The Boyle Conundrum: Old Media vs New Media
May 26, 2009
My New York Times today (May 25, 2009) contained an announcement of a price hike. The hard copy of the paper contained a story by Bran Stelter that had an amazing quotation. I found the statement indicative of the pickle in which traditional newspapers and “old” media find themselves. The story was “Payoff over a Web Singing Sensation Is Elusive.” The story is on the first page of the business section, and you may be able to find an online version of the story here. No guarantees, of course. The article is about FreemantleMedia Enterprises’ inability to monetize Susan Boyle, a contestant on Britain’s Got Talent TV show. Ms. Boyle, “frumpy Scotswoman” according to the New York Times, is a Web sensation. Despite that popularity, no cash flows to the show’s owners. The key statement in the write up in my opinion was:
The case reflects the inability of big media companies to maximize profit from supersize Internet audiences that seem to come from nowhere. In essence, the complexities of TV production are curbing the Web possibilities. Britain’s Got Talent” is produced jointly by three companies and distributed in Britain by a fourth, ITV, making it difficult to ascertain which of the companies can claim a video as its own.
Maybe litigation will provide the solution to the Gordian knot of “old media” and its business methods. Meanwhile, the price of the New York Times goes up and Susan Boyle videos get downloaded. Why not blame Google where a search for “Susan Boyle” returned nine million hits?
Stephen Arnold, May 26, 2009
Microsoft Advertising to Aim $80 Million Blast at GOOG
May 25, 2009
Abbey Klaassen’s “Microsoft Aims Big Guns at Google, Asks Consumers to Rethink Search” signals an escalation in the contention between Microsoft and Google. The money–$80 million—strikes me as a hefty chunk of change for the search and content processing sector. In fact, only a few companies engaged in search have annual revenues in that range. The subtitle of her story makes the view of the ad community clear: “Here’s why an $80M ad effort for a search engine, Bing, makes some sense.” You can read the story here.
For me, the key comment in the Ad Age story was this passage:
Consider that Google has conducted internal tests, according to people familiar with them, in which the company put its logo and treatment on another engine’s search results. Users still prefer the results with the Google logo, even if they’re not Google results. Or consider that a revamped Ask.com made its debut in 2007 to a glowing review from The Wall Street Journal’s Walt Mossberg, who said it “holds its own with Google, and even beats the champ on some searches.” Two years later? Ask’s share of search is down 28%.
The last paragraph of the Ad Age article put a key point in the mind of this addled goose. The story said:
It doesn’t take a lot to switch people from one type to another and usually it’s a unique feature that gets people excited,” said David Karnstedt, CEO of Efficient Frontier and former head of sales for Yahoo. He reflected on his days at AltaVista, which Google supplanted. “Google got people excited because it got people and places right early on. That got people to really start to switch, and once developed the habit of using Google, it was hard to get them to switch back.”
My thoughts on this ad campaign reflect my view from the polluted pond in rural Kentucky in which I paddle; to wit:
- Brand has power. A new brand whether Bing or Kumo has to be built. That takes time. Time is running out because Google continues to increase its grip on the Web search market. Its brand is still quite strong despite the hassle over copyright and other issues.
- Google’s been plugging away at search for more than a decade. Microsoft has made numerous runs at the GOOG over the years. Now consumer advertising is the “solution”. Last time I checked, traditional advertising was losing its oomph because of demographic shifts, the decline of certain mass media, and the lousy economic climate.
- Google works. When the company experiences a glitch, the outage becomes a major news story. Google is now like a utility, and I think that a free utility that has become a habit may be tough to displace.
Google is, therefore, in the cat bird seat because it is good enough, has a 70 percent market share, and is free. Ads can’t change those facts even for $80 million. Microsoft needs to leap frog Google, not send messages to the same audience that Ask.com chases with its “search engine of NASCAR” promotion.
The addled goose’s prediction: great for agencies who get the $80 million in business. No substantive impact on search share. More is needed and quickly.
Stephen Arnold, May 25, 2009
Amazon to DC
May 25, 2009
With the Army embracing Windows Vista and the Google moving appliances, Amazon has, if this news report is accurate, decided to chow down at the Federal feed bag. TechFlash here reported that Amazon wants to hire a government savvy manager. If you are tracking Amazon’s non book activities, you will want to read Eric Engleman’s “Amazon Targets New Web Services Customer: Uncle Sam”. Mr. Engleman wrote:
There are certainly lots of technology possibilities emerging with the incoming Obama administration, including the president-elect’s proposal to digitize the nation’s health care records (Microsoft and Google have projects to put personal health records online). Is Amazon lining up to tap federal dollars?
The answer may be yes.
Stephen Arnold, May 25, 2007
Firm Promises the Moon and Stars: SEO Magic
May 25, 2009
In case you missed this interesting article about instant SEO experts, you will want to click here and read “SEO Companies Springing Up Like Dandelions”. The Search Engine Roundtable includes some useful links, including one to a write up about how an instant business can be grown.
My approach to search engine optimization is to rely on content. But as the economy craters, organizations are desperate for their Web sites to throw the firm a sales lead and revenue life preserver. Some clever folks scent fear and are ready to offer services that promise a good night’s sleep, a high Google ranking, and a life of bliss and joy. Some SEO mavens focus on such basics as a site map and clean code. Others emphasize content. Some like Search Engine Partner shift to the moon, stars, and magic approach. Here’s an example of the firm’s explanation of its services:
In partnering with you, we will ensure your web site will be more accessible on the Internet in terms of first page rankings for specific keywords across the major search engines, specifically Google. We as team members of SE Partner along with our consortium of SEO firms look forward to taking your business to the next level. In considering partnering with us, please keep in mind that we also specialize in seo 2.0, first page rankings, and top ten placement (rank) in Google. We will be available at a moment’s notice! We guarantee to never outsource any of our work in any respect and promise that all of our work will be done in-house, in an ethical white-hat manor per Google’s webmaster guidelines, and in one of our offices in the United States, the UK, Israel, or South Africa. Nothing will be outsourced to India, China, Poland, or anywhere else, where they may not understand where your business is coming from and needs to be! The Bottom line is to get your small to medium business site on the first page of Google!
You can read more here. Bold stuff.
Stephen Arnold, May 25, 2009
Wall Street Journal Documents Citizen Spies
May 25, 2009
If you already use online services to locate information via humans, you may find the information is “Gulags, Nukes and a Water Slide: Citizen Spies Lift North Korea’s Veil”. The story appeared with a May 22, 2009 dateline. The author is Evan Ramstad, and you may be able to view the article here. No guarantees when it comes to the “new” Wall Street Journal. For me,the most interesting passage in the write up was:
“We’re relying on the North Koreans to keep publicizing” Mr. Kim’s movements, Mr. Melvin says. “This leads to great discoveries.”
I find it interesting that traditional information methods are still a source of wonder and surprise.
Stephen Arnold, May 25, 2009
Hiding Information and Blinding Spiders
May 24, 2009
Two stories reminded me that search won’t work if content is not exposed. The first story is the decision of a college newspaper to prevent its archives from being indexed by Google. The idea is to avoid embarrassing graduates. My thought is that the information should be indexed if it is available. To blind a search engine hides potentially significant and useful information. You can read that story here. Censorship is censorship.
But the second story was even more annoying. Bloomberg News, according to Gawker here, now suggests that its reporters neither link nor mention competitors’.
My view is that the value of linking is similar to a fax machine. A single fax machine is useless. Its value increased when there were lots of fax machines. Fax is dead but the same analogy applies to content.
Censorship and intentional limiting of links are two examples of a fundamental change in publicly accessible online information. Not good in my opinion. Tough to search when the spiders have their eyes poked out.
Stephen Arnold, May 24, 2009
Copyright and the Real Time Microblog Phenom
May 24, 2009
Liz Gannes’ “Copyright Meets a New Worth Foe: The Real Time Web” is an interesting article. You can find it on NewTeeVee.com here. Her point is that copyright, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and other bits and pieces of legal whoopdedoo struggle with real time content from Twitter-like services. She wrote:
If you’re a copyright holder and you want to keep up with your pirated content flitting about the web — well, good luck. The way the DMCA is set up means you’re always chasing, and the real-time web is racing faster than ever before. Analytics services are only just emerging that will tell you where your views are coming from on a semi-real-time basis. That’s especially true for live video streaming sites such as Ustream and Justin.tv. Justin.tv, in particular, has come under fire by sports leagues for hosting camcorded streams of live game broadcasts. The company says it takes down streams whenever it is asked to. But the reality is, often the moment has passed.
In short, information flows move more quickly than existing business methods. An interesting illustration of this flow for video is Twiddeo here. Government officials have their work cut out for them with regard to ownership, copyright, and related issues.
But…
As I read this article, I thought about the problem Google has at this time with real time content. Google’s indexing methods are simply not set up to handle near instantaneous indexing of content regardless of type. In fact, fresh search results on Google News are stale when one has been tracking “events” via a Twitter like service.
As important is the “stepping back” function. On Google’s search results displays, how do I know what is moving in near real time; that is, what’s a breaking idea, trend, or Tweet? The answer is, “I don’t.” I can hack a solution with Google tools, but even then the speed of the flow is gated by Google’s existing indexing throughput. To illustrate the gap, run a query for American Idol on Google News and then run the query on Tweetmeme.com.
Two different slants biased by time. In short, copyright problem and Google problem.
Stephen Arnold, May 24, 2009
Twitter Search a Quitter
May 23, 2009
Louis Gray’s “Twitter’s Search Engine Is Very, Very, Broken” here underscored the plight of those engaged in information retrieval. Mr. Gray wrote:
The promise of Twitter’s advanced search capability is tremendous – letting you dice your queries by the sender and recipient, and even limiting the date range for said tweets, the location, hashtags or even emoticons. And at one time, it was a valuable resource. Now, depending on which account you’re viewing, the data set could be as small as a week, or oddly, in some cases, not available at all.
If I waddled my addled goose body from pond to keyboard, I could make the same assertion about any search and retrieval system with which I am familiar. In fact, I have been clear about the challenges of search and retrieval. I track about 350 vendors with my monitoring tools, and I could point to examples of problems with any of these companies’ systems.
So, flawed search is nothing new.
Some quick illustrations. You may be able to replicate these queries yourself, but some examples perform differently at different times.
First, Microsoft’s Live Search. Run this query: “educational materials”. Scan the results. My set is biased toward state sources and health. What’s up? I want links to outfits like NEA.org. Problem: context. Most search systems lack the technology to deliver context aware searches. Is Microsoft search “broken”? Not really.
Second. Yahoo’s shopping search. Run this query “dell mini9 ssd from the search box here and be sure to click on “shopping”. What do you get? Zero hits. Isolated instance? Nope, for certain queries Yahoo works pretty well, but for others it’s as off base as Microsoft’s Live Search.
Third. Google. Navigate to Google.com and enter this query: “eccs”. The acronym stands for “emergency core cooling system” and Google returns only false drops. Google fails this query test.
What’s happening?
The reality is that no search system works particularly well. Search is good enough, and in my opinion, that’s the state of the art. Twitter is no better and no worse than most free search systems. Will search improve? Slowly, goose lovers, slowly.
Stephen Arnold, May 23, 2009
Beyond Search to Cybersocialization
May 23, 2009
Ad Age is not my first choice in morning reading. I scanned the article “The Coming End of YouTube, Twitter and Facebook Socialism” by Simon Dumenco here because these services are going like great guns in World War One. In fact, one of my history profs asserted that World War One was a precursor to World War Two, and that, ladies and gentlemen, ushered in much of our current brave new world.
Mr. Dumenco asserted:
It’s sweet, really, that venture capitalists have ponied up millions so that we can all keep tweeting. It’s also more than a bit scary. Because more and more of us are increasingly addicted not only to Twitter, but to other services that lack workable business models. What happens if the “dealers” who feed our habits disappear? (It’s been known to happen. Last week, for instance, Yahoo announced it was shutting down last century’s hot social-networking-esque service, GeoCities, for which it paid $3.5 billion in 1999.)
After reminding me that money may not be “smart” when it comes to Ad Age’s view of business, Mr. Dumenco concluded:
Seriously. I love YouTube, I’ve made some interesting connections through Facebook, and I enjoy Twittering. (Last week, for instance, I tweeted about an astonishing bit of information I came across in Britain’s Daily Telegraph: YouTube “reportedly uses as much bandwidth as the entire internet took up in 2000.”)
Two thoughts this gloomy day in Cleveland, once home to the burning river:
One. The notion of socialism is interesting, but I don’t think the argument was developed, nor presented in a way that squeezed the milk from this metaphor. The referenced services are superficially similar if one views them from the with it, Mad Ave vantage point. But I don’t see the three as having much similarity with socialism let alone to coinage “cybersocialization”. Balkanization and middle school friendship groups seem to be more on point to me along with the prospect of skills no longer in demand in today’s job market. The lack of cohesion within the services and their interesting swarming behavior seems to be a new type of social integration. The old and familiar “isms” don’t provide much in the way of handholds in my opinion.
Two. The ad perspective is commissionable monetization. None of these three services has figured out a business model for themselves that generates sufficient cash to keep the Odwalla flowing for the employees and contractors. More problematic is the reality that Mad Ave types have to sit on the sidelines, Twittering and updating Facebook pages, without an opportunity for billing. The market available to Facebook owners, for example, seems to be a challenge to squeeze into the old, familiar business models. As a result, Facebook is experimenting and while Facebook tries to figure out its financial future, the Mad Ave types are being driven wacky because they can’t figure out how to cash in on the service. The squirming reminds me of a class of third graders denied recess.
Bottomline for me: traditional and familiar advertising models have to be custom fit to these new markets. Venture firms have nothing to do with this problem, nor can money solve the problem. When I watched a jeweler in Istanbul fit a stone into a cheap sterling silver setting, I was surprised at how long it took. The value of the finished piece was insufficient to compensate the worker for the labor. But the jeweler managed. Ad execs may not have the degrees of freedom the jeweler enjoyed. With each passing day, the old Mad Ave skills may be eroding.
Like the publishing and financial sectors, the issue is not socialization. It is life on the dole or a McJob. I don’t think the end of YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter is impossible. I think that more disruption will take place before these outfits bite the dust. Traditional advertising is likely to face a greater challenge in the short term. Tweet that.
Stephen Arnold, May 23, 2009
Google, YouTube, and Digital Volume
May 22, 2009
Short honk: A year or so ago, I learned that Google received about one million new video objects per month. TechCrunch reported here that Google’s YouTube.com ingests about 20 hours of video every minute. I don’t know if this estimate is spot on, but it is clear that YouTube is amassing one of the world’s largest collections of rich text content in digital form. For me, the most interesting information in the write up was:
Back in 2007, shortly after Google bought the service, it was 6 hours of footage being uploaded every minute. As recently as January of this year, that number had grown to 15 hours, according to the YouTube blog. Now it’s 20 — soon it will be 24.
Lots of data means opportunity for the GOOG. I am looking forward to having the audio information searchable.
Stephen Arnold, May 22, 2009
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
