decisions and opinions upon information that has had the facts and reality processed out of it in an attempt to attract eyeballs and paying advertisers.

In many ways, Clay has identified the fundamental problem facing mass media today; as the advertising driven model requires viewers’ and readers’ attention, producers and editors are forced to become more sensationalist and selective. This in turn is damaging the credibility of these outlets.

Unspoken in Clay’s book is the challenge for traditional media –their processing of information has long since stopped adding value and now strips out the useful data, at best dumbing down the news into a “he said, she said” argument and at worse deliberately distorting events to attract an audience.

While traditional media is suffering from its own “filter failure”, the new media information empires of Google, Facebook, Apple and Amazon are developing even stronger feedback loops as our own friends on social media filter the news rather than a newsroom editor or producer.

As our primary sources of information have become more filtered and processed, societal and political structures have themselves become flabby and obese. Clay describes how the skills required to be elected in such a system almost certainly exclude those best suited to lead a diverse democracy and economy.

Clay’s strategies for improving the quality of the information we consume are basic, obvious and clever. The book is a valuable look at how we can equip ourselves to deal with the flood of data we call have to deal with every day.

Probably the most important message from The Information Diet is that we need to identify our biases, challenge our beliefs and look outside the boxes we’ve chosen for ourselves. Doing that will help us deal with the opportunities of the 21^st Century.

Clay A. Johnson’s The Information Diet is published by O’Reilly. A complimentary copy was provided as part of the publisher’s blogger review program.

Bringing the idea undone is the unfortunate reality that web is awash with free pointless material that adds little value. Your contribution, however valuable, gets lost in the static of PR driven articles and SEO optimised fluff.

This is why Google are trying to tie social recommendations into their search results, although it’s hard to see how your cousin’s LOLCat posts are going to add any more value than the generic garbage served from services like eHow.

Yet every day there’s more callouts for  free content – desperate journalists and publishers beg for our ideas or labor in return for some ‘exposure’.

And that ‘exposure’ floats away into the ocean of noise and irrelevance filled with the rest of the ‘free’ content.

Giving stuff away for free isn’t working well anymore and for those of us who are trying to build a business around that model, we’re struggling to get found or heard in the morass.

Along with the wasted time, the danger is we start giving away our best, most valuable work in order to get attention and then we have nothing left to sell.

Consumers are waking up to this and beginning to focus about what they read online. We should too.

As nebulous and ambiguous as Phone Dog’s claim seems to be it appears some price is being created on the business value of social media users.

To date we’ve seen services like Empire Avenue, Klout and Kred try to measure social media users’ real influence on the different web platforms which in turn allows businesses to allocate some sort of value.

As social media and the web mature, we’ll see businesses spend more time understand where the value lies online.

Each platform is going to have a different value to a business. Depending on the market, one person may be worth more on Twitter than on Facebook and similarly a business may put more value on members of a specific LinkedIn group or industry forum.

What we shouldn’t confuse “value” with is how the services themselves make money. For Facebook, the value comes from the marketing opportunities presented by people sharing their lives while for LinkedIn it’s largely coming from employment related advertising and search.

Other social media platforms are finding other ways to make money and each will have a different attraction to users, businesses and advertisers. All of which will affect their perceived value.

That perceived value is the most important part of social media. If users don’t think a site adds something to their lives, then that service has no value to anyone.

It’s tempting to think that people will object to having a “value” placed on their heads as users, but most folk understand the commercial TV and radio that does pretty much the same thing.

The real question of how much people are prepared to share online will come when they understand the value of the data they are giving the social media platforms. When users start to understand this, they may ask for more service from these companies.

What a Twitter user is worth right now is probably different to what they will be worth this time next year, but there’s no doubt we’ll all have a better idea.

The second edition of the Social Media Benchmarking Study, a joint release by Sydney online consultants Community Engine and the research company Nielson, illustrated how things have changed over the last two years.

One of the clear conclusions from the study is how businesses are developing the ways to determine benefits of their social media activity with near halving of the number of organisations citing lack of measurable return on investment as a reason for not engaging online.

A barrier that is increasing is the perception that businesses don’t have the time or resources required for which is probably business owners and managers realising that maintaining a Facebook Page, Twitter account or blog isn’t easy.

Time is the scarcest asset for any business that gets more precious with smaller organisation. Even large corporates and government departments struggle with finding the resources necessary to run effective online presences.

One of the tragedies of social media is how it’s been identified as a marketing tool and in this survey with over half the respondents stated they are going primarily use the tools as a marketing channel rather than in customer support, recruitment, research or product development.

This is probably why the perception that social media is a time sink comes from. As purely marketing tools social media is time consuming and difficult. A challenge made greater by the fact we’re all still figuring out how to effectively connect with customers in what is a hostile place to more traditional broadcast based marketing methods.

Given social media is being used primarily as a marketing tool by business, it’s no surprise that the survey found larger corporations are the biggest users as they have the marketing budgets to allocate.

An interesting aspect with big business’ social media investment is how much it’s focused on Facebook. On one level this is understandable as a Facebook “like” is easy to set up and becomes a very simple measurement to follow, although the challenge still lies in converting a low friction click on a Like button into a useful customer or advocate.

What is surprising with corporate Australia’s adoption of Facebook is the apparent lack of understanding of the platform’s terms and conditions and the business risks involved. Again this is probably part of the collective learning curve.

Possibly because of those risks, public sector use is static. We can expect this given as social media is being pushed as a marketing tool which isn’t a priority many government agencies, are you going to skip registering your car because the motor registry doesn’t have a “like” button on their web page?

This liberation from being obsessed with marketing and sales is probably why the public sector is using social media a more creatively as collaborative and research tools where many of these services do an extremely good job.

Many businesses, particularly smaller organizations, believe social media doesn’t fit their objectives. A terrific quote from an SME accountant is “I run a business, not a chat show”.

That attitude’s fine as social media – like pretty well everything else in the business world – is a tool to be used the best way you see fit, just because some businesses don’t need a hammer but that doesn’t mean hammers aren’t useful.

Although when that tool is fairly new, as social media is, it’s probably best to have a play with it and see where if can help your business.

The Social Media Benchmarking Study is a useful survey that shows where businesses are using these tools and how effective they are finding them. It’s going to be interesting to see the field evolves as we all get to understand social media as both consumers and business owners.

Joe would advertise in local papers and you could spot his ads by the line “all our technicians are qualified computer programmers”, which is a nonsense slogan like a landscape gardener claiming all her labourers are civil engineering graduates, but it was an effective catchphrase in a market that didn’t know better.

After a while the local community would start wise up to Joe and his “computer programmers” and when the complaints and fair trading investigations mounted, he’d change his business name, move to another suburb or town and the cycle would start again.

I was reminded of Joe at the City of Sydney’s discussion on the connected consumer at the latest Lets Talk Business seminar last week and wondered how he’d survive in today’s markets where people are quick to go online and criticize.

Dealing with criticism has always been big businesses’ Achilles heel; bureaucracies have a tendency to protect themselves and when there’s managerial or team bonuses at stake there’s strong incentive to ignore the concerns of customers.

A good example of this Vodafone where the chief executive, Nigel Dews, has been open in admitting the company failed to listen to their customers as their network failed to meet the demands placed upon it.

While the network itself was buckling under the strain, the company spent millions on sponsorship and advertising effectively trying to drown the criticism under a wave of tightly controlled good news stories, promotions and competitions.

It didn’t work, just as Facebook’s PR agency Burson-Marsteller failed dismally in planting an anti-Google story, which saw the two organisations not only busted but also descend into an unseemly argument with their client while frantically deleting Facebook posts.

All of these actions – deleting social media comments, ignoring customer complaints and attempting to distract critics with pictures of pretty girls and racing cars – smack of the old way of doing business in an era where tightly controlled mass media was the only channel complaints could be heard. Those times ended with the arrival of the Internet.

At the Lets Talk Business event one of the panellists, Jody Fox of Sydney’s Shoes of Prey described how her business is engaging with customers online and discussing any concerns openly on the Facebook page, not deleting them.

This is the new reality of business, if you don’t listen and engage with upset clients or ­– even worse – try to control their comments on your sites, you’ll only get them angrier and they’ll go elsewhere to tell their stories.

Another striking difference between the new and old business was Jody’s point was that shoes of Prey treats customer service as a marketing expense, not a separate cost centre. In most large organisations helping paying customers is treated as an unnecessary expense that should be outsourced and minimised as much as possible.

This sort of works when you have a licensed oligopoly like telecoms or banks but fails dismally in competitive industries. Without purchasers there are no shareholder returns and eventually no executive bonuses.

Ignoring customers worked nicely in the era of mass media when it was difficult for upset clients to be heard above an expensive marketing campaign; Vodafone, Burson-Marsteller and even governments are finding it doesn’t work today.

Joe the computer technician would have understood this, if he’s still doing dodgy IT support then he’ll be watching the Facebook pages, Twitter feeds and blogs for bad news.

Somehow though I suspect he’s no longer in computer repairs though, my guess he’s making a lot more money in social media or search engine optimisation these days.

Two recent examples of this are a PC Repair business on Queensland’s Sunshine Coast and a bar on the Gold Coast, there’s no links to the businesses in this post as the intention isn’t to trash their brands any  further.

Customer service is always a tough business and the Gold Coast bar their blogger, who bills themselves a “jaded bar worker” and is obviously one of the younger members of the staff, recently wrote a post on customer “whining”. Some of the whines include;

• asking to change the music
• wanting a drink in a different glass, or with less ice
• preferring a decent head on a beer (referred to as “foam” in the post)
• asking for a table to be cleared
• complaining about a wobbly table

While all of those customer requests can be irritating, and sometimes unreasonable, there’d be little sympathy for the bar staff dealing with these complaints from any hospitality professional or a customer expecting any standard of service.

It appears the blog’s intent is to be a local, chatty version of the successful Waiterrant blog whose author, Steve Dublanica, chronicled the adventures of New York waiter. Waiterrant was good for Steve’s brand, but would have been disastrous for some of the restaurants he worked at.

Steve got around this problem by remaining anonymous until he landed a book deal – always a bad sign for a blogger – along with never identifying the establishments he served at.

While whining about customers is a necessary pressure relief for anyone serving the public, it’s not a good idea to do it publicly unless a particular patron has done something spectacularly rude or stupid. Asking to clear a table or for less ice in their drink does not qualify as even being unreasonable.

By just moaning about the typical day to day work that most of us have to deal with, this blog is not helping the bar’s brand. They might want to consider shutting it down or getting a more senior person to write or edit it.

A little further North on the Sunshine Coast, a local computer tech has built a successful YouTube channel with 20,000 subscribers based around his rough, Aussie larrikin persona featuring some very, very robust language and views.

With eight million views, the YouTube channel is doing well, but as an advert for the business it doesn’t portray his outlet in a particularly positive way and as the video clips become more popular, the damage to the shop’s brand becomes greater – along with the risks given he’s already had one legal threat against him .

Online channels give us the opportunity to get our businesses before the world but with every opportunity comes a risk. When we post a blog, video or tweet online the entire world can see what we’ve said.

Understand those risks – and they are very real – and be careful with what you post and which staff members you trust to post on your business’ behalf. What might have once just upset a few people can now turn the market against you.

Groupon’s CEO, Andrew Mason, even went as far as to declare his organisation the “saviour of small business” on the Charlie Rose show.

John Battelle, founder of The Industry Standard and co-founding editor of Wired, examines Groupon’s business model on his Searchblog and concludes it will be the small business platform for the mobile Internet just as Google are to the web and Yellow Pages were to the telephone.

The problem with these ideas is scale. If every small business had the capacity and wanted to be on Groupon, the service simply couldn’t cope and the model breaks down.

In my area there are, according to the Yellow Pages, 115 hairdressers in my district. Even if Groupon were able to geographically target me to my neighbourhood, they’d need a third of the year just to cover hair stylists which is tough luck for the lawn mowing services, plumbers, patisseries and other small businesses that may also want to advertise on Groupon.

Which takes us to customer motivation, when I’m looking for a haircut, hedge clipping, cleared drain or chocolate gateaux I’m not particular driven by finding a bargain – if I do that’s great – but it’s not my motivation to buy.

Groupon, and the other deal of the day sites, are driven by customers looking for discounts, and the key to business survival – particularly in retail – is not to depend on discounts to drive your business. So business models that rely on discount hungry customers, or cashflow desperate merchants, are always going to be limited.

Groupon is a great business and it may well turn out to be worth $6 billion or even $36 billion. The barriers to entry are not so low as anyone who thinks executing an idea like this is “easy” doesn’t understand the work involved in building a local sales team like those of Groupon or Yellow Pages.

It could well be that Google wanted to buy Groupon simply for that sales team. The failure of Google to properly execute on their terrific local search product has baffled me for some time and the only explanation I can put down to it is what Silicon Alley Insider’s Ron Burk attributes to Cash Cow Disease, where companies like Google and Microsoft find themselves paralysed by the rivers of cash flowing into their businesses.

Deal of the day sites have an important role to play for businesses looking at demand management or clearing inventory and Groupon is a good business just like Clipper Magazine or Shop-A-Dockets, but to claim they are going to be the next great revolution for small business is giving too much importance to these channels.

There’s no doubt though that small businesses will be the big winner when we get local search on the web right. When we get it right we’ll probably see the hyperlocalisation model for the media start to take off as well. So it could save two industries.

Groupon though is not the small business messiah we’re looking for.

We’re seeing four companies striving to control great parts of the Internet economy; Google in the search market, Facebook for social media, Amazon in e-commerce and Apple in mobility.

Of the four, Apple seems to be the furthest along this path as the iTunes store coupled with the market take up of iPad, iPhone and iPod combination are beginning to dominate the mobile device segment of the Internet.

This is illustrated by two stories in recent days; the first is News Corporation’s deal to develop a dedicated iPad “newspaper” and the other Robert Scoble’s description of how Application developers are increasingly focused on the Apple platform.

The telling part of Scoble’s story is where he speculates how the tech media could be being rendered irrelevant by Apple’s control of the iTunes store, he goes on to say;

“Do app developers need the press anymore?

They tell me yes, but not for the reason you might think.

What’s the reason? Well, they suspect that Apple’s team is watching the press for which apps get discussed and hyped up.”

Scoble’s article is interesting how Apple’s dominance of the distribution chain allows them to bypass other media channels; why go to Facebook or Google, let alone your local newpaper to find out what the hottest new apps are?

Even more fascinating is how Apple’s control of its distribution channels ties in with its dominant hardware platform, this is the online equivalent to one company owning the paper mill, the presses, the trucks and the news stands then forcing every magazine and newspaper publisher to work them.

It’s instructive that despite the real risk that Apple could end dictating all terms to those who rely on iTunes as their publishing platform, newspaper publishers are locking themselves onto this world. This is despite the publishers spending the last two decades shoring up profitability by reducing margins to their news sellers and delivery agents.

Despite these risks, News Corporation isn’t holding back after Rupert Murdoch described the iPad as “a fantastic invention”, across the empire various outlets are promoting their iPad applications, including the New York Post, London Sun and the Sydney Daily Telegraph.

It will be very interesting to see how this alliance between an old and a new media empire will turn out.

Meanwhile the new empires are jostling each other where they meet, Google’s latest spat with Facebook over data is just one of many skirmishes and we can expect to see many more as the big four explore the boundaries of their businesses.

The real question for us is how do we see ourselves working with these empires. Will we reject them, or will we accept that doing business with Facebook, Google, Apple and Amazon is the easiest way of getting on with our online lives?

If it’s the latter then we’ll have seen the old gatekeepers of the media, retail and communications simply replaced by new, bigger toll collectors.

A common factor in many of our communication channels in the last fifty years has been how we, as a group, have been prepared to trade something personal in return for a cheap service.

Broadcast media’s model offers us free or – in the case of newspapers, magazines and Pay TV – subsidised news, sport and entertainment in return for shrill or intrusive commercials that usually wastes our time.

Similarly with social media tools, in return for a free and easy way to find friends and relatives, we trade our privacy for targeted online advertising which can be so precise a commercial can be designed just for one individual.

The social media advertising model is on many levels a great idea, it cuts out irrelevant messages to the consumer and for the advertiser it’s more effective than the “throw it against the wall and see what sticks” methods of the broadcast advertising world.

A weakness in social media advertising in that it relies on users being prepared to trade away their privacy. Until now, all of us have been fairly relaxed about this despite the evidence mounting that giving away all our privacy and access to our networks often has costs to our reputations and friendships.

That cost can be great,  with the worst case seeing people lose jobs, friendships or even their liberty for something that they, or one of their friends, thought was quite innocent.

Under the old trade off, we could turn off the TV or not buy a magazine if we found the advertising too distracting or offensive. With new media we can’t recover our privacy once it’s been given away.

As we begin to understand the nature of our connected society and the values of our online reputations, we’ll expect a better price for our privacy. The challenge for platforms like Facebook and other social media tools over the next few years will be to convince us that these trade offs and potential risks are worthwhile for the benefits they offer.