Extra, extra. Read all about it.

Well we’ve taken another step toward our organic evolution at Jangl. We’ve abandoned our former stealth website with only a betareg page and a blog, for a less stealthy (but not overwhelmingly telling yet;) website. We still laugh when watching the eyebrows go up and down in the home page animation. In addition, we met with Mike Bazeley of Silicon Beat this past week. He ‘gets it’ on several levels. I’m still improving the way we tell our story too, and have already revamped my Keynote pitch since this meeting. It makes for an interesting transition when you live and breathe something everyday, to articulate your value proposition to someone new to it. Bazeley contemplated a few questions in his blog. I thought I’d take advantage of this media and perhaps color up some additional perspective on those questions.

1. Is phone privacy that big an issue that people will want to use this?

I think the whole phone privacy thing is bigger than we realize. It’s probably safe to say most of us look at caller ID before picking up a call (“Eww, I don’t want to talk to this clown right now”). And in the days of answering machines, most of us screened incoming calls before picking them up. Why? Because we want control over who we talk to and when.

2. Privacy aside, is there an opportunity to use Jangl to connect with your social networks?

Most of us have people in our social networking profiles that we don’t either know as well, or don’t know beyond being connected in that network. (For example, I don’t know Tom on MySpace, but he’s my friend nonetheless). So often times we have a way to IM or e-mail through those networks (anonymously mind you). We’re a way to port those communications out to our phones, where we spend even more time than on PCs (or Macs in my case:).

3. Can Jangl keep the connection time down to a reasonable level so that it doesn’t annoy people?
Would you wait 10,15,25 seconds for a call to go through?

It seems most calls take 25 seconds to reach someone anyway (or reach their voice greeting). So as long as we’re talking about substituting our connect time with that typical ringing wait, then I think it’s all good. Also, if there’s utility associated with that wait, we as consumers are proving that we are just fine by it (ringback tones: ‘please enjoy the music while we find your party’). In our case, we’re giving the OPTION to screen the incoming call from a mobile phone. So the length of time it takes to be reached will ultimately be up to the user of the service.

4. Will users endure micro ads in their phone calls?

If the ads are a) relevant b) of value c) brief and d) played when I’d otherwise be listening to the class 5 phone ring, then it seems like a fine user experience. Only time and usage will tell. If users won't endure micro ads, then they won't have to. I know the free 411 services are doing audio ads. I have no problem listening to an ad in exchange for paying $1.40 per 411 call. What's my privacy worth?

We’ll Jangl soon.

-MC

Comments

[Gary]

Hi,

I think you have a very appealing idea here. If well executed, I have not doubt it will take off in a big way.

To give busy people a more concise way to find out about this service, I'm assuming that you'll post some well written FAQs and answers, right? In addition to how it works, I hope that the FAQs will explain how much you would charge for the service if users don’t want to subject their callers to ads. While it might be free during the beta phase, I would not bother to get started using it unless the fee you expect to charge later is reasonable.

Gary

[Adam]

Hi Michael,

I understood the context about what people would endure. I think there's two (or more) interesting meanings of privacy with regards to Jangl:

1) I can control who can call me. This is the right to be left alone.

2) Concealment of concealment. "I'm being honest with you here." "Here's my phone number." I may not want to tell someone that I'm giving them a Jangl number, because doing so implies a level of distrust.

So paying so my callers don't hear ads is about #2.

Adam

[buzzage]

Here's a reply to Juan's comment:

The "what's my privacy worth" statement was kind of figurative. It was in the context of whether consumers would endure an audio ad while they're waiting for the other person to answer the phone. My point is that I would be more than happy to endure an ad if it's relevant and of value, if it means my privacy is kept in return. Some would actually prefer to not hear an ad, and prefer to pay for it. So yes, we're all about privacy.

-MC

[buzzage]

Here's a reply to Adam's post:

Jangl numbers look just like real numbers actually. We've spent a lot of time, carefully mapping out the user experience.

[juan]

I am surprised by MC's comment on #4 "What's my privacy worth?"

Does it mean that Jangl is not about Privacy at all or its not considered so important?

[Adam]

I'd prefer to pay rather than have my callers listen to ads.

[Javier]

Ok, this idea it´s superb but...if the alternative numbers you propose aren´t juast as normal ones (same number of digits, etc...) people WILL know that you are giving them a jangl number because you dont want to give them your original one...thus people won´t as easily give their jangl numbers because of the affect it could have on the people you give your number to...
What do you think?

[Benjamin Stone]

I agree with your position in response to SiliconBeat's criticism - and btw I think you have a great concept with Jangl - best of luck!

[Search Engines WEB]

This is a brainstorm - Gave you a Digg - hope this helps spread the word

But be forewarned, if it makes the front page - you will get about 10,000 visitors during that day

http://digg.com/technology/DISPOSIBLE_Phone_Numbers_Debut_-_Play_it_Safe_if_You_Change_Your_Mind