The World Economic Forum starts next week, and the conference is inviting the participants, the blogosphere, and the public to join in the conversation.

The Davos Conversation website includes feeds from the BBC, Huffington Post, the Guardian’s Comment is Free, and Buzzmachine as well as inviting bloggers to participate.

The organizers are inviting interactivity on an unprecedented scale. Event organizers are asking bloggers to tag their posts about the event with the "davos07" tag to make it easy to aggregate content from all over the world. This is a great idea for organizing commentary in one location.

I'm writing about this on a marketing website because the model could work for industry events where marketers want to gain maximum attention and participation. The idea of virtual trade shows has been tried before, but I'm talking about adding the interactive component to industry gatherings of national interest that can't accommodate all who would like to attend.

I realize that selling conference tapes and registration fees are big business, but if companies want to reach the widest possible audience, they can do so virtually. Most people would prefer to attend in person to get face time with partners and potential customers (and get a company paid trip away from home) because being there is best.

When you have a CES or Macworld or industry event going on, organizing bloggers and the press will magnify the impact of a product announcement. Many events put white papers online, but keeping the online world in mind when organizing an event will magnify the exposure.

There will always be private meetings and discussions that are better kept under wraps. But opening the doors to potential customers is always a good thing.

Marketing to cell phones could be one of the biggest platforms for the coming decade, as long as the communications are valuable and unique.

Powderhorn Ski Resort employs text message marketing to offer exclusive pricing on slow ski days, to promote upcoming events and to let skiers know when new powder is falling. The company says it is easier and less expensive than direct mail and email, and unlike email, enables connecting with customers no matter where they are.

Gerry Purdy, an analyst for Frost and Sullivan calls it "the most important medium for advertising in the 21st century," according to the Salem News.

The paper cites an effective example -- gas station chain Meijer, which alerts customers before they are about to raise prices and offering them a four-hour window to fill up.

This is marketing done right, because the last thing people want is the equivalent of spam on their cell phones. The offers need to be exclusive and time sensitive, and the most appropriate industries include real estate and ticket exchanges, where timing is everything.

Mr. Purdy may be exaggerating the importance of text message marketing, but it will be a factor when done right.

The websites of the major 4 networks now attract millions of viewers per week, so it's time to monetize.

According to Nielsen//NetRatings, ABC and NBC both attract more than 10 million unique visitors per month, and ABC has streamed videos of its programming to nearly one third of them (per MediaPost).

While the broadcasters are using some streaming ads it is time for them to embrace their community of viewers by collecting data and enabling them to interact with unique content. Providing behind the scenes clips or exclusive previews would be enough to encourage many people to register, and that demographic data could be used to extract higher CPMs from advertisers.

Why should GM advertise it's pickup trucks to 78 year old grandmothers when an Advil ad would be more appropriate? Hopefully the ad agencies have recognized that online ads against TV content have the potential to be more valuable than their TV buys.

Adding social networking capabilities and the ability to manipulate content (as CBS has pledged could multiply their web traffic by three or fourfold. Just as the newspaper industry has embraced their online entities as revenue generators, so should TV.

Microsoft is developing technology to make online and large video screen ads interactive. The company introduced a tool for advertisers to develop in-video hyperlinks so that products can be highlighted and clicked on for more information.

It may take a while for people to get used to interacting with ads, so there needs to be some education involved. Advertisers will have to accent the videos (perhaps pausing the content to make it easy to click) until consumers get the idea. Online is a better bet than TV to succeed at interactivity.

Microsoft also is working on technology to add comments within videos, which may have some application for advertisers. The "social video sharing" encourages forwarding videos with comments attached to make viral videos even more interesting. Users would be able to choose whether to view comments from the public or a private group.

This could be an effective method of tracking responses to advertisements as long as some filtering capabilities are included to weed out the profanity and rubbish that some people will feel compelled to offer.

Microsoft is also working on an adSense competitor, and is releasing APIs so that advertisers can access demographic and performance data to better manager their keywords.

The video display technology would enable people to interact with a screen through hand gestures. Theoretically video billboards would watch to see what people actions and respond differently depending on what they do. An interesting idea that is probably years away.

From a resource standpoint there is no reason why Microsoft can't stay at least on par with Google in search and advertising technology. For now public opinion is with Google, which will be hard to change even if MS would pull ahead. Having a better solution for advertisers doesn't matter if you don't have an audience.

Once again Google lays down what most are saying is a whippin on others trying to get into the contextual ads business. With the much anticipated update to the Adsense policy, Google has attempted to beat down other contextual ad companies by implementing some new rules for its publishers. A few weeks after the announcement on the Adsense blog that it is now against TOS to use images next to ads, the inevitable Adsense policy update has happened. Jensense has the best breakdown of the entire policy and Darren has some interesting points of view from the publisher side but no one asks the important question:

What does this mean for me?

Ok, the important question is really, what does this mean for you the advertiser, you the publisher, and you the affiliate? The short answer, nothing. We all know Google loves splogs so the effect this will have on most of us is minimal. While these policies seem like a step in the right direction, unfortunately Google's fists of furry are merely an illusion. Google's content network is so littered with splogs, scraper sites, spam, and other forms of junk that violate Adsense policies but there seems to be an unwritten rule here; If you make Google enough money, they will turn a blind eye to you. While there are some extreme cases where Google drops the banhammer on sites to make an example of them, if you have ever tried to report a scraper site for a violation or stealing your content, the hoops they make you jump through would impress Siegfried and Roy.

So while people around the blogosphere will talk about the impact the changes will have on you and me, keep in mind, that unless this is the rare time where Google really wants to do the right thing, rather than the profit inflating thing, you and I will be just fine the way we are.

During the Internet boom we were promised interactive television where we could shop or socialize through our TVs. And like waiting for Godot, that hasn't really happened, but we are inching closer.

VideoClix has upgraded its software that enables consumers to click on something on screen and be linked to the Web to purchase the item. The technology could work with DVDs that are watched on a computer, or through interactive TV. This could provide even more money to video and television production companies as an "enhanced DVD" feature, with some product information on the DVD.

Interactive TV through Microsoft and AOL tried and failed, but I'm surprised that with the resurgence of social media there hasn't been more of a renewed interest. Through broadband-connected cable boxes, it would be easy enough to load a browser that wraps around the main screen to add shopping, an IM window, or more information about what is being presented, such as the historical context PBS show.

The browser could be turned off and on so that consumers could chat online while watching Lost with friends, or just watch the program. You could forward links to an item you saw on TV so that your friends could buy the same sweater or bag.

Comcast, Time Warner, etc could take the lead and find advertisers that can work with companies such as VideoClix to put the software in their boxes.

Found via ClickZ.

Local television and radio stations and newspapers are banding together to get a bigger piece of the national advertising budgets.

Ad networks MediaSpan and Broadcast Interactive Media are joining forces to expand their attractiveness to national advertisers. Together the companies provide ads for more than 1,300 media properties. They will use geotargeting and cull demographic information to give national retailers access to consumers based on where they live and what they like.

Meanwhile the three largest newspapers -- Gannett, McClatchy, and the Tribune Company are reportedly considering forming their own ad network with the same purpose of getting better access to national accounts.

So if you haven't seen enough ads for Target, Volvo and KFC on TV or driving down the road, you'll now get to see more of them on your local paper's website. While this might increase the revenue for the newspapers that have been hurting, it might also squeeze out the small retailers who are trying to be discovered online. If the CPM goes up across the board, then Joe's Mattress Warehouse might have to go to second-tier local properties.

Advertising network MIVA added the ability to link to ads from within text content as part of a new "Monetization Center" platform. MIVA is packaging the inline ads (ala Intellitext) with keyword based advertisements that run alongside the content or as part of search results so that publishers can mix and match the ads that surround their content.

Publishers who want to experiment with multiple ad formats can work with a single network, which certainly simplifies billing. Personally I've never found the linking within text to be very relevant, and is usually more of a distraction as a reader as windows jump out at you as you move your cursor around.

MIVA also offers pay per call ads, so they could create some truly unique bundles. The company will have to keep on track of click frauders as being able to use a variety of ads on your site increases the possibility of accelerating the fraud.

Evan made some very interesting points in his Blockbuster versus Netflix comparison.

I hadn't heard of Redbox before, and being able to rent movies for $1 a night at many locations is cost effective and convenient. Let's hope enough people forget to return the DVDs on times so that the business model makes sense.

Netflix would be wise to consider this typed of arrangement, and they could save a ton on shipping by allowing people to return movies centrally instead of paying the postal service for each disc.

But the new Netflix download service will probably put more of a hurting on MovieLink and CinemaNow than Blockbuster. Having a subscription model for a download service is smart and will tempt a lot of consumers.

Here's the real killer app -- a subscription service for downloading movies that can be easily watched on the TV. NetFlix could team with Sling Media so that people could rent the PC-to-TV boxes as part of their subscription service, sort of like what Comcast et al do with their DVR services. For $24.99 a month you can keep 3 movies at a time in your queue, and never have to leave home or worry about late fees. Watch for Comcast to do this straight to the computer with a video on demand counterpart.

By offering a few thousand movies -- much more than any physical store could hold -- Netflix would have something for everyone and put Blockbuster to shame.

Speaking of Redbox, one of the new DVDs is the first four hours of "24" which ran for the last two nights. Renting the DVD for a buck is much better than Fox trying to sell them for $15 each. If you are a hard core fan, you've probably already watched, TiVoed, or taped it. Fox would have been much smarter to make it available for download online, but then again, they hate the Internets.

I was reading TechCrunch's post on Netflix's new download service and while I think its a great idea, I don't think it is the right partnership to counter the Blockbuster online + brick and mortar system. Don't fret, I have the solution Netflix is looking for; Redbox. Redbox is a new video rental company you may have seen in your local grocery store, Wal-Greens or McDonald's, but if you haven't seen them think soda machine meets DVD rentals.

Redbox partners with local retail outlets which allows them to put their automated DVD rental kiosks in high traffic prominent places. These kiosks allow you to slide a credit card, type in your email address on the touch screen, select your movie from 100 or so and for $1 per night (24hrs) the machine will spit out a DVD in nice plastic case and you are on your way. A receipt is automatically emailed to you and next time you return, all you do is slide your credit card and pick your movie. Its amazingly simple and relatively quick. Its perfect for people like me who are Netflix subscribers, want a movie that night, and don't live close to a Blockbuster. In fact, the ones in my area are widely popular.

While I think I'll like the Netflix download service, it is quite limiting and I believe that it is not the counter to Blockbusters' rent online with the exchange in store option. How many people are going to sit around their computer on Friday night and watch a movie? Very few of us. At least until the home media center is widely adopted and TVs can be easily utilized. A partnership with Microsofts's Xbox360 would have been nice. But if Netflix were to acquire or partner with a company like Redbox, (I'm sure they could integrate the two systems), I think it would be the nail in Blockbusters' coffin.

Here's an example of turning lemons in mouthwash. SecurityPoint Media received approval from the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) to start selling ads on the tables and walls in the areas surrounding airport security checkpoints, according to MediaPost.

Some of the ad revenue will go to the local airports, which might be a good thing if it improves security or the facilities. But I'm not sure that as an advertiser, I want my product or service associated with taking off one's shoes and be frustrated in a long line. The connection between smelly, tired people and personal inconvenience isn't one that most companies would want.

The airport waiting areas are game for more creative advertising solutions. How about free VOIP phones from Vonage after you watch a few messages? Ad supported TV programming like they have in many supermarkets? Free "light" version of BusinessWeek or People magazine to cure boredom? You have a captive audience that is there for long periods of time, and I'm amazed that there hasn't been more advertising penetration.

Just a thought -- maybe Disney should use this idea and sell ads inside the queues of its rides.

I have been advertising with CitySearch via its Click to Call service for several months, and during the past two months have been told by potential customers that they weren't able to reach me using the phone number listed on CitySearch.

After several weeks of no response to my calls to CitySearch, I finally heard back from someone who said that the company is indeed having a technical problem with their CtC technology provider, and I'm not the only one who isn't being reached by customers. Great, misery loves company.

The CitySearch representative told me he would refund me for the calls that did go through, but he didn't know when the technical problem would be fixed. The "solution" recommended by the tech support person was to sign up for a pay per click contract, which would cost $108 per month, or about four times what I was paying per month on a per phone call basis.

That's a great solution -- just pay much more clicks that aren't guaranteed to generate any business. Needless to say I'm not dealing with that, for so now, I've got a page with a faulty phone number until CitySearch gets a fix. If people click on the link to my website they will find a working phone number and e-mail address, which IF CitySearch was smart about customer service, they would put on my ad for free until this problem is resolved.

I couldn't find information about who CitySearch's click to call provider is (Ingenio? eStara?), but whoever it is needs to get on the ball. I'm not the only one who's peeved at CitySearch, this guy was out $400 for several months for an ad that never appeared, and the company only made good after he blogged about his woes.