Google Click-to-Call.

November 28, 2005 4:17 PM

GoogleFilter: Introducing Google Click-to-Call. "Here's how it works: When you click the phone icon [on a Google ad], you can enter your phone number. Once you click 'Connect For Free,' Google calls the number you provided. When you pick up, you hear ringing on the other end as Google connects you to the other party. Then, chat away on our dime" (emphasis added). Here are a few screenshots (scroll down), but I can't actually find live examples. The reason being that Google, some say, is "only testing this service in designated areas of the United States." In addition, the Slashdoters have beat us to an insightful convo. Then again, don't most snarky MeFites see Google posts as completely passe. Nonetheless however, I think it is ripe for discussion (especially considering the privacy policy (both big and little) state that a third party will have access to your phone number).
posted by JPowers (36 comments total)

Introducing Google and Apple blog teams.

Here's how it works: It's a concept introduced by Apple and Google that consists of getting naive bloggers to do their marketing work for free.
posted by driveler at 4:25 PM on November 28, 2005

Care to provide evidence, driveler, rather than just insinuating that JPowers is a shill? This is a significant development that deserves discussion.
posted by Tlogmer at 4:30 PM on November 28, 2005

Four of his 18 FPPs have been about Google. Not insinuating anything. Just throwing it out there.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:33 PM on November 28, 2005

Four of his 18 FPPs have been about Google. Not insinuating anything. Just throwing it out there.
posted by solid-one-love at 6:33 PM CST on November 28 [!]

It would be a lot more noble if you just owned up to that you are in fact actually insinuating something, since you wouldn't have made that comment otherwise.
posted by cellphone at 4:35 PM on November 28, 2005

Three ad-hominem comments before anything else is par. In any case, what exactly is this really good for? I guess I don't quite get it.
posted by ScotchLynx at 4:44 PM on November 28, 2005

“don't most snarky MeFites see Google posts as completely passe”

Phhfft. Google. Passe.
*looks about for validation*
*assuages feelings of inadequcy by eating candy bar*

Gosh, I guess I better comment then:
I’m curious if usage means you sign away your rights if you’re on the ‘do not call list’

Phew! I’m not snarky, dude.
*thumbs up*
posted by Smedleyman at 4:45 PM on November 28, 2005

Any word on whether they record the call and make it searchable elsewhere?
posted by fire&wings at 4:46 PM on November 28, 2005

It would be a lot more noble if you just owned up to that you are in fact actually insinuating something, since you wouldn't have made that comment otherwise.

Agreed. You need a refresher on the meaning of insinuation, driveler.

I'm not saying JPowers isn't a shill, but maybe 4 out of 18 FPPs have been about Google because MeFi has a strong bias towards new developments in web technology, and Google has been making more news than anyone else on that front by an order of magnitude. I mean, look at any of the too cool for school, Web 2.0-obsessed blogs and they all have tons of posts about new Google products.
posted by TunnelArmr at 4:47 PM on November 28, 2005

"...especially considering the privacy policy (both big and little) state that a third party will have access to your phone number..."

The exceptions in the main privacy policy seem to contradict the legalese free statement: "Google does not share your telephone number with anyone (without your consent), including the advertiser," in the Click-to-Call FAQ.

The statement in the FAQ seems pretty clear cut and I expect it is something that Google would stand by.
posted by cedar at 5:04 PM on November 28, 2005

JPowers: I'm confused about the part of your post where you worry about Google giving your phone number to a third party. How else is Google going to do it? They are obviously providing service through another company. Perhaps they will buy the company eventually, but until they they need to pass on that info. And they specifically state in the Click to Call privacy policy that "Connectivity for Google Click-to-Call is provided by a third party vendor, subject to this privacy notice and agreement of confidentiality. Neither Google nor our vendor will sell, rent or otherwise share your personal information with any third parties..."

It sounds to me like its Google's normal privacy policy and it applies equally to the company they brought in to provide this service. Of course Google's normal privacy policy is certainly a matter to mull and debate, but this new service doesn't seem to raise any new privacy issues that I see.
posted by afflatus at 5:06 PM on November 28, 2005

“Google adheres to the US Safe Harbor privacy principles”
I should have read more carefully. Ah well.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:06 PM on November 28, 2005

Click-to-call isn't a Google invention. Other companies such as Amazon and AOL use the technology from suppliers such as Ingenio and eStara [July Washington Post article]. Also, Microsoft has something in the works with Teleo to integrate click-to-call into Outlook and IE, but that might just be VoIP.
posted by F Mackenzie at 5:09 PM on November 28, 2005

Interesting... Didn't EBay pay 2.5 billion for Skype, which is essentially the same thing, although in a different form?

Sucks to be Meg Whitman.
posted by SweetJesus at 5:15 PM on November 28, 2005

"It would be a lot more noble if you just owned up to that you are in fact actually insinuating something"

I don't think he's insinuating anything. I think he's being pretty open and up-front about saying JPowers is a shill for Google.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:17 PM on November 28, 2005

Yeah except for the whole "Not insinuating anything. Just throwing it out there." part
posted by cellphone at 5:36 PM on November 28, 2005

It would be a lot more noble if you just owned up to that you are in fact actually insinuating something, since you wouldn't have made that comment otherwise.

Actually, no, I wasn't insinuating anything. I don't think he's a shill. But thanks for the accusatory tone.
posted by solid-one-love at 5:40 PM on November 28, 2005

“don't most snarky MeFites see Google posts as completely passe.”
Sheesh if you are going to snark the entire site, at least use proper punctuation!!
posted by wheelieman at 5:42 PM on November 28, 2005

Does Google need shills? Where do I sign up?
posted by Hildegarde at 5:45 PM on November 28, 2005

Infoworld article on this topic.

Time to upgrade the network...
posted by fluffycreature at 6:00 PM on November 28, 2005

Does Google need shills? Where do I sign up?

Meet me in the secret Google Cave at midnight Hildegarde and I'll see what I can do.
posted by JPowers at 6:06 PM on November 28, 2005

What's in it for me? Pretty much any business I would ever call has a toll-free number, so it's not saving me money. Is it supposed to save me the time of getting the phone and dialing the number? I don't make that many phone calls.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:08 PM on November 28, 2005

OK, I guess it would save me the time of going to the company's web site to get their number (or their web site might not have a contact number).
posted by kirkaracha at 6:10 PM on November 28, 2005

When I worked for Nortel Networks in the mid 90's, I remember them inventing this technology and calling it something like "call button"... can't remember the exact name. Anyone else remember this? We used to keep hitting it at work to annoy the IT department.
posted by krunk at 6:13 PM on November 28, 2005

Oh yeah: Nortel called it the Web Voice Button.
posted by krunk at 6:15 PM on November 28, 2005

Smedleyman, you continue to rock my world. I'll eat a candy bar with you, anytime.
posted by squirrel at 7:50 PM on November 28, 2005

how does one access these internet call thingys ?
i'm completely clueless about the whole thing.
Anyone got any links ?
posted by sgt.serenity at 8:34 PM on November 28, 2005

What's in it for me?

Good question, isn't it? Anyway, JPowers, the issue isn't that Google-related posts are now somehow "passe;" it's that Google's strategy of keeping its stock price inflated by continuing to announce frequent "innovations" (that aren't innovations at all, in many cases) is becoming increasingly obvious over time, and thus stranger and stranger to see anyone get even mildly excited about. Thus the suspicions about shilling, I suppose.

*shrug*

Not that the creaming over every Google press release will stop any time soon, of course. But that part of the company's business plan - attach the Google name to as many new product announcements as possible as often as possible - is well-known enough that any kind of excitement about something like this is really pretty laughable.
posted by mediareport at 9:38 PM on November 28, 2005

Nonetheless however, I think it is ripe for discussion...

Am I missing something here? Um, pass me that crack pipe, junior.
posted by sjvilla79 at 6:29 AM on November 29, 2005

Its called astroturfing, a successful example is this song which made it to the Wikipedia front page.

One does not fight astroturfing by making an a**hat of oneself in blogs. If you care, wait instead until you have real proof, hit the company/government with it, and discredit their future real grassroots support too.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:44 AM on November 29, 2005

For the record, the federal Do Not Call list does not apply to any companies that you have a previous business relationship with (at least in the last six months). So if they interpret the use of their service as a business relationship (which sounds reasonable) they may use your number to contact you to see if you want to use other services they offer. That's why you still receive calls from your credit card companies every day to see if you want non-payment insurance and such. I don't know if Google has a call center or not, but if they don't, it's only a matter of time before they start one up.
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:11 AM on November 29, 2005

Just so I can keep my Wired/Tired list straight, being excited about google is the new Tired, right?

[eyes roll back in head at 88mph]
posted by cavalier at 7:18 AM on November 29, 2005

There's an actual issue in there, cavalier. You could try dealing with it.
posted by mediareport at 10:22 AM on November 29, 2005

While you're condescending me, can you let me know which issue you're referring to? Is it the Click-to-Call, the Privacy issue, the Public Company Must Publish, or something else?
posted by cavalier at 10:47 AM on November 29, 2005

Woops, sorry, missed your original comment. So it's the Public Company Must Publish thing. Damn my predilection for post instead of preview!

Soooo... Google is constantly trying out new tools and excited people are geeking about it.

I think your bag here is that you think that they're doing this to make money or keep the stock price up and that inherently makes their actions suspect or counterfit. That in itself is a little short sighted IMO -- I mean, isn't that what businesses are supposed to do? Make money?

But let's take it back a step. I think your bag is not much of that bag at all, because really, it comes back to the first thing I mentioned -- they're geeking out with new tools and we're geeks here going "Ooh, shiney!" I see no press release on Yahoo or CNN saying 'Click to Call! Google FTW'. I just see geeks saying "ooh, shiney!"
posted by cavalier at 10:54 AM on November 29, 2005

Ooh, shiney

Damn, what a giveaway
posted by Sparx at 6:09 PM on November 29, 2005

Hm. If it bypasses a company's voicemail hell system and gets you to a human being faster, it might actually be useful. Maybe.
posted by keptwench at 6:33 AM on November 30, 2005