Merchant data sent in by fans of merchants and from merchants themselves is becoming increasingly important. Can it be relied on as a main source, or should it only complement listing data from the big three providers — InfoGroup, Acxiom and Localeze?

We talked to Pankaj Mathur, InfoGroup vice president of business development, about it. Not surprisingly, he has mixed feelings. It is certainly useful and cost effective, and from an SEM perspective, there is sometimes the feeling that “more [data elements] is better,” he says.

But he warns that accuracy and reliability are more important than ever before, especially with mobile phones that can send people to bad locations. Also looming is the sense that merchants are incentivized to misrepresent themselves so that they can boost their search rankings or be found under lucrative-but-wrong categories (i.e., cab companies under “airports”).

InfoGroup (and probably the other leaders in the space) instead take the “trust but verify” approach to merchant data. The company receives 10,000 to 15,000 submissions per month from multiple partners such as OnStar, Yahoo and AOL. “We find that about 50 percent of these submissions are false positive like duplicates or incorrect information, “says Mathur.

In a newly issued article, Mathur goes into more detail about the importance of the duplicates issue. In franchise corporations, for instance, there may be lists of storefronts within marketing departments, operations departments and accounting deparrtments. They don’t always overlap with LBS (location-based services) requests, he notes.

Moreover, retailers often neglect to delete or change storefront information — something that creates a special mess when companies such as Starbucks close hundreds of units throughout the country. Mathur suggests one-step updaters (such as his company’s “Express Update”) are a partial answer. In the meantime, the validated information from the leading listing providers remains in the driver’s seat.

The post InfoGroup on Merchant Supplied Data: Useful, but No Substitute appeared first on BIA/Kelsey - Local Media Watch.

Following a significant court decision, Yellow and White Pages content is not entitled to copyright protection in Australia. Assuming the case is upheld, any entity can legally copy the content from a Sensis directory, even to build a competitive local search or directory product, according to Australian press reports.

The decision is the outcome of a lawsuit filed by Sensis and its parent company, Telstra, against Local Directories, a small independent Australian publisher that used Sensis data in building its product.

The presiding judge argued, in essence, that the effort involved in building the databases didn’t rise to the level of intellectual property worthy of protection.

Sensis also released a statement following the ruling, which said, “This decision raises fundamental issues about the score of copyright law in relation to complex compilations, with far reaching impact beyond the facts of this particular case. Sensis is presently considering its position in relation to an appeal.”

We spoke also on Tuesday with Sensis CEO Bruce Akhurst, who downplayed the impact of the ruling. He pointed out that while the decision was not welcome, it really only clarifies the legality of an already common practice, copying Sensis’s listings data and classification system. He notes out that the content of the actual ads within the Sensis directories is and will continue to be protected under copyright.

The post Telstra, Sensis Lose Copyright Case, Appeal Possible appeared first on BIA/Kelsey - Local Media Watch.