The FTC is mad at the credit reporting company Experian for misleading consumers and luring them away from the government's free annual credit reports in order to get them to subscribe to a $14.95 monthly credit monitoring service. Experian is using classic marketing tactics. The government provides free credit reports at annualcreditreport.com (why not .gov?).  Experian, smelling money, bought a better-named site called freecreditreport.com, and they have been saturating the airwaves with their very popular trio of slackers singing about how they could have avoided ruining their credit if they had only tracked their status on Experian's website.

Now the government is fighting fire with fire. Their video spoofs show a remarkably similar band warning people, as the NY Times story quotes, that: Other sites may turn your head; they say they’re free, don’t be misled. Once you’re in their tangled web, they’ll sell you something else instead. 

Experian knows what they're doing, and refuses to give the FTC their freecreditreport.com domain or to cease and desist. Though they did pay a $1.25 million fine for misleading consumers; small change compared to the money they're making. The other marketing tactic is playing on people's fears. Most of us just don't need regular updates on our credit reports. But messages about identity theft, losing everything we have, etc, trigger us to buy these credit monitoring services.

Lots of people go to Experian's site for free credit reports when they mean to go to the government site, Bottom line is that Experian's marketing is effective and I believe intentionally misleading. But is it right?

There's a new website business called Uplaya by Music Intelligence Solutions with "Hit Song Science" software that predicts what songs will be big hits, then helps with promotion and distribution. The company's CEO sees the algorythm that looks for common patterns of rhythm, harmony, chord progression, length and lyrics, as a way to democratize the music industry, a process he likens to an electronic American ldol (listen to today's NPR interview).

This reminds me of popular singer/songwriter named Michael Bolton who may be best known for singing well-known covers in the 1980s & 90s. Turns out most of his work is original and quite popular, but he was often criticized as a "formula" singer, without much originality. So too are some songwriters critical - or fearful - of an algorythm shaping artistry. It would eliminate innovation and narrow the range of creative possibilities they say. Should artists be driven by what their fans want? Or just sing, write, paint, or create what is in their hearts? My belief is there is a balance. By definition, significant innovation - whether for new products, services, or songs - is something that is hard to evaluate using existing mental templates.

I made the point this way in a Global Marketing seminar I taught last week: Imagine 30 years ago (for a few students, this would have been before they were born... hmm.), someone would have you shown you a small flat box that had a little TV screen and a typewriter built in. They explained to you that with no wires, this "thing" would let you write letters and use spreadsheets, instantly send notes to people anywhere in the world, and just as quickly tap into a worldwide encyclopedia, company directory and shopping network. Could you have even conceived of it? Sure, predictive software is great. And there will always be a place for unscripted creativity that breaks the bounds of what is now known and accepted as good.